Published

1 year ago

December 31, 2024

Alice Rush

Re: the meme here, a reader offers this dare: I challenge you to go to a climate science convention, get up on stage, present this image and then give a talk on why you think it is true… and then take questions from the scientists in the room.

Yes, he’d be laughed off the stage, but not for the reason you might think. The truth here lies in the deliberately dishonest way that the data is presented.

The ice on the Antarctic is shrinking fast, but the ice in the oceans that surround the continent are remaining essentially unchanged.

Here’s an article called Antarctic Ice Loss Is Significant, Contrary to Claims. An excerpt:

Antarctica is losing ice mass to the ocean, contributing to global sea level rise. But a popular video misrepresented work focused on Antarctic ice shelves — which float in the sea at the edges of the continent — to incorrectly suggest that “it is unclear if Antarctica is losing any ice on balance.”

The Antarctic ice sheet is a vast mass of ice, accumulated over millennia via snowfall, that sits atop bedrock, covering nearly all of Antarctica. As the ice spreads outward and meets the ocean, some of it begins to float. These floating ice platforms, which surround about three-quarters of Antarctica, are called ice shelves.

Antarctic land ice loss into the ocean is an increasingly important contributor to global sea level rise. In contrast, ice shelf loss doesn’t directly cause sea level rise, as the ice is already floating in the ocean and displacing water.

In actuality, there is no climate “debate.” There are exhaustive studies, the results of which have been published in peer-reviewed papers over the last 50+ years, and there are folks, including Big Oil, whose political agendas focus on referring to these scientists as “liars.” That’s the raw simplicity, pathetic as it may be.

Are Climate Scientists Liars?

Renewable Energy

Renewable Energy Concepts Can’t Violate the Laws of Physics

Published

7 hours ago

February 28, 2026

Alice Rush

In the early days of 2GreenEnergy, my people and I were vigorously engaged in finding solid ideas in cleantech that needed funding in order to move forward.

I vividly remember a conversation with a guy in Maryland who was trying to explain the (ostensible) breakthrough that he and his team had made in hydrokinetics. When I was having trouble visualizing what we was talking about, he asked me to “think of it as a river in a box.”

“Oh!” I exclaimed. “You mean you take a box full of standing water, add energy to it get it moving, then extract that energy, leaving you with more energy that you added to it.”

“Exactly.”

I politely explained that the laws of physics, specifically the first and second laws of thermodynamics, make this impossible.

He wasn’t through, however, and insisted that, in his office, his people had constructed a “working model.”

Here’s where my tone descended into something less than 100% polite. I told him that he may think he has a working model, but he’s wrong; if he believes this, he’s ignorant; if he doesn’t, but is conducting this conversation anyway, he’s a fraud.

“But don’t you want to come see it?” he implored.

“No. Not only would not fly across the country to see whatever it is you claim to have built, I wouldn’t walk across the street to a “working model” of something that is theoretically impossible.”

—

I tell this story because the claim made at the upper left is essentially identical. You’re pumping water up out of a stream, and then claiming to extract more energy when the water flows back into the stream.

Of course, social media today is rife with complete crap like this. We’ve devolved to a point where defrauding money out of idiots is rapidly replacing baseball as our national pastime.