Abandoning rational discussion on climate change

[DrEvil]

It's the rich and powerful taking advantage any way they can - business as usual. And you can be sure that for any place that is of interest to them, and that has any kind of risk of extreme weather, there's a plan or a small army of specialists ready and waiting, and on occasion - when they think they can get away with it - they might help things along with some well placed matches, but that's a long way away from massive weather manipulation operations on a global scale.

It's a matter of scale: some shenanigans here and there, sure. Start a fire here, delay the warning there, buy the people in charge so the aftermath goes in their favor, etc. The problem is the people chanting "everywhere all the time with magic tech". That's just stupid, and it distracts from the real problem: rich assholes taking advantage of a real issue. It wouldn't surprise me if a lot of the theories originated with these people, the same way oil companies spent decades spreading doubt and bullshit through various fronts as a delaying tactic.

Lasers and spooky tech are more exciting than zoning laws, campaign contributions and endless bureaucracy. These fuckers thrive on the latter, because they know it's mind-numbingly boring for most people, same as finance and their bullshit language.

[Belligerent Savant]

.
Brief drive-by to drop this here...

Dr. Matthew M. Wielicki
@MatthewWielicki

This is likely to make a lot of my former colleagues mad, but here it goes…

A significant portion of the climate science literature is nothing more than stamp collecting. By that, I mean papers that identify some tiny new “signal,” often at resolutions far above what we have in the geologic record, and then frame it as a profound discovery. A half-degree wiggle in a proxy, a minor regional anomaly in a model, or a statistical artifact dressed up as “unprecedented change”... all carefully packaged as if it tells us something decisive about global climate trajectories.

The problem isn’t just that these findings are trivial in scale compared to natural variability; it’s that they’re presented as if they overturn the past or foretell the future. When your entire record of reliable temperature measurements spans less than two centuries, and your proxies stretch back in ways riddled with uncertainty, claiming “new normals” from slivers of data is more performance than science.

Even worse, these small increments get immediately funneled into the climate-industrial complex: NGOs craft alarmist press releases, journalists inflate the uncertainty into headlines of doom, and policymakers cite the work as justification for sweeping regulations. Meanwhile, the actual uncertainties, caveats, and data limitations are buried in the supplementary material... if they’re mentioned at all.

In geology, we learned to respect the scale of Earth’s history. We worked with incomplete records, huge uncertainties, and often contradictory signals. The humility that comes from that perspective seems to have been stripped out of modern climate science. What’s left in too many cases is a conveyor belt of incremental papers, optimized for funding renewals and media attention, but divorced from the kind of hard-nosed skepticism that defines real science.

So yes, I know this will irritate my former colleagues. But if climate science is to regain credibility, it has to break its addiction to dressing up trivialities as existential threats.

Otherwise, we’re not doing science... we’re doing marketing.

https://x.com/MatthewWielicki/status/19 ... 4910298606

[DrEvil]

He just explained the denier playbook: find tiny discrepancy or flaw and immediately blow it wildly out of proportion. He's just another right-wing asshole complaining about DEI and woke culture. He quit his job (which I'm sure you will be shocked to learn was not as a climate scientist. What is it with geoscientists and climate change denial? Could it be related to almost half - 40% - of them working for the oil industry?) to be a professional grifter. There's good money in it after the entire population got conditioned by social media to feed on outrage culture.

Anyway, have you looked at the weather recently? It's weird how the heatwaves and extreme rainfall just keeps coming, and just keeps breaking records, right? Almost as if there's something driving it.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

Folks - there is still time to re-calibrate and disocciate yourselves from the absolute quackery currently passing for mainstream "climate science", and the tools/frauds presented to the public as mouthpieces for such non-science.

Or you can continue to double-down, as the poor soul above exemplifies.

The Honest Broker
@RogerPielkeJr

Climate scientist Judy Curry on Michael Mann and why she left Georgia Tech



.....
Michael E Mann's science is not only a disgrace but his lack of humanity and care for people is an even bigger disgrace.
.....
The tower of bullshit that is the climate change phenomenon depends upon peoples’ inattentive review of journalists’ misinterpretations of scientific papers derived from flawed climate models.
.....

https://x.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/1958301843076841744


Detach yourselves from the Climate Cult.

[Belligerent Savant]

.
'New Scientist' in 2008:

"Computer models predict that this trend will continue, leaving the Arctic completely ice-free during the summers as early as 2030."



"Computer models". So how did these MODELS fare, ~20 years later?

Not very accurate, at all:


The Guardian, August 2025:

"The melting of sea ice in the Arctic has slowed dramatically in the past 20 years, scientists have reported, with no statistically significant decline in its extent since 2005"



https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... scientists

Of course they insist on slipping in the terms "global heating" and "fossil fuels" in the sub-heading, perpetuating canards.

[DrEvil]

They also slipped in the most plausible explanation, and you forgot to mention this, also from the article: "The findings do not mean Arctic sea ice is rebounding. Sea ice area in September, when it reaches its annual minimum, has halved since 1979, ..."

And this, also from the article: “We know that the Arctic sea ice pack is also thinning, and so even if the area was not reducing, the volume still is. Our data show that since 2010 the average October thickness has fallen by 0.6cm per year.”

What do you think will happen when the natural cycle turns in a few years? Right now it's holding things back. Soon it will be pushing things along even faster.

And of course, we all know that models can never improve or incorporate new data. If it was off almost twenty years ago, it is equally off today*. Progress is an illusion! Wake up sheeple!

Oh, and one other thing that occurred to me: the oil companies, which yes, I know I keep harping on and on and on about them, but hear me out. How come the richest and most powerful industry of the last century hasn't been able to come up with any good research debunking man made climate change? They have the money for it (almost 3 billion dollars in profits every day for the last fifty years), and they definitely have the motive for it (almost 3 billion dollars in profits every day for the last fifty years), yet... nada. Instead they resorted to hired guns spreading disinformation, hiding behind think tanks with anonymous donor lists. Why?

* Another denier tactic I've noticed: they love quoting old research and headlines. It's always an IPCC report from twenty years ago, or a Time headline from the seventies about the coming ice age (remember kids: media hyping climate change is bad. Media hyping ice age is good). They genuinely think saying "look what someone said thirty years ago that was wrong" is some kind of gotcha, and then they sit there with their smug smile going "your move, libtard." It's like playing chess with a pigeon: it kicks over all the pieces, shits on the board and then struts around like it won.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

Man made climate change is one of numerous scams/charades of the latter 20th/early 21st centuries.

"denier tactic" -- LoL.

Continue to subscribe to fraudulent constructs.




https://www.amazon.com/Deniers-Fully-Re ... 0980076374

The Deniers: The World-Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Politcal Persecution, and Fraud

A renowned environmentalist reveals his surprising discovery that a number of respected scientists actually do not agree with many headline-grabbing global-warming issues, in a revised edition that features exposés on climate profiteers and global-warming "affirmers."

Published in 2008 -- the charade has only become more egregious since then.

Disclaimer: I have not read the book yet, nor am I familiar with the author. As such I can't endorse content by default. I share it here as an additional perspective. Regardless, there is ample content out there -- both in the form of formal studies, and also opinions, that challenge the "man made climate change" narratives. Caveat Lector applies (as always).

My current position is quite clear, however: CO2 generated by typical human/animal activities is NOT a driver of "climate change". This is an absurd premise. Among many other absurd notions masquerading as "established fact" in the modern era.

[Elihu]

so other than dumping the science on the taxman I thought scientists were going to propose the solution? cars, buildings, gases, cows, datacenters, trucks, people, plants, oceans, who what when where why and how. dryas, parts per billion, etc. for science

taxman all you got?

c'mon! gimme some science!!!! i know you got it in you

[DrEvil]

.

Man made climate change is one of numerous scams/charades of the latter 20th/early 21st centuries.

"denier tactic" -- LoL.

Continue to subscribe to fraudulent constructs.

Pretty sure this is misleading. Individual CO2 molecules only stay in the atmosphere for around 4 years. Problem is they are then usually swapped for one from the ocean, so the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere stays the same. At a guess, the IPCC number represents the time it takes for the new equilibrium to settle after you pump extra CO2 into the system, which is much longer. Caveat: this is my understanding after some quick, cursory reading, so feel free to dig into it yourself.

Important to remember, the IPCC reports represent the consensus of every UN member state, so you can be damned sure that major oil producers would have refused to vote on it if they pulled a number like that out of their asses to make things look worse.

https://www.amazon.com/Deniers-Fully-Re ... 0980076374

The Deniers: The World-Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Politcal Persecution, and Fraud

A renowned environmentalist reveals his surprising discovery that a number of respected scientists actually do not agree with many headline-grabbing global-warming issues, in a revised edition that features exposés on climate profiteers and global-warming "affirmers."

Published in 2008 -- the charade has only become more egregious since then.

Disclaimer: I have not read the book yet, nor am I familiar with the author. As such I can't endorse content by default. I share it here as an additional perspective. Regardless, there is ample content out there -- both in the form of formal studies, and also opinions, that challenge the "man made climate change" narratives. Caveat Lector applies (as always).

My current position is quite clear, however: CO2 generated by typical human/animal activities is NOT a driver of "climate change". This is an absurd premise. Among many other absurd notions masquerading as "established fact" in the modern era.

Here's a direct quote from the book:

"I ... noticed something striking about my growing cast of deniers. None of them were deniers."

It's a collection of profiles the author did for the National Post on climate scientists who disagreed on one thing or another, which is what science is all about. He basically concludes that there is no consensus because the scientists aren't 100% agreed on absolutely everything.

[Belligerent Savant]

.
Adding this here for the handful that somehow still remain in this dying board:

In 2024, Climeworks’ Mammoth DAC (carbon capture) plant in Iceland captured 105 tonnes of CO2, less than the emissions of a dozen 18-wheelers and 1,000 times below the company’s target. Cost to build the plant was over $1 billion dollars.

For every ton of CO2 captured, the Mammoth plant requires 5,000–6,000 kWh of energy. It prioritizes CO2 capture over energy efficiency. Capturing 1,000 tons of CO2 demands 5–6 million kWh. Offsetting Iceland’s 12.4 million tons of CO2 emissions in 2024 would require 72 terawatts, nearly four times Iceland’s annual electricity production of 20 terawatts. The green grift continues.

Correction* Cost to build was approx. $100,000,000 with more money pouring in from investors. Climeworks has surpassed over $1 billion in funding since its inception,” says Eve Pope, senior technology analyst for the research firm IDTechEx



It takes 98 trees to remove 1 ton of carbon dioxide yearly

...

Great for carbon capture builders & operators; they capture more public monies, not so much carbon.. But hey its "green" eh?? No more urban/commercial sprawl much more restoration of natures habitat will solve CO2 issue, if any..

https://x.com/JohnLeePettim13/status/19 ... 3075723309

[DrEvil]

Oh no! Someone is building something that will probably not amount to much, but might one day. The horror!

The thing about these technologies is that you won't know if they will work or not until someone builds the damn things. Rinse and repeat with small improvements at every step, and in a few decades we might (or not) have something worthwhile. Worst case they learn what won't work and some investors lose their money.

Also, Iceland can afford to spend some energy on stuff like this, as their electricity is 100% from renewable sources (hydro and geothermal. Perks of living on top of a volcano).

[Elihu]

Someone is building something that will probably not amount to much, but might one day

well do it with your own money then

[DrEvil]

I just spent my last 100 million on blackjack and hookers, so I'm all out unfortunately. Would you consider supporting a GoFundMe?

[Elihu]

"Would you consider supporting a GoFundMe?"

i would