Climate Journalism

17 Responses to Climate Journalism

1. Disillusioned says:

   March 23, 2023 at 5:11 am

   DrVive states the opposite of reality. She implies climate scammers are tired of being being ignored. What a freaking, disingenuous joke. Reality is, they have the red carpet rolled out to them by every western government. They and their junk science are coddled, protected and heavily promoted. No doubt, she knows it.

   Reply
   • Gordon Vigurs says:

     March 23, 2023 at 7:10 am

     Are these, ridiculous wind farms and solar arrays which cost the Earth and generate bugger all, mirages? The ‘net zero’ commitment of all Western governments is a figment of the imagination? I suppose if an individual is so deluded as to believe there really is a ‘climate crisis’ is quite incapable of objective reasoning.

     I recall this is a ploy used by the Nazis, claiming the German people to be victims of the very people they were in reality oppressing. This method of inverting the argument has a name, but I can’t recall what it is. The polite name for it, that is.

     Reply
2. Crispin Pemberton-Pigott says:

   March 23, 2023 at 8:29 am

   As a developer of clean burning wood and coal stoves, I do not agree with the comment that wood creates smoke, or a lot of it, in some way being an inherent property of the fuel. Smoke is unburned fuel. It burned properly, there is no smoke from wood or coal.

   Claiming, as one might, that people do not have such clean-burning appliances is not a permissible dodge. The same is true for liquid or solid fossil fuels. If you use a poorly designed device, you get PM, VOC, PAH and CO emissions, whatever the fuel.

   Two days ago I was testing the emissions from a 470 litre propane stove in a rural school near Kigali, Rwanda. The CO was 20 times the rated emissions, and the CxHy (hydrocarbons) were double that. There is no guarantee that fossil fuels burn well.

   I have no quibble with the general argument that if petroleum fuels were banned, people would switch to wood. That is evident in Bulgaria and Poland at the moment. But this is a theoretical exercise so we should allow that theoretically good combustors would be used for that wood, not theoretically bad ones.

   I also tested a 500-litre-pot wood stove in a school inside Kigali last Friday that was significantly cleaner burning than the gas stove, if the latter was operated on low power (18 kW). In particular, the CO emission per MJ delivered was lower with wood, this despite the fact that the stove was not constructed correctly (I know because I designed it’s junior version in 2008 for Lesotho).

   Well over 90% of the energy used in Rwanda is biomass and generally, it is already produced in a renewable fashion. I see no reason they should ban anything. It is hard to run a motorcycle taxi on biomass, which is how the masses move. The crisis there is that some clowns will tell them they have to “cut back on their emissions”. What should net-zero Africans do?

   Reply
   • Gordon Vigurs says:

     March 23, 2023 at 9:27 am

     Thank you for giving us the benefit of your expertise. Nobody claims that correctly designed furnaces can have very low emissions of actual pollutants, Indeed, modern coal fired power stations burn reasonably clean.

     However, impoverished tribes burning cow dung are in no position to avoid such up market efficient plant as, for example, the Poles. Biomass is fine provided it uses marginal land and doesn’t encroach on arable land needed for food production, so I would be wary of the precise use of ‘sustainable’ in this context. But your point is well taken, correctly designed plant for any fuel can have low emissions.

     The point is that CO2 has been numbered among the ‘pollutants’, which is arrant nonsense.

     Reply
   • conrad ziefle says:

     March 23, 2023 at 8:45 pm

     We have a neighbor who has a pellet stove, and has turned off his gas to his house. He says it is more efficient. It might be, because the combustion chamber is right there in the middle of the biggest room and then through a heat exchanger the rest of the house gets hot air via the old furnace ductwork. I had a friend in the hills behind Evergreen, Colo. that had a big cast iron stove in the middle of their living room, and it kept the house boiling, even in the middle of winter. When I was a kid we had a gravity floor furnace, which was in the middle room of the house, again the combustion chamber was in the room, at least radiating to the room from its top. My brother and I managed to burn our bare feet on the hot grill that covered it, with little rectangles etched into our soles.
     In all of these cases, the combustion chamber is very hot and radiates heat directly to the living space. The problem is it is very hot and can cause severe burns, particularly to small children. That is probably why in most modern structures the combustion chamber is away from the living space, even though radiation from it is probably the most efficient way to heat a space. In any case, I don’t understand how a pellet stove reduces CO2 emissions. Trees are just C,H,O and traces.

     Reply
3. James Newman says:

   March 23, 2023 at 8:41 am

   She’s just another ignorant talking head on MSDNC. Not like they ever get anything right.
   They’re trying a Hail Mary before they all start migrating to the Global Cooling shtick as the Climate Change thingy just isn’t working out for them as none of their predictions ever come true.

   Reply
   • rah says:

     March 23, 2023 at 11:37 am

     IMO they won’t change their ways until they determine they have lost elections and thus power due to the actions they are taking. Besides, they still have time. the AMO is still in its positive phase and we have a La Nina, possibly a strong one, coming on.

     Personally, I expect even more strident “Climate Change” hype is coming.

     Reply
4. toorightmate says:

   March 23, 2023 at 11:05 am

   This “blocking” on social media has a strange twist to it.
   People are blocked from taking a path that they do not want to take.

   Reply
5. rah says:

   March 23, 2023 at 11:14 am

   An MSNBC “journalist” blocked me for explaining what was wrong with her argument.

   There, fixed it for you.

   Reply
6. rah says:

   March 23, 2023 at 11:17 am

   Non-inquiring minds, don’t want to know.

   Reply
7. rah says:

   March 23, 2023 at 11:18 am

   MSNBC is pap for the leftist wackos.

   Reply
8. Richard says:

   March 23, 2023 at 12:14 pm

   THE funniest thing is CO2 is NOT the evil gas- plants would not live without CO2
   so how did it go wrong?? Because Al Gore got a D- in his class with professor Revelle

   Reply
9. GWS says:

   March 23, 2023 at 4:37 pm

   It seems her argument boils down to —
   Who is s scientist and who is a propagandist?
   Or, Who bows to Nature and who bows to Mammon?
   And next, — What is a doctor?

   Reply
10. dm says:

    March 23, 2023 at 6:05 pm

    WILLFULLY IGNORANT is a good description of her.

    For those willing to LEARN, see https://notrickszone.com/2023/03/23/new-study-atmospheric-co2-residence-time-is-only-5-years-too-short-to-affect-the-climate/

    This is supported by an essay read several years ago that said climate “scientists” were stunned to discover at least 50% of anthropogenic CO2 emissions since the late 1800s had vanished from the atmosphere.

    Reply
11. Ed says:

    March 23, 2023 at 7:00 pm

    I would love to see a greatest hits of failed IPCC predictions.

    Reply
12. conrad ziefle says:

    March 23, 2023 at 8:51 pm

    A higher education is supposed to augment your native intellect, not supplant it, Ms. Guenther.
    She is yet another example of the fast-growing cottage industry of climate propaganda.

    Reply
13. johansen says:

    March 23, 2023 at 9:35 pm

    “…world already has too many fossil fuels in production….”??
    The doctor must to needs to use Grammarly or somethings

    Reply