We're Saved! Fish Farms Will Stop Climate Change!

February 3, 2025–Yes, that's right, my friends! Fish farms will save us from the onrushing doom of anthropogenic climate change! At least that's what one group of researchers would like us to believe.

Meanwhile, back in Realityville, we all know they won't. Even if human-caused climate change did exist, no amount of fish farming can possibly affect the global CO2 balance, no matter how much the climate scammers insist it's going to melt the polar caps any day now. That the fish and the ponds will smell like rotten eggs doesn't matter because CLIMATE CHANGE!!!

Sunday I woke up from my mid-afternoon nap to find an email link to this article: "Scientists propose using fish farms to solve global crisis: 'There is no way around this point.'"

And just like that, my whole Sunday was ruined because "Researchers" at Yale and UConn want to throw iron into fish ponds to create iron sulfide, increasing the pond's alkalinity, raising the carbonate saturation and sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere. There was even a quote from one of the "Researchers:"

"We are in the situation right now that to be able to sustain that 1.5° threshold, we should be removing carbon from the atmosphere," said Mojtaba Fakhraee, lead researcher of the study and assistant professor of Earth sciences at the University of Connecticut. "There is no way around this point."

In case the one quote didn't convince us, they added a second one. Because, as we all know, The Science™ is always settled when a scientist says something that supports The Narrative™ (especially if it's Dr. Fauci).

"This is just one possible pathway for carbon capture at a significant scale," Fakhraee explained. "The co-benefit for this specific pathway is that it would help with neutralizing the carbon emissions from fish farms resulting in a more sustainable fish industry."

So, let's see:

-invoking the magic 1.5° threshold that's the current benchmark all climate scientists must mention? Check.

-insisting that removing CO2 is the only way to solve climate change? Check.

-implying disastrous consequences if this doesn't happen? Check.

-reminding us that this is "just one possible pathway" so every other ludicrous scheme can also be tried? Check.

-invoking buzz words: "threshold," "removing carbon," "carbon capture," "carbon emissions," "more sustainable?" Check.

-ignoring the possible consequences to the fish farmers, their customers or the fish? Check.

In other words, this was the perfect article to help this group keep their research funds flowing.

That's the ultimate takeaway from this article. Researcher Fakhraee knows how the game is played, and he's playing it very well.

How do I know this? Because I've been there, done that. I remember the late 80's, when everybody in basic medical science was trying to find some way, any way to tie their research to AIDS. Gut mucus? AIDS! Ischemia and reperfusion injury? AIDS! New cancer drugs? AIDS! Serum difungomucktinase levels? AIDS!

Okay, not that last one. 'Difungomucktinase' doesn't really exist. It's an inside joke, the medical equivalent of a snipe hunt.

Everybody was tying their research to AIDS because that's where the money was. If you could make the tie-in sound halfway reasonable, your chances of getting funded went up dramatically. Salaries got paid, supplies and equipment got bought, everybody happy! It was Willie Sutton's Law at its finest!

That some good research got done along the way? Well, that was nice, too.

"Climate change" has been much the same for the last 50+ years. If you can tie your research to it in some way, and load your grants up with the expected buzzwords and phrases, your chances of getting funding go up exponentially.

It's likely this group is doing some good work in aquaculture-I can't say for sure, and I'm not going to pop up there to take a look. Connecticut in February? Thank you, no. I am sure that aquaculture is Big-I Important, and we need more of it-and more funding for good research to make it better-here in Alabama. If the Auburn School of Fisheries, Aquaculture and Aquatic Sciences can use "climate change" to fund real, beneficial research? I'll shrug and go along with it, because I know how the game is played.

Is "anthropogenic climate change" the greenie weenies harp about a real issue? Not at all. It's a complete, total and utter scam-but if you say that, you won't be invited on the cool late night talk shows. You won't be invited to the Georgetown cocktail parties. You'll be accused of being a "climate denier" or of spreading "misinformation." Worst of all, you'll have your funding slashed.

In other words: say what you believe (and what real data and real scientists say) about global cooling...er, global warming...er, CLIMATE CHANGE...and Bad, Sad Things will happen to you.

Yes, the multiple name changes over the years to hide the fact that all those dire predictions never came true should have been your first clue.

This isn't new, and it's not just researchers that have had to play this game. The Kemper coal gasification/carbon capture debacle in Mississippi is just the first example that comes to mind. What started under the Obama regime as a way to generate "clean coal" power using pixie dust, unicorn flatulence and untested, not ready for prime time tech eventually gave Mississippi Power/Southern Company a black eye, embarrassed some Mississippi politicians, and (of course) stuck Mississippians with the bill. Naturally, the Obamoids who pushed the whole thing walked away scott-free.

I'm not saying the Southern Company was pure as the driven snow in that mess-how could they be? Mississippi politics are almost as corrupt as Alabama's. But, when a corporation is driven by an administration that's pushing policies crafted out of ideology, pure fantasy and hopium smoke, what can you expect?

Props where props are due: Southern Company subsidiaries do a really good job at their main mission: making sure the lights come on when the switch is flicked. I'm actually quite fond of reliable electricity, and you should be, too.

I'm cautiously optimistic we'll see less "climate change" verbiage in the future as the new administration starts slashing the Green New Scam funding. It can't happen fast enough to suit me, and I'm sure it won't.

Until that happens, we'll be seeing more of these "INSERT RESEARCH HERE will save us from climate change" articles. When they pop up, remember what's really going on, and why.

In the meantime, go to someplace like RealClimateScience.com and just click around. Look into Cap'n Trade, a massive $10 trillion/year boondoggle we barely avoided during Obama's first term, and the names associated with it (Clinton, Gore, McCain, the Joyce Foundation, CCX and ShoreBank, just to start). Realize that the whole Green New Deal Biden pushed, and AOC still pushes, is just a huge ripoff based on junk science, lies and fudged statistics.

And if your fish entree smells like a boy's sleepover on egg salad day? Send it back, blame climate change, and NEVER serve egg salad sandwiches to young boys!

Read "Scientists propose using fish farms to solve global crisis: 'There is no way around this point'" at https://www.thecooldown.com/green-tech/fish-farm-carbon-capture-iron-sulfide/

As always, I'll reference this up when I post it to my Substack at DocContrarian.Substack.com.

Dr. Bill Chitwood is a retired Child, Adolescent and Family Psychiatrist who does political consulting and media relations. He is the author of Beyond Maga, available on Amazon under his pen name, Doc Contrarian. He can be found on Substack and social media as @DocContrarian.

Opinions expressed in the Alabama Gazette are the opinions and viewpoints of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the Alabama Gazette staff, advertisers, and/or publishers.