Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

[Mort Walker]

Actually, the above dairy products are always recommended to be used sparsely by most ayurvedic vaidyas I have dealt with. Usually for special occasions or as naivedya/prasadam. Or it was seasonal.... Yogurt for example is mainly recommended only during summer and that too only during day time..
And direct consumption of milk is almost never recommended, especially for grown ups. Too many restrictions, for example, milk shouldn't be consumed with fruit.
No wonder many Indians are lactose intolerant.

Meat itself was rarely consumed and only few traditions, normally associated with Shakti forms sacrificed animals. And these were never large animals like cattle or pigs, which when farmed on large scale, are major contributors to warming.

In any case my point was that India was almost vegan or at least vegetarian.

I don't know about almost vegan. Curd and rice is very common. In many places curd/yogurt is served along side with vegetables. Drinks like lassi are also very common too.

I've not dealt with Ayurvedic vaidyas directly, but dairy consumption from ancient times has been a source of necessary fat and protein. I do agree used less often. I've not come across milk restriction for adults either. As it stands today, India is the largest producer of bovine milk in the world by far, and IMHO, that shouldn't change for the sake of climate change.

Meat consumption in the west is too high due to industrial slaughter which has political patronage. The biggest problem with buying meat in India, including chicken, is that much of it is from Halal butchers. Aside from that, I don't see a problem with meat consumption in India as large scale industrial slaughter is something most people will frown upon.

[Cain Marko]

^ yes. Thankfully most of the problems of industrial dairy farming haven't flooded India. Most milk is still provided by locals esp. rural areas and even smaller towns.

I recall that Danon the mighty French yogurt maker couldn't break into the Indian market because of this.

Btw, what are the issues with halal butchers wrt climate change?

[Mort Walker]

^ yes. Thankfully most of the problems of industrial dairy farming haven't flooded India. Most milk is still provided by locals esp. rural areas and even smaller towns.

I recall that Danon the mighty French yogurt maker couldn't break into the Indian market because of this.

Absolutely. Local dairies, some of which are elaborate operations, have the market for yogurt, ice cream, cheese/paneer/butter/ghee. Amul is the big one in India and nowadays, Patanjali ghee is also available in India and overseas. I personally enjoy Indian dairy products and will purchase Patanjali and Amul even in the US. India produces over 61 billion Kg of cow milk (2nd after the US at 91 billion Kg), but overall bovine milk production is somewhere near 150 billion Kg. The Indian water buffalo's milk has lots of protein and fat. Drink a few tumblers of that and it's better than a 1/2 pound beef-burger.

Halal is environmental mess, the animal is flailing around when it's throat is cut, with blood and excrement everywhere. Much more fresh water has to be used. Plus the meat is tough as the animal stiffens up due to shock - you've got to use more energy to cook it. Most halal slaughter houses in Europe are exempt from environmental laws and many European slaughterhouses have switched to halal to please the peacefuls, but more importantly to improve their bottom line.

[Mukesh.Kumar]

1/5 of Amazon forest ‘allegedly’ has burned in last 3 weeks. Man-made fires are still on.
https://twitter.com/emmanuelmacron/stat ... 27232?s=21

Amazon forests generate 20% of total oxygen.

I see no discussion here

Salamji, please go through this article. A more nuanced view.

Not everything is as it looks. The moment i see this hysteria i start looking for who benefits from this.

[sudarshan]

Thank you for that article, definitely a more sophisticated view. I think it's pretty irresponsible of people, especially celebrities, to post pictures from years ago (as much as 20 to 30 years ago!) or from a different place and setting altogether, and add on the tag of "Amazon rain-forest is burning!!!" just to whip up hysteria. And like the author points out, all the hysteria makes it that much harder to actually engage with farmers in conservation efforts.

People in general love these generic quotes and platitudes like "the Amazon forest is the lungs of the world," and these quotes are repeated mindlessly, regardless of truth - when combined with headlines like "20% of the Amazon forest is gone already this year!" - we have a lethal combination. As the author of the article points out, this year is much worse than last year (forest-fire-wise), but not half-way bad compared to 10 to 20 years ago. It seems Amazon deforestation is already down 70% from the peak in 2004. But one hardly gets to hear those facts.

[Cain Marko]

^ yes. Thankfully most of the problems of industrial dairy farming haven't flooded India. Most milk is still provided by locals esp. rural areas and even smaller towns.

I recall that Danon the mighty French yogurt maker couldn't break into the Indian market because of this.

Absolutely. Local dairies, some of which are elaborate operations, have the market for yogurt, ice cream, cheese/paneer/butter/ghee. Amul is the big one in India and nowadays, Patanjali ghee is also available in India and overseas. I personally enjoy Indian dairy products and will purchase Patanjali and Amul even in the US. India produces over 61 billion Kg of cow milk (2nd after the US at 91 billion Kg), but overall bovine milk production is somewhere near 150 billion Kg. The Indian water buffalo's milk has lots of protein and fat. Drink a few tumblers of that and it's better than a 1/2 pound beef-burger.

Halal is environmental mess, the animal is flailing around when it's throat is cut, with blood and excrement everywhere. Much more fresh water has to be used. Plus the meat is tough as the animal stiffens up due to shock - you've got to use more energy to cook it. Most halal slaughter houses in Europe are exempt from environmental laws and many European slaughterhouses have switched to halal to please the peacefuls, but more importantly to improve their bottom line.

Completely agree with purchase of amul or patanjali ghee. Pretty good stuff. However, can you or anybody confirm that this is real ghee, made from yogurt/dahi and not directly from butter? As I understand it a lot of commercial ghee production simply creates butter from cream and clarifies it through heat, which is not real ghee. The real deal is a result of culturing the cream with yogurt, churning it and then heating the solids, while the whey is separated as chas. I hear oiropean butter is more conducive to this.

Not sure about the halal method being any more or less messy/humane than others. The scientific literature seems to be divided. Personal experience shows that both methods can be mighty messy.

[salaam]

1/5 of Amazon forest ‘allegedly’ has burned in last 3 weeks. Man-made fires are still on.
https://twitter.com/emmanuelmacron/stat ... 27232?s=21

Amazon forests generate 20% of total oxygen.

I see no discussion here

Salamji, please go through this article. A more nuanced view.

Not everything is as it looks. The moment i see this hysteria i start looking for who benefits from this.

Thank you Mukesh Ji. Exactly what I was looking for.

Regret missing your post earlier.

[cdbatra]

While idling across youtube I came across many climate change skeptic posters . They turned out not to be climate change skeptics but more of skeptics of Anthropogenic or human induced climate change Global warming. They base their arguments on research paper by Valentina Zharkhova of Northambria University . Here is the link :-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_yqIj38UmY

[disha]

Climate Change/Ocean warming/Rise in CO2/melting of ice caps etc is real, very real. And this requires

However nonsense from plants like Greta Thunberg, herself a very well resourced kid talking about climate change and depriving benefits to developing countries reeks of hypocrisy and does not help. Of course she is being used. And no she is no hero. Or as much a pseudo-hero as malala.

Pseudo-ecologists and eco-terrorists are using fools like Greta as their tools. And it does not help solve this issue.

[vijayk]

https://ensia.com/features/can-we-bury- ... e-problem/
Can we bury the carbon dioxide problem?
Seriously — carbon capture and storage could be a game-changer.

Mention “carbon capture and storage” — the process of trapping carbon dioxide produced in fossil-fuel burning or other industrial processes and burying it underground — in polite company, and you’re likely to be pounced on. It’s absurdly expensive. It can never be rolled out en masse. Storing massive amounts of CO2 below ground sounds risky. And it’s too late: Wind and solar have left it in the dust. The clear unassailable death knell, say the critics, is that even the fossil fuel industry, the biggest beneficiary, hasn’t embraced the technology.
It’s hard to find a friend for carbon capture and storage. Regulators and governments — though eager to subsidize solar or wind power — offer no such encouragement to capture carbon. Last November, the U.K. government, a one-time champion, stuck in the knife by cancelling a billion-pound (US$1.4 billion) fund earmarked for rolling out CCS.
That’s the tough reality for the chemists, geologists and engineers developing CCS for the past 20 years. When they began they were tarred as collaborators of the fossil fuel empire or as Don Quixotes chasing an impossible dream. Now their ugly duckling technology is ready to fly. And it’s having a very tough time spreading its wings.
But that may be changing. The lead-up to the Paris climate talks last year produced many road maps designed to steer the planet away from the cliff of 2 °C (3.6 °F) of warming. In each one, nestled among the windmills and solar farms, was the ugly duckling. Take it out of the equation and the costs of meeting the 2°C (3.6 °F) target would more than double.
Besides, as most of the road maps pointed out, even without coal- or gas-fired power stations, industrial processes, including steel and cement manufacturing, generate 15 percent of CO2 emissions. And combusting biomass, rather than coal, in a CCS power station could create “negative” emissions.
In report after report, fossil fuel industry groups and green non-governmental organizations supported CCS. “CCS could deliver 13% of the cumulative emissions reductions needed by 2050 to limit the global increase in temperature to 2 °C,” declared the International Energy Agency, a support group for energy-producing nations with a commitment to sustainable solutions.
At the very least, Paris seems to have made CCS a respectable topic.
“CCS plays a vital role as part of an economically sustainable route to meet climate mitigation goals with the 2050 time frame,” noted Miguel Arias Cañete, the EU commissioner for Climate Action and Energy, in a recent Global CCS Institute report. Even a coalition of climate non-governmental organizations with impeccably green credentials released a report titled Closing the Gap on Climate: Why CCS is a Vital Part of the Solution.

Closing the Gap on Climate: Why CCS is a Vital Part of the Solution

Is anyone here researching or looking into CCS? Is this CCS dead on arrival?

[Vayutuvan]

One way to use the CO2 (after scrubbing of particulate matter) is to grow algae which then can be used to produce biogas. A completely closed-loop biosphere habitat can be set-up with only water and sunlight going in and heat coming out - in theory.

AFAIK, the only large scale experiment of CCS near Charleston, Illinois, did not come to fruition. The project fizzled out and the resources were shifted to setting up hundreds of windmills. There are not even prototype CCS projects (the one in Illinois was supposed to capture CO2 and store in deleted mines that abound in mid-east Illinois) leave alone full-fledged industrial size types.

Coupled to that CER market crashed. Here is the Wikipedia link.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certified ... _Reduction

In August 2008 prices for CERS were $20 a tonne. By September 2012, prices for CERS had collapsed to below $5. This was in response to the Eurozone debt crisis reducing industrial activity and the over-allocation of emission allowances under the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme. The Economist described the Clean Development Mechanism as a "complete disaster in the making" and "in need of a radical overhaul".[3] The Guardian also reported the prolonged downward trend in the price of CERs, which had been traded for as much as $20 (£12.50) a tonne before the global financial crisis to less than $3.[4] In October 2012, CER prices fell to a new low of 1.36 euros a tonne on the London ICE Futures Europe exchange.[5] In October 2012 Thomson Reuters Point Carbon calculated that the oversupply of units from the Clean Development Mechanism and Joint Implementation would be 1,400 million units for the period up to 2020. Point Carbon predicted that CER prices would to drop from €2 to 50 cents.[6] On 12 December 2012 CER prices reached another record low of 31 cents.[7]

There is more on Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), a body of UNIFCC that registers and certifies ARE producers as to how many CERs they can get and can sell.

[vishvak]

And combusting biomass, rather than coal, in a CCS power station could create “negative” emissions.

A better way is to use tidal wave energy for CCS power station in the sense that there is limit to how much can it be done. What is needed is transport all the CO2 producing fuels to refineries on coastal areas and treatment of exhaust there itself while giving credit to biogas producers in terms of hydrogen fuel quantity.

This can be way to avoid penalizing helpless population for tighter emission controls; while maximizing efficiency of refineries + emissions treatment at coasts.

[Vayutuvan]

Up

[Vayutuvan]

https://www.rand.org/pubs/articles/2024 ... hange.html

But climate games are only as good as the science they use. As they worked on the card game (1), RAND researchers found little in the way of official guidance for how to use climate data, or even where to find it. They documented their own experiences (2) in an effort to start to fill that gap—the lessons they learned, the data and sources they used, how they pulled it all together and made it simple enough to fit on a deck of cards. But the Department of Defense should consider establishing a repository of trusted data and projections to ensure future wargames are scientifically sound.

(1) https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_repo ... 470-3.html
(2) https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PEA470-1.html

[Cyrano]

The devil is in the data. Methods of measuring land/ocean temperature have varied/evolved greatly since 1850 in terms of instruments, precision, record keeping, global coverage of the measurements. If anyone takes the time to analyse the base data, or has the openness to listen to those who have done this painstaking grunt work, they will themselves see the whole edifice unravel. There are a lot more other arguments that go against the prevailing narrative but "temp data" is a good start.

Global cooling > Global warming > Climate change > climate catastrophy > climate emergency > climate justice > ??? next ?

The developed world has let a genie loose that they are coming to realise they cant control anymore.

[Amber G.]

Meanwhile:

A (new) study from the University of Reading reveals that ocean-surface warming has accelerated dramatically, increasing more than four times faster now than in the late 1980s .

Key Findings:

- Ocean Temperature Increase: Ocean temperatures rose by about 0.06 degrees Celsius per decade in the late 1980s, but are now increasing at 0.27 degrees Celsius per decade.
- Energy Imbalance: The Earth's growing energy imbalance, driven by increased greenhouse gas concentrations and decreased reflection of sunlight, is the primary cause of this acceleration.
- Record-Breaking Temperatures: Global ocean temperatures reached record highs for 450 consecutive days in 2023 and early 2024, with 44% of this record warmth attributed to the oceans absorbing heat at an accelerating rate.
- Future Projections: The study warns that the ocean temperature increase over the past 40 years may be exceeded in just the next 20 years, emphasizing the need for urgent action to reduce fossil fuel burning and stabilize the climate.

Professor Chris Merchant, lead author of the study, emphasizes that cutting global carbon emissions and transitioning to net-zero is crucial to slowing down ocean warming.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 124303.htm

[Vayutuvan]

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/29/scie ... tsios.html

(Note: This is behind paywall but if one creates an account, one can read a few articles for free every month. I am quoting the relevant info for this thread below)

Why Trump Picked a Science Adviser Who Isn’t a Scientist
Michael Kratsios, who served in the White House and Defense Department in the first Trump administration, is a policy specialist on artificial intelligence.

President Trump last week formally nominated Michael Kratsios, a member of the first Trump administration with no degrees in science or engineering, to be his science adviser.

Science policy experts say that Mr. Kratsios’ wide experience in private and public technology policy and management is what makes him an attractive candidate. His expertise includes a central role in early federal efforts to speed the rise of artificial intelligence and to compete with China in its development.

Even so, Mr. Trump’s selection marks a clear break from a long tradition in which presidential science advisers bore top degrees and deep science roots. The appointment of Mr. Kratsios has led other experts to warn of budget cuts to the health and physical sciences.

“This is an utter disaster,” said Michael S. Lubell, a professor of physics at the City College of New York and former spokesman for the American Physical Society, the world’s largest group of physicists. “Climate science is dead. God knows what’s going to happen to biomedicine. This marks the beginning of the decline of the golden age of American science.”

Neal F. Lane, a physicist who served as President Bill Clinton’s science adviser, said the nomination of Mr. Kratsios represented a profound shift. “The first Trump administration had a science adviser with extraordinary credentials,” he said.

That official was Kelvin Droegemeier, a meteorologist who received his Ph.D. in atmospheric science from the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. For almost a decade, up to his White House appointment, Dr. Droegemeier served as vice president for research at the University of Oklahoma, a pioneering center in the development of weather forecasting. He also served from 2004 to 2016 on the National Science Board, which oversees the National Science Foundation and gives independent advice to Congress and the president.
...
In March 2017, early in his first term, Mr. Trump appointed Mr. Kratsios as his deputy assistant for technology policy. He was the administration’s first hire among its many openings for science and technology advisers. In that post he led tech policy initiatives on such issues as A.I., drones, quantum computing and cybersecurity.

At the time, Dr. Lane, Mr. Clinton’s science adviser, referred to Mr. Kratsios in a New York Times opinion piece as “a technologically inexperienced Silicon Valley financier holding just a bachelor’s degree in political science.” The title of the essay was “Trump’s Disdain for Science.”

Many critics faulted the Trump administration for leaving open many of its top science posts. For instance, Mr. Trump had been in office for nearly two years before Dr. Droegemeier was confirmed ...

[Vayutuvan]

But Kartsios got recommendations from at least three top scientists.

https://www.aaas.org/news/statement-aaa ... use-office

Statement from AAAS CEO Sudip Parikh on the Nomination of Michael Kratsios as Director of the White House Office of Science & Technology Policy
23 December 2024
by: Sudip Parikh
I congratulate Michael Kratsios on his nomination as director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and appointment as assistant to the President for science and technology. AAAS enjoyed a productive and impactful relationship with Kratsios during the first Trump Administration, and we look forward to working with him again on strengthening American science, technology, and innovation.

https://www.aau.edu/newsroom/press-rele ... ination-be

December 23, 2024
AAU President Barbara R. Snyder Congratulates Michael Kratsios on the Nomination to be the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy
...

https://www.aplu.org/news-and-media/new ... ogy-roles/

(APLU: Association of Public and Land Grants Universities which is a big deal)

APLU Statement on the Selection of Michael Kratsios and Lynne Parker for Senior Science and Technology Roles
DECEMBER 23, 2024
Washington, DC – APLU President Mark Becker today released the following statement on President-elect Trump’s nomination of Michael Kratsios as Director of the White House Office of Technology Policy (OSTP) and appointment of Lynne Parker as Executive Director of the Presidential Council of Advisors for Science and Technology and Counselor to the OSTP Director.

“APLU applauds President-elect Trump’s nomination of Michael Kratsios as Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and appointment of Lynne Parker as Executive Director of the Presidential Council of Advisors for Science and Technology and Counselor to the OSTP Director.

“Mr. Kratsios brings a wealth of experience in senior science and technology roles in government and the private sector, including at OSTP and the Department of Defense. He will play a central role in shaping President Trump’s science and technology agenda. Dr. Parker has previously served in key roles such as the Deputy Chief Technology Officer of the United States, Founding Director of the National Artificial Intelligence Initiative Office, and as a researcher and administrator at the University of Tennessee.

“APLU is enthusiastic that President-elect Trump selected two individuals who recognize the importance of science to national competitiveness, health, and economic growth. OSTP and PCAST play central roles in enhancing science in policymaking.

“We look forward to working with Mr. Kratsios and Dr. Parker to advance American scientific and innovation leadership in partnership with public research universities in critical fields such as AI, quantum computing, and advanced manufacturing – which are vital to American prosperity and security at a moment of intense global competition.”

[A_Gupta]

If you are dubious about climate change, do start looking at ocean acidification.

Also, the chain of evidence and reasoning: http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2024/0 ... s.html?m=1

Lastly, the physics is quite complicated: http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2023/0 ... s.html?m=1

[A_Gupta]

Also, even if you are skeptical about climate change, most measures India can take for energy independence, environment conservation, reduction of pollution, etc., etc., also help with mitigating climate change. Surely the list of goals is a worthy one regardless of climate change.

[Cyrano]

Absolutely! But this whole CO2 emissions leading to climate change disaster remains a canular ie fake, designed to keep developing nations developing forever.

Sooner or later DOGE will reveal the fraud by IPCC and the global climate cabal.

[Cyrano]

https://x.com/StarkNakedBrief/status/18 ... klR1A&s=19

Why am I not surprised?

[Cyrano]

The full article cited above:
https://news.starknakedbrief.co.uk/p/th ... ulling-the

[KL Dubey]

Also, even if you are skeptical about climate change, most measures India can take for energy independence, environment conservation, reduction of pollution, etc., etc., also help with mitigating climate change. Surely the list of goals is a worthy one regardless of climate change.

Please understand this is not a sensible discussion. It's a fishing expedition, beware of taking the bait.

Earlier the poster complained that IPCC data was all fake/scam - I did not see any publication or analysis made by the poster proving this.

I then posted the model constructed by ExxonMobil (largest producer of petroleum resources in USA for decades). Since the 1970s EM was internally modeling anthropogenic climate change but not telling its shareholders until a few years ago. Remarkably, EM's model - completely independent of the IPCC - predicted the same results.

I quickly realized these posters are not here for any understanding or serious discussion....just bull$hitters with no relevant background but loaded with false agendas.

Fool that I am, I got sucked into this again. In the renewable energy thread I provided quantitative information on hydrogen economics and their progression, of which I have first-hand knowledge. I requested the same poster to provide their publication/analysis of hydrogen viability. But that is not their purpose.

Such posters also were unable to explain why they have such consternation about governments "subsidizing" hydrogen adoption, while happily guzzling fossil fuels that are subsidized to the gills: https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/climate-c ... -subsidies

[Cyrano]

Mark Steyn's last laugh against climate scientist Michael Mann keeps getting louder. Now, in an eviscerating judgment, a judge has ruled that Mann and his counsel acted in "bad faith" to an "extraordinary extent"

https://dailysceptic.org/2025/03/14/mar ... -over-yet/

[Cyrano]

Xposted from US thread:

Another huge scam by Bidenwa and Kamala - DOJ probe into 20 B green bank grants (not a loan). There is Greenhouse Gas reduction fund 27 B. 20 B was given to 8 nonprofits all tied to Obama and Biden weeks before DJT took office. Citibank accounts were used. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin is going to revoke this slush fund.

EPA Advisor Brent Efron exposed this fraud.

Some names of the non-profits:

Coalition for Green Capital
Climate United fund
Power forward Communities
Opportunity Finance Network
Inclusiv
Justice Climate fund.

Looks like bonanza times with the green initiative hoax in the US. Cyrano and Vayu saars please note.

This is the technique - come up with great sounding names for a cause and siphon of money without any squealing. And the US is pulling up Adani enterprise for corruption! Bidenwa and Kamala need to visit US jails soon.

youtube.com/watch?v=pK52yM9y6oE

Yes, I saw this being reported in the news. Once you have sold the lemon of saving the planet, all kinds of scams can be righteously justified by the green woke brigade.

[Amber G.]

^^^
This post is spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories. Here's a breakdown:

Inaccurate Information: The post claims that the $20 billion in green bank grants were given to 8 nonprofits tied to Obama and Biden weeks before DJT took office. However, according to the EPA's official announcement (see the <link>, the grants were awarded through a competitive process, and the selected applicants were announced on April 4, 2024, well after Biden took office.

Misleading Claims: The post accuses the nonprofits of being part of a "scam" and "slush fund." However, the EPA's announcement explains that the grants are part of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, which aims to reduce climate pollution and promote clean energy solutions (see the link).
Unsubstantiated Allegations: The post claims that EPA Advisor Brent Efron exposed this "fraud." However, there is no credible source to support this claim.

Partisan Tone: The post has a clear partisan tone, attacking Biden and Kamala while referencing DJT (presumably Donald Trump) in a positive light.

Overall, this post is spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories.

[Amber G.]

Please understand this is not a sensible discussion. It's a fishing expedition, beware of taking the bait....

Earlier the poster complained that IPCC data was all fake/scam - I did not see any publication or analysis made by the poster proving this.

I then posted the model constructed by ExxonMobil (largest producer of petroleum resources in USA for decades). Since the 1970s EM was internally modeling anthropogenic climate change but not telling its shareholders until a few years ago. Remarkably, EM's model - completely independent of the IPCC - predicted the same results.

I quickly realized these posters are not here for any understanding or serious discussion....just bull$hitters with no relevant background but loaded with false agendas.

Fool that I am, I got sucked into this again. In the renewable energy thread I provided quantitative information on hydrogen economics and their progression, of which I have first-hand knowledge. I requested the same poster to provide their publication/analysis of hydrogen viability. But that is not their purpose.

Such posters also were unable to explain why they have such consternation about governments "subsidizing" hydrogen adoption, while happily guzzling fossil fuels that are subsidized to the gills: https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/climate-c ... -subsidies

I couldn't agree more with my colleague's scathing assessment of this discussion. It's a masterclass in misinformation, deflection, and agenda-driven nonsense.

The poster's MO is all too familiar:

Make unsubstantiated claims: Disparage credible sources like the IPCC without providing a shred of evidence.

Ignore inconvenient truths: Disregard the fact that ExxonMobil, a fossil fuel giant, has been internally modeling anthropogenic climate change since the 1970s.

Pretend to be experts: Claim authority on topics like hydrogen economics without providing any credible publications or analysis.

Hypocrisy: Rail against government subsidies for hydrogen adoption while ignoring the massive subsidies enjoyed by the fossil fuel industry.

It's time to call out these tactics for what they are: a deliberate attempt to sow confusion, undermine credible science, and protect fossil fuel interests.

Let's focus on having informed, evidence-based discussions rather than indulging in misinformation and agendas

[Cyrano]

Ever heard of William Harper, Richard Lindzen, Judith Curry, Willy Soon, Ian Plimer, Peter Ridd, Bjorn Lomberg, Javier Vinos, Tom Schula, Andy May and many many many others who have questioned various aspects of the prevailing climate hysteria?

I started on the same side as you folks. But curiosity made me dig a bit deeper to understand instead of reading something and repeating. And the more I dug deeper, the less credible the "anthropogenic CO2 induced Climate Change" became.

I'm not interested in credentials or if 99.99% agree or disagree. I'm interested in logical rational arguments based on observations where base data is openly shared, criticism is welcomed to improve our understanding.

IPCC is no holy cow. It shouldn't be. If you rely on their credibility instead of your understanding, à la Greta, thats your choice not mine. Meanwhile I'd suggest you and your Dubeyious buddy go easy on the name calling.

[Cyrano]

Do you guys actually go beyond headlines ? What kind of costing logic is this to say fossil fuels are heavily subsidised ? Hint: read the legend at the bottom

[Cyrano]

if you selectively use such twisted illogic, good luck bhai ! (from the same IMF link)


with such social costs argument I can prove your or my grandmother's funeral was also subsidised

Arrey kya yaar, badey scientist lagtey ho, thoda akal lagao bhai!

[bala]

So much for credible science and honesty in institutes with an agenda.
Now Germany's Max Planck Institute is known for Physics etc, but take look at the YT and what is is being charged with..

One of Germany's top research institutions - The Max Planck Society - is celebrated for its Nobel Prize winning breakthroughs. But behind closed doors, young scientists have been describing a darker reality - allegations of abuse, sexism, and institutional silence. DW's investigative unit reveals how toxic power dynamics in elite research environments are upending careers and mental health.

youtube.com/watch?v=PENgEeT66sA

[KL Dubey]

IPCC is no holy cow. It shouldn't be. If you rely on their credibility instead of your understanding, à la Greta, thats your choice not mine. Meanwhile I'd suggest you and your Dubeyious buddy go easy on the name calling.

What about ExxonMobil? No answer from you on that? Looks like you don't want to admit the fact that their independent model predicted the same results as the IPCC. I don't think you have the faintest idea on how climate change models are constructed, tested, improved, and validated.

Summary: https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/exx ... 96.article

The researchers now show for the first time the high degree of precision and accuracy of ExxonMobil’s scientific work. With Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, the team examined numerical and graphical data related to explicit projections of future warming. This involved analysing 32 internal documents produced by ExxonMobil scientists between 1977 and 2002 and 72 peer-reviewed scientific publications authored or co-authored by ExxonMobil scientists between 1982 and 2014. This dataset constitutes all publicly available internal documents and research publications disclosed by the company.

And here is the actual Science paper which I already posted before: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk0063

Do yourself a favor and read the figures and tables in the paper. The paper doesn't even include any IPCC data, just directly compares EM's model with experimental data. The agreement with IPCC results is just mentioned in the end of the article.

How dishonest can you be ? The time for twisting and turning is over. Get over this foolishness (at best), or disinformation campaign.

[KL Dubey]

https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2108582

The Global South is driving the climate agenda, and the world now looks to India as a leader.

This is really what I hope and anticipate. After two centuries of rapacious plundering of the earth's resources (as encouraged by Abrahamic cretinism), it is time for Bharat to step up and lead the way.

[KL Dubey]

with such social costs argument I can prove your or my grandmother's funeral was also subsidised

OK. Prove it. Some busy work to keep you honest.

Since you have not provided any numbers/models/predictions for climate change (or lack thereof), nor provided any calculations to show why hydrogen shouldn't be part of India's energy mix, you might as well calculate your grandmother's funeral cost. Or your own, for that matter...

[Cyrano]

I haven't gotten around to this ExxonMobil study, will do one of these days.

But you do see that fossil fuels are heavily subsidised is a BS argument, don't you? If anything it's the RE projects that are heavily subsidised with real public money, locked in power purchase prices to make them profitable, tax concessions, grid costs ignored etc - any or all of these depending on which country you are in.

Your reactions seem to be getting closer to hysteria one step at a time, which is actually fun to watch

[Cyrano]

So much for credible science and honesty in institutes with an agenda.
Now Germany's Max Planck Institute is known for Physics etc, but take look at the YT and what is is being charged with..

One of Germany's top research institutions - The Max Planck Society - is celebrated for its Nobel Prize winning breakthroughs. But behind closed doors, young scientists have been describing a darker reality - allegations of abuse, sexism, and institutional silence. DW's investigative unit reveals how toxic power dynamics in elite research environments are upending careers and mental health.

youtube.com/watch?v=PENgEeT66sA

While such behaviours are to be condemned, it may or may not have a direct link to the scientific work being done there. Too much grey area to say "because some persons are not kind and nice to their colleagues, their research out put is questionable".

[Cyrano]

Even the usually conformist Sabine is finally seeing it...

Check out her latest critique on recent LA fires due to climate change report

[KL Dubey]

I haven't gotten around to this ExxonMobil study, will do one of these days.

But you do see that fossil fuels are heavily subsidised is a BS argument, don't you? If anything it's the RE projects that are heavily subsidised with real public money, locked in power purchase prices to make them profitable, tax concessions, grid costs ignored etc - any or all of these depending on which country you are in.

Your reactions seem to be getting closer to hysteria one step at a time, which is actually fun to watch

Not at all. The real fun is that you are paying the "IMF social cost of carbon" that you hate so much, and will do so for the rest of your life most likely.

This truly reminds me of a poster (I think he got a lifetime ban) who used to complain about power cuts in Bengaluru every summer. The "funny" part was that his BRF postings would get longer and longer with increased intensity of power cuts, i.e. spending more time on internet as the power availability became less.

I posted the IMF study because they did a very thorough job. Indeed, they broke down all the costs including the "global warming" costs, so that other people can calculate the subsidy based upon their perspective. As a result, the subsidy can be said to be anywhere from about $1 trillion/yr to $7 trillion per year. It's valuable work. Coal has the largest global warming cost, which is NOT a surprise at all. Other fuels are progressively better, the global warming costs are not as high. However, there are many other costs as well. The study lays them all out by country. The data is very useful and enlightening.

Your approach is entirely superficial, simply based on disparaging carefully done work according to your own biases. At the same time you have shown no (i.e. zero) expertise or work in any of these areas. Yeah, I bet you'll "get around" to the ExxonMobil study much later, since it won't suit your fake arguments. This is not scientific and not a good example of intelligence....i.e. another good old "fishing expedition".

[Amber G.]

I haven't gotten around to this ExxonMobil study, will do one of these days.

But you do see that fossil fuels are heavily subsidised is a BS argument, don't you? If anything it's the RE projects that are heavily subsidised with real public money, locked in power purchase prices to make them profitable, tax concessions, grid costs ignored etc - any or all of these depending on which country you are in.

Your reactions seem to be getting closer to hysteria one step at a time, which is actually fun to watch

Not at all. The real fun is that you are paying the "IMF social cost of carbon" that you hate so much, and will do so for the rest of your life most likely.

This truly reminds me of a poster (I think he got a lifetime ban) who used to complain about power cuts in Bengaluru every summer. The "funny" part was that his BRF postings would get longer and longer with increased intensity of power cuts, i.e. spending more time on internet as the power availability became less.

I posted the IMF study because they did a very thorough job. Indeed, they broke down all the costs including the "global warming" costs, so that other people can calculate the subsidy based upon their perspective. As a result, the subsidy can be said to be anywhere from about $1 trillion/yr to $7 trillion per year. It's valuable work. Coal has the largest global warming cost, which is NOT a surprise at all. Other fuels are progressively better, the global warming costs are not as high. However, there are many other costs as well. The study lays them all out by country. The data is very useful and enlightening.

Your approach is entirely superficial, simply based on disparaging carefully done work according to your own biases. At the same time you have shown no (i.e. zero) expertise or work in any of these areas. Yeah, I bet you'll "get around" to the ExxonMobil study much later, since it won't suit your fake arguments. This is not scientific and not a good example of intelligence....i.e. another good old "fishing expedition".

about the .. "poster (I think he got a lifetime ban) who used to complain about power cuts in Bengaluru every summer" ..

Agree that 'fake arguments' coupled with 'not a good example of intelligence type fishing expeditions' have almost ruined about 3 dhaga here in BRF../sigh/