,,,a precise operation performed on a subjective input does not produce an objective output. It produces subjectivity in a lab coat. Charles Rotter Here's another episode of my endless, some would say Sisyphean task of exposing absolute crap masquerading as SCIENCE and showing why targeted cuts in funding for such endeavors is not only good, but essential if scientific research is ever to regain institutional credibility. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17524032.2026.2673348 "Vacuum...
This post is currently for paid subscribers only, all membership types.
If you are a paid subscriber and can't view it, make sure to log in.
After 30 days it will be available to all users.
You can bookmark it and read in 30 days or
Thanks for reading all that bilge so that I can skip it.
“Bilge” is a generous description.
According to Google, about 10,000 trees would remove from the atmosphere about as much CO2 per year as Iceland’s machine. I venture to guess that planting 10,000 trees would be vastly cheaper than building and operating the machine and all its’ follow on machinery. And as CO2 slowly climbs, the trees slowly consume more.
Should I get a patent?
Very telling, isn’t it, that the greens never get big groups together and go plant trees! Some do, in small groups, but I mean like their big climate marches, BIG and well covered in the news. Their climate marches are more like festivals of “soak the rich”. It shows what hypocrites they are. It was never about the climate, it was always about money.
Yes, everyone wants to pose for the Planet, but no one wants to help Mom with the dishes.
And those trees don’t need maintenance or storage facilities.
Well, they don’t create millions of new well paid jobs as the renewable scam does that don’t exist and never will.
But considering that the earth got greener from 2000-2020
– this must have absorbed magnitudes more co2 than a million machines.
Especially since the number of trees on this planet is actually 8 times than previously thought(one can only imagine how accurate the rest of all data is, if counting trees is already a problem)
the need for machines should have dropped by 87.5%.
Forests do need to be managed so that the fuel load doesn’t get dangerously high.
One of the best ways of doing this is through occasional logging. The proceeds from this logging will, in most cases, be more then enough to pay for managing the forest.
As a side benefit, said forest also provides a habitat for wild critters, some of which taste good and can also be harvested. Further profit.
He’s probably worried that the trees will be managed by the JOOOS!
Or worse, Trump.
No difference, as Trump is managed by them.
(Adelson,Lauder,Wittkoff,Kushner,Ellison ).
You don’t get the red string(Micro-Eruv) around your wrist for no reason.
I love critters, they’re delicious!
there should be a new metric.
Something like with rising CO2 the world has seen a massive lift in sequestration equivalent to 150,000 Icelandic CO2 machines etc.
Its better than swimming pools and Sydney harbours.
The internet will supply a list of the major timber companies in the USA, Weyerhaeuser being the largest. Guess how many trees the Company claims tto plant each year. a) 100,000 seedlings; b) 1 million; c) 100 million
{me? I usually plant 4 or 5.}
I am really good at growing out of control grass… and weeds !!
Does that count ?
230 million sapling trees were planted in B.C. in 2025. However, these baby trees won’t remove much CO2 until they grow up. Since 1930, 10 billion trees have been planted in B.C.
https://www.livescience.com/planet-earth/plants/trees-in-chinas-great-green-wall-appear-to-grow-faster-than-natural-forests-study-finds
I recall that some official in Europe (I forget the details) stated to solve the “climate crisis” just plant a billion trees.
Fe into the oceans is even cheaper far more effective and feeds people with wild fish as a by product.
Look it up it illustrates that the green movement is not about nature and the environment, its about Socialism.
The extra CO2 in the atmosphere allows trees themselves to reproduce far quicker than that.
Also, one must remember that nature abhors a vacuum.
Mega Maid – going from suck to blow.
One of Mel’s more regrettable gags
Star Wars movies used to be great 🙂
The latest will no doubt be filmed in a dark enclosed space (saves on paying good set designers) Background music will be too loud, to much dialog will be whispered while the battle is going on. Special effects will be overdone (they are cheap to produce these days) Most movies today aren’t worth it.
That wasn’t a Star Wars movie.
True. It was a well done spoof of the Star Wars movies.
Like “Galaxy Quest” was a masterful spoof of all the Star Trek stuff, Space Balls was a spoof of the real Star Wars stuff.
(I don’t include the Disney abominations.)
It was a spoof of Star Wars and Star Wars, with some Alien references too – the baby xenomorph popping out of Sir John Hurt’s chest to perform a vaudeville “Hello Ma Baby”. That was funny, but I thought Barf’s (John Candy) tail tickling the waitress’s bottom was funnier – Barf: “Huh? Oh, look, it’s got a mind of its own, sweetheart. I can’t do a thing with it!”
I’d forgotten that bit!
Just like “Airplane”, no opportunity to spoof was left untouched.
So many classic lines that are still popular.
And don’t call me Shirley.
I picked a bad day to “fill in just about anything”.
What can you make of this …
etc.
Even an obvious joke about a funny movie needs a sarc tag I guess.
Dude -it ‘s a photo of a giant moon sized robochick with a vacuum cleaner hoovering above planet earth .
You don’t even need to know the Star Wars movies to understand that this can only be part of a persiflage and not the real stuff.
Except for The Missouri Breaks when Brando appears as a fat chick with umbrella there’s no “serious” movie I know that undermines its own consistency with hilarious nonsense.
“Space Balls” was a well done and entertaining spoof of the original Star Wars movies. Then Disney bought the rights to “Star Wars” from George Lucas.
Disney then proceeded to make some unfunny spoofs, in my opinion
(I remember a quote from Mark Hamell who replayed Luke Skywalker regarding the Disney versions (best I can remember), “Maybe “Jake Skywalker’ would have done that, but not ‘Luke Skywalker’.”
And, from the original movies, weren’t all the storm trooper supposed to be clones of Bobba Fet? Where did the black storm trooper come from?
PS Nothing against a black or asian or arab or … whatever, playing a role but not one that is Inconsistent with the story line. Disney went full DEI yet again.
It’s been awhile since Disney has made a movie that broke even, much less made a profit.
Makes you wonder which leftist org is propping them up.
CR: “a precise operation performed on a subjective input does not produce an objective output. It produces subjectivity in a lab coat.”
Charles has provided us complete and definitive description of tree-ring paleo-thermometry.
Wherein the assignment of Celsius takes its entire justification from the prior judgments of
temperature-limited development.
Can you break that down into plainspeak for us dummies?
tree-ring paleo-thermometry: Using tree-rings to try and justify guessing at ancient temperatures.
the assignment of Celsius takes its entire justification: The guesses regarding ancient temperatures are declared true and valid based on
from prior judgements of temperature-limited development: It’s agreement with earlier best guesses regarding ancient temperature.
NOTE: Best guesses also includes random data and totally made up sh!t.
I know all about tree-ring paleo phrenology. The last sentence was throwing me in Pat’s comment.
but thanks for the explainer, it helps.
You’re very familiar with the concept of “totally made up sh!t”, aren’t you, Professor? Like your own private hallucinated version of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, for example? Hypocrite.
Sorry Jeff. The comment highlights the fact that trees are qualitatively judged as having temperature-dependent growth by their position at a treeline and the surrounding floral ecology.
Once a tree is so-judged, the variation in its ring widths or densities or, alternatively, in late-wood density (ring edges laid down during Jun-Jul-Aug) are judged temperature-sensitive – whichever data set correlates most strongly with measured regional temperatures. The chosen data set may be the ring data itself, or the PC1 of a principal components analysis. (NB: PCs are numerical constructs with no distinct physical meaning.) or both.
Whichever data set covering recent years is so-judged as reflecting temperature, it is assumed that the rest of the ring data, including whatever PC, extending hundreds (or more) years into the past, also reflect temperature.
Confounding the whole thing is that trees are genetically diverse. Individual trees can respond differently to the same stresses and environmental variables.
Temperature is assigned using these judgements, not derived from a physical method.
That is, the assignment of Celsius to a tree-ring series is based entirely on the original subjective decision of temperature-limited growth.
Very similar to the subjective assessment that temperature and associated anomalies aligns with climate. Altitude and precipitation are just noise.
Thanks for this article. It’s good to expose the absurdities out there.
Let’s also be honest about framing and metaphors. The “forcing” metaphor applied to the expected influence of incremental CO2 then supports the “feedback” metaphor applied to the expected response. This framing has been conceded – unwisely, in my opinion – by many skeptics of climate alarm.
No one had established in advance that a perceptible influence on reported temperatures, or on any other climate variable, must be expected from the physical fundamentals.
Must incremental CO2 be understood to OPERATE as a climate system “forcing” just like absorbed solar energy? No. Not in the proper context of the motion. It is not justified as a given. It is not to be assumed at the outset of the investigation. It is not a valid framing of the scientific question.
This is why I keep posting about energy conversion within the general circulation. In this context, one sees that the computed longwave influence of rising pCO2 is vanishingly weak.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1PDJP3F3rteoP99lR53YKp2fzuaza7Niz?usp=drive_link
Thank you for your patience in this matter.
There’s no limit to what an academic scholar can with the tool box of critical theories.
CO₂ forcing, for example. Thus, the term”forcing” is a masculine trait, which problematizes (a favorite expression. I don’t know what it means, either) toxic masculinity in its use of male force to colonize the air of oppressed minorities, across the entire globe. No escape!
Vacuuming the Sky: an appeal to the feminine for the cure. A central metaphor of the household role of the objectivized traditional female, called upon to repair the chaos of male violence.
There is no end to such nonsense. More than half the academy is engaged in it – now including schools of law and departments of economics.
I believe it was Jordan Peterson who noted that some 80% of such papers sink into obscurity with zero citations.
Easy pseudo-scholarship for mediocre minds — an academic grift with a dollop of moral purity on the side.
Thanks for this reply, which gave me a good laugh!
A tragicomedy, indeed.
257 articles with 284 metaphors is not a study. It is just noise. I stopped there.
“Carbon Capture and Storage, (CCS)” can only be characterised as a costly and energy expensive way of throwing away irrelevant amounts of useful plant food.
And CO2 is now irrelevant as a control knob for Global temperature.
https://edmhdotme.wpcomstaging.com/proportions-of-the-temperature-contributions-of-greenhouse-gasses-h2o-co2-n2o-ch4/
C.R., I agree with #1 comment of KK. And, a good analysis. Thanks
I noted this in the abstract: ” the role that metaphors play as frame devices ”
When I encounter the “framing” concept I think of the idea of putting lipstick on a pig. About 15 years ago, a friend mentioned CO2 removal from the atmosphere. I thought about it for about 15 seconds and gave it a thumbs down.
Context:
When I am about to do something, I ask myself “What could go wrong?”
When I read of a scheme to save the world? “Have you considered ‘scale’?”
Direct air capture of CO2 won’t change concentration of CO2 in the air. Every molecule of CO2 removed from the air will be replaced by a molecule of CO2 which will bubble out the oceans. The chemical engineers know this. These DAC schemes are subsidy mining operations and are not needed.
Mother Nature’s DACS processes are:
Plants on the land.Plants in the oceans and in land surface fresh waters.Oceans and land fresh surface waters.These processes are so fairly efficient that only O.85 g of CO2 remains in one cubic meter of air at STP.
Space Balls. Loved the movie.