Commentary #6: Global Warming

[Mark Rippetoe]

And then there's this: New Peer Reviewed Study: CO2 has Zero Impact on Climate Change - The HighWire

A powerful peer-reviewed scientific study delivers substantial evidence that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the atmosphere have zero impact on the Earth’s global temperatures. The study concludes that even though most publications attempt to depict a catastrophic future for our planet due to an increase in CO2, there is serious doubt that this is, in fact, the case. Instead, the study authors deduced that their research unequivocally means that the officially presented narrative that human activity is causing a detrimental CO2 increase on Earth’s climate is merely a hypothesis rather than a substantiated reality.

[Chadillac]

And then there's this: New Peer Reviewed Study: CO2 has Zero Impact on Climate Change - The HighWire

This Kubicki study looks like not much more than a regurgitation of the Angstrum CO2 saturation argument made in 1901, which Jan Kubicki references. This argument was proven wrong a very long time ago.

In short, Knut Angstrum filled a tube with CO2 and shot IR radiation through it. He then cut the amount of CO2 by 1/3 in the tube and found the amount of IR radiation that went through the tube was roughly the same. His conclusion was that the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere had reached a CO2 "saturation" level and adding more CO2 to the atmosphere would not have any impact on warming the planet. Unfortunately, Angstrum made this argument before even airplanes were invented and was treating the atmosphere as a homogenous column of air. Our atmosphere is not homogenous and he didn't understand how global warming works. Even if the troposphere had reached CO2 saturation (which it has not) that is not the layer in which radiation escapes our planet. This issue was resolved many decades ago and the physics are well accounted for in the climate models.

The fact that this paper was submitted on December 4, 2023 and accepted on December 11, 2023 should immediately shoot up red flags to anyone that reads this. Peer reviewed? Really?

[Mark Rippetoe]

This is "journalism" in 2024: https://www.washingtonpost.com/clima...limate-change/

Caption under first photo:

A woman tries to shade herself and her children with an umbrella as they walk the steps at of the 'Trinita dei Monti', in Rome on Saturday.

Was she successful? No, she didn't stand a chance.

As global temperatures spiked to their highest levels in recorded history on Monday, ambulances were screaming through the streets of Tokyo, carrying scores of people who had collapsed amid an unrelenting heat wave. A monster typhoon was emerging from the scorching waters of the Pacific Ocean, which were several degrees warmer than normal. Thousands of vacationers fled the idyllic mountain town of Jasper, Canada ahead of a fast-moving wall of wildfire flames.

This is a script, not a report, and certainly not "journalism" unless that has been redefined (it probably has).

______________________________________

Another example: Hollywood’s Message to Red States: Our Movies Are for You

So it was startling when the weather-focused “Twisters” arrived from Universal Pictures this month with no mention of climate change at all. If ever there was a perfect vehicle to carry Hollywood’s progressive climate change messaging — a big-budget movie about people caught in worsening storm patterns — wasn’t this it?

Apparently not. Movies should not be about “preaching a message,” Lee Isaac Chung, who directed “Twisters,” said in a prerelease interview that served as a dog whistle to conservative ticket buyers.

Trend spotting in cinema is a hazardous pursuit. Sometimes a movie is just a movie. “Twisters,” however, is emblematic of a clear shift in Hollywood: After a period of openly using movies to display progressive values, sometimes with success at the box office (“Barbie”) and often not (“Strange World,” “The Marvels,” “The Color Purple,” “Dark Waters”), studios seem to be heeding a message that many ticket buyers — especially in the center of the country — have been sending for a long time: We just want to be entertained, no homework attached.

Put bluntly, it amounts to an attempt by Hollywood to bend to red-state audiences.

The media is most of the problem, since they determine what most people know.

[Satch12879]

Look at the Post being cute using a family of Medigans on vacation to sell the fable. Where’s Frank? I wanna slap him on the back while we sip coffee and laugh over the internet.

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been in Rome between May and September and regretted it. Italians regret it. Many such cases.

Also, Hollyweird will one day figure out that we know they hate us; but, that day is not today.

[wal]

And then there's this: New Peer Reviewed Study: CO2 has Zero Impact on Climate Change - The HighWire

But it does at the Paris Olympics, meat free and no AC. You are right, it's time to ditch the Olympics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xe7tDPb3u1o

[Ads]

I've heard of carbon capture before but this article made the immensely insane concept all the more real for me. I think the odds of them completing the project are slim to none, but that they are even attempting it, is wild.

Dutch company Royal Vopak strikes deal to build Australia's first CO2 import terminal

"Those countries, a lot of them, don't have the ability to store CO2 in their waters, or on their land. So there's an opportunity there, where they might need other sources of storage, and Australia — particularly Northern Territory — could offer that to them."

After storing carbon at the facility, it could then be transferred to destinations such as underground carbon capture and storage (CCS) facilities, Mr Kanters said.

The concept of transporting carbon dioxide so you can bury it blows my mind – even more than the retarded billionaire’s idea of rolling out a subsea cable to Singapore and thinking they’ll buy our solar power.

[Mark Rippetoe]

I've heard of carbon capture before but this article made the immensely insane concept all the more real for me. I think the odds of them completing the project are slim to none, but that they are even attempting it, is wild.
The concept of transporting carbon dioxide so you can bury it blows my mind – even more than the retarded billionaire’s idea of rolling out a subsea cable to Singapore and thinking they’ll buy our solar power.

You don't suppose there's a way to collect a bunch of government money here, do you?

[Yngvi]

We are seeing many "studies" claiming reduced cognitive function and adverse health effects starting at 500ppm of CO2.
Page restricted | ScienceDirect
The studies were designed and falsified to support a preformed conclusion that CO2 is bad.


Where were these dishonest fucks during mandatory Covid masking?
Did any of them speak out about the health problems caused by breathing in up to 38,000 ppm of CO2 due to masks?

[wal]

You don't suppose there's a way to collect a bunch of government money here, do you?

If they store it on Aboriginal land there will be money in it as it will come under the "Native Titles Benefit Scheme".


Example: individual receiving a native title benefit

Mae is an Aboriginal woman who lives in Western Australia. Every year, she receives a $100,000 native title benefit from a mining company. The mining company uses the land to mine for iron ore.

Mae is not taxed on this $100,000 because it is a native title benefit, which is NANE income and is not taxable.
End of example

Access Denied

[golftdibrad]

We are seeing many "studies" claiming reduced cognitive function and adverse health effects starting at 500ppm of CO2.
Page restricted | ScienceDirect
The studies were designed and falsified to support a preformed conclusion that CO2 is bad.


Where were these dishonest fucks during mandatory Covid masking?
Did any of them speak out about the health problems caused by breathing in up to 38,000 ppm of CO2 due to masks?

I've emphasized the problem with these so called scientists for you.