Don't Go Being Politically Insane You Climate Change Skeptics

[Tim Sielbeck]

5 hours ago, Ivanhoe said:

https://local12.com/news/nation-world/inhalers-contribute-significantly-global-warming-study-finds-medication-propellants-trap-heat-atmosphere-shocking-findings-planet
 

Even more dangerous than Dihydrogen Monoxide. 

I’ve only seen it as dihydrogen oxide.

[JWB]

7 hours ago, Tim Sielbeck said:

I’ve only seen it as dihydrogen oxide.

Both are acceptable.

[Tim Sielbeck]

👍

[Tim Sielbeck]

 

[Ivanhoe]

https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1312/13/9/1641
 

Quote

 

Abstract

In 2021, the IPCC published new sea level projections. For the first time, the projections gave insight into expected relative sea level rise locally. A prudent designer of coastal infrastructure will want to know how the local projections compare to local observations. That comparison, to date, has not been made. We compared local projections and observations regarding the rate of rise in 2020. We used two datasets with local sea level information all over the globe. In both datasets, we found approximately 15% of the available sets suitable to establish the rate of rise in 2020. Geographic coverage of the suitable locations is poor, with the majority of suitable locations in the Northern Hemisphere. Latin America and Africa are severely under-represented. Statistical tests were run on all selected datasets, taking acceleration of sea level rise as a hypothesis. In both datasets, approximately 95% of the suitable locations show no statistically significant acceleration of the rate of sea level rise. The investigation suggests that local, non-climatic phenomena are a plausible cause of the accelerated sea level rise observed at the remaining 5% of the suitable locations. On average, the rate of rise projected by the IPCC is biased upward with approximately 2 mm per year in comparison with the observed rate.

 

https://nypost.com/2025/09/07/opinion/rising-sea-hysteria-debunked-but-the-climate-change-cult-wont-care/
 

Quote

 

Dutch engineer Hessel Voortman and researcher Rob de Vos finally did the work; their peer-reviewed study in the Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, “A Global Perspective on Local Sea Level Changes,” shows the models have gotten it completely wrong.

They reviewed actual data (on an average of a century of observations) at 150,000 coastal locations across the planet to determine that sea-level rise this century will likely be about 6 inches, the same as last century.

The models, which extrapolated from observations in the Antarctic only, plus a host of assumptions about how the oceans respond to rising global temperatures, suggested sea levels increasing by 1 foot to 3 feet by 2100.

 

 

Quote

 

The Dutch researchers’ “first-ever global study of sea level rise” refutes those claims — and raises the huge question of why no one else had bothered to test the predictions.

As of 2020, they found, the worldwide rise is only around 1.5 millimeters per year — far less than the 3 mm to 4 mm (0.12 to 0.16 inches) a year routinely reported in scientific literature and the general news media.

 

 

Quote

 

For his own uses as a hydraulic engineer working with flood-protection and coastal-infrastructure adaptation projects, Voortman two years ago checked actual data for the Netherlands, and found it didn’t match the global predictions.

He was shocked to find that no one else was checking the models’ claims against observed reality, and set out at his own expense to do the global study.

 

Data are racist, I guess. 

[sunday]

Mother Nature is a big negationist.

[Mikel2]

Lindzen and Happer on Rogan.

 

[Ivanhoe]

https://www.nber.org/papers/w34313

Quote

A large literature documents how ambient temperature affects human mortality. Using decades of detailed data from 30 countries, we revisit and synthesize key findings from this literature. We confirm that ambient temperature is among the largest external threats to human health, and is responsible for a remarkable 5-12% of total deaths across countries in our sample, or hundreds of thousands of deaths per year in both the U.S. and EU. In all contexts we consider, cold kills more than heat, though the temperature of minimum risk rises with age, making younger individuals more vulnerable to heat and older individuals more vulnerable to cold. We find evidence for adaptation to the local climate, with hotter places experiencing somewhat lower risk at higher temperatures, but still more overall mortality from heat due to more frequent exposure. Within countries, higher income is not associated with uniformly lower vulnerability to ambient temperature, and the overall burden of mortality from ambient temperature is not falling over time. Finally, we systematically summarize the limited set of studies that rigorously evaluate interventions that can reduce the impact of heat and cold on health. We find that many proposed and implemented policy interventions lack empirical support and do not target temperature exposures that generate the highest health burden, and that some of the most beneficial interventions for reducing the health impacts of cold or heat have little explicit to do with climate.

I'm going to guess that the majority of cold-related deaths happen during short spells of unusual cold. Which argues for a simple coal stove. The fuel is easy to handle and doesn't go bad, and the infrastructure for residences is pretty straightforward. 

 

[rmgill]

2 hours ago, Ivanhoe said:

https://www.nber.org/papers/w34313

I'm going to guess that the majority of cold-related deaths happen during short spells of unusual cold. Which argues for a simple coal stove. The fuel is easy to handle and doesn't go bad, and the infrastructure for residences is pretty straightforward. 

 

In parts of the US, old houses have coal burning fire places too. My Great grandmother's house in Albany had a tiny little fireplace. It wasn't until years later that I realized it was for coal.

 

[Ivanhoe]

All those traditional old houses with basements in the northeast often had a coal scuttle. 

In the 3rd world, it would only take a tiny little freestanding coal stove to get inside temps up to 50F or more. 

Main thing of course is ensuring proper airflow and whatnot for minimal CO leakage, and ensuring the stovepipe doesn't set things on fire. 

[sunday]

11 hours ago, rmgill said:

In parts of the US, old houses have coal burning fire places too. My Great grandmother's house in Albany had a tiny little fireplace. It wasn't until years later that I realized it was for coal.

 

Domestic heating using anthracite from Pennsylvania was quite popular for a time in the Northeast, and would not require large fireplaces.

See: https://stovehistory.blogspot.com/2014/01/jordan-motts-anthracite-stoves-in.html

[Ivanhoe]

Climate Change causes both higher and lower lake levels? Is there anything Climate Change can't do?

 

[Soren Ras]

6 hours ago, Ivanhoe said:

Climate Change causes both higher and lower lake levels? Is there anything Climate Change can't do?

 

No.

The answer is that there is nothing Climage Change cannot do. If X goes up, or down or stays the same, it can be attributed to Climate Change. 

My favorite is how it makes every place heat up faster than every other place.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Mosquito's found in iceland for the first time in recorded history.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/articles/crredk4pq20o

[Ivanhoe]

4 hours ago, Soren Ras said:

No.

The answer is that there is nothing Climage Change cannot do. If X goes up, or down or stays the same, it can be attributed to Climate Change. 

My favorite is how it makes every place heat up faster than every other place.

 

A couple of years ago there was a throwaway opinion piece that the lack of extreme weather was due to... 

[rmgill]

11 hours ago, sunday said:

Domestic heating using anthracite from Pennsylvania was quite popular for a time in the Northeast, and would not require large fireplaces.

See: https://stovehistory.blogspot.com/2014/01/jordan-motts-anthracite-stoves-in.html

Yep. They had larger furnaces up there. Even central systems that had a coal fire source. But I'm talking about the victory homes that all had these. 

[sunday]

I guess that could be one of the early anthracite hearts, because it looks small.

[rmgill]

We have a lot of high grade coal in the us thats not anthracite. Many places in the US had coal chutes to the 50s and 60/ for heat. Coal trucks could pull up, swing a chute over and slide a load of coal into the basement. No lifting needed. I know of a church near buy where I sit right now that has such a chute hardware still visible. 
 

Here’s an example 

https://forgottengalicia.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/coal-chute.jpg

[sunday]

Small fireplaces usually are made to burn coal with high heating value. Anthracite has the highest.

[rmgill]

3 hours ago, sunday said:

Small fireplaces usually are made to burn coal with high heating value. Anthracite has the highest.

Yes. I've actually been in places that still burn it for heating 🙂 In PA no less.

It's just that Anthracite is 1% of our production so I suspect some folks probably burn the lower grades depending on what they want to pay. 

I have not gone to Centralia to see the underground Anthracite fire though. 

 

[Ivanhoe]

https://armageddonprose.substack.com/p/danish-cattle-dropping-like-flies
 

Quote

 

Subsequently, in October, the Danish authorities saw fit to mandate the medication of all cattle in the country with Bovaer, to reportedly catastrophic effects reported by Danish farmers.

Via Nyheder, translated from Danish (all apologies for the stilted translation):

“More dairy cows are not doing well and are producing less milk. And in some cases they are collapsing.

A controversial additive called Bovaer, which is to be mixed into the cows’ feed, is suspected of being the cause of the problems…

 

For Bill Gates, the only good cow is a dead cow. 

Fewer Danish milk cattle means less Danish butter, which means more expensive butter cookies. 

Did no one think of the Girl Scouts?

 

[Ivanhoe]

https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/why-the-co2-hysteria-because-thats-where-the-money-is/
 

Quote

 

Contrary to the narrative that ’97 per cent of scientists agree’, the role of CO2 in climate change is hotly debated among those who know something about it. Ice cores and other ways of looking into the distant past show that CO2 levels alter after changes in global temperature, not before. If it doesn’t lead, it can’t cause. Actual temperature readings have contradicted the modelled predictions for decades, showing barely any increase. An average global temperature is a meaningless statistic.

Climate models predict disaster, but the clock has stopped at two minutes to midnight for half a century. The Greenland ice sheet has not melted, no crude oil tankers have collided with Antarctic icebergs, the Northwest Passage is still mostly impassable, tropical islands have not sunk below the waves, coral is abundant and healthy and my central heating bills have risen only because of Ed Miliband. Private jets still deliver bigwigs to climate conferences. Polar bears are enjoying a population boom, fewer people die of cold, typhoons and hurricanes have not become more severe.

 

 

Quote

If rising emissions are responsible for climate change, the effects appear mostly benign. Above all, more CO2 means more plant growth (aided by a small increase in rain in arid areas). Crop yields are optimised above 1,000 ppm, a lot higher than current levels. Given advances in agricultural technology and demographic trends it is unlikely that humans will ever again experience famine outside a war zone.

Is that a feature, or a bug?

Quote

Conveniently there are some countries which can be blamed for climate change and they also have lots of money, the UK and US in particular. The UK’s crime was to launch the industrial revolution, which allowed life expectancy to double worldwide and infant mortality to decline by 95 per cent. Due to the earth’s rotation prevailing winds are almost always west to east. Only one large country absorbs more CO2 than it produces, and that is the US. (There’s an awful lot of vegetation in flyover country.)

Weird how the solution to global warming is always wealth transfer. 

[Ivanhoe]

https://scitechdaily.com/fatal-flaw-in-carbon-cycle-could-plunge-earth-into-global-freeze/

Quote

Scientists have uncovered a hidden feedback mechanism in Earth’s carbon cycle that could explain past ice ages and reveal how global warming might eventually lead to extreme cooling.

 

Quote

 

Yet, geological records reveal that some ancient ice ages were so severe that nearly the entire planet froze over. According to the researchers, such extreme events cannot be explained by a simple, self-regulating system alone.

The missing factor involves the burial of carbon in the ocean. When atmospheric CO2 rises and global temperatures climb, increased rainfall carries more nutrients such as phosphorus into the sea. These nutrients boost the growth of plankton, which absorb carbon dioxide through photosynthesis. After the plankton die, their remains sink to the ocean floor, carrying the carbon with them and altering the planet’s long-term climate balance.

 

Too much CO2 can cause warming and cooling. Is there anything that CO2 can't do?

 

[lucklucky]

That is precisely the game, it is designed in the way that the Climate exploitation Party always wins. 

[Tim Sielbeck]

5 hours ago, Ivanhoe said:

Too much CO2 can cause warming and cooling. Is there anything that CO2 can't do?

Make dumb people smart.