Open your history books folks, it is about to get interesting
And before anyone pro-climate change can invoke a personal attack as a reason to ignore the evidence:
I'm what you'd call a classical environmentalist, long before the CO2 scapegoat of nonsense was introduced to distract from things like pesticide run-offs, GMO Roundup harming the environment and oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico. I despise Shell's actions in Nigeria where oil spills destroy the local ecology.
I'm even critical of nuclear power (here's why: https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/p/is-nuclear-power-really-the-solution) and the chemical toxicity of solar panels from mining [admittedly paid, but I write this as someone who uses solar panels and this is entirely transparent] (see: https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/p/hired-to-investigate-solar-panels).
I actually support renewable energy (did so long before 'climate change' reared its ugly head) - in the context of decentralised power sources on people's homes (not those giant farms that cover beautiful green fields). I despise the use of cobalt from child slave mining in electronics, and purchase second hand and repurpose old tech where I can.
In terms of oil usage, I essentially forged hybrid-remote working in 2019 as a viable means, given most people waste up to 4 hours a day commuting (meaning, even if your employee slacked off at home for 2 hours a day, they were still more productive). Being stuck in traffic is not fun.
That said, vehicles are very, very important for working class' people's economic mobility. It permits them to travel further afield to find new work and jobs, and allows them to arrive at times and hours bus and train services don't run or don't go to. I tried to use public transport but in economic deadbeat areas it is wholly unviable (due to how time consuming, slow and unreliable it is) and *very expensive* (given the number of trips involved).
A train season ticket, considered "cheap" goes for ~£4,000 in the UK. You can operate a car for less than ~£1,000 (no, the answer isn't to make cars more expensive). You could compensate for an entire countries' car fuel usage by taking private jets out of service, and compensate for entire continents' worth of cars by dealing with large ships and optimising those. The majority of CO2 emissions (if you still buy into that lie) are created by the 0.1%. Prohibiting clothes is utter nonsense.
If I was rich I would convert a home to off-grid, entirely renewable living solely so I could be independent of the government. Any pro-working class, pro-environmentalist would find this acceptable. But the government doesn't want that; they want to take your food, your clothes and your car, like the Terminator.
This is very well done, providing plenty of sources if the critic is interested to read (they won’t be, because they’re very afraid that you’re telling the truth).
If you show the person caught in the narrative that they’ve been lied to, their world will collapse.
Everything they thought they knew is a lie. Those they trusted are murderous crooks and psychopaths. Few people can handle this transition from believing the comforting lies to realising that we don’t know much for sure at all.
The priests of Scientism will obtain their goals whether you like it or not: absolute power and control. Rockefeller invented the term "fossil fuels" to imply scarcity and finite resources. Long chain hydrocarbons cannot be formed naturally in the mantle and crust, it's ancient sea life deposits...
Bjorn Lomborg actually develops a great model explaining the interaction of cosmic rays, solar irradiance, and cloud formation and cannot get funding to fully explore it. Make a fudged hockey stick graph conveniently starting at the end of the Little Ice Age and you get tenure and funds rain from Heaven.
IMO all "climate change" supporters should be made to live in their own country and live under their own policies while the rest of us move on.
It may be that they need the "climate change" hoax as a coverup to keep chemtrailing all sorts of poisons upon us. As their plan unveils, its intricacies, connexions, calculated effects and side-effects become more visible even to the most unable to leave their imaginary "safety bubble" of compliance.
- CO2 percentage in atmosphere = 0.04% (400 parts per million, in cities) out of which all humans create 3%.
(0.0012% from the total CO2 released in the atmosphere).
- "We try to keep CO2 levels in our U.S. Navy submarines no higher than 8,000 parts per million, about 20 time current atmospheric levels. Few adverse effects are observed at even higher levels". – Senate testimony of Dr. William Happer.
- “Data collected on nine nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines indicate an average CO2 concentration of 3,500 ppm with a range of 0-10,600 ppm, and data collected on 10 nuclear-powered attack submarines indicate an average CO2 concentration of 4,100 ppm with a range of 300-11,300 ppm" (Hagar 2003). – page 46.
- Commercial greenhouse nurseries use a level of 1 200ppm CO2 as this brings on plants quicker, healthier and bigger, need less water and fertiliser.
- Trace CO2 is put into medical oxygen as it stimulates respiration via CO2 receptors in the lungs which triggers muscle action to move the chest and expand/contract the lungs. Medical gas or air without C02 would be fatal, we would stop breathing.
- Those who call CO2 a pollutant and ‘killing the planet’ might want to consider that.
- There's obviously no "CO2 problem" anywhere. Just an enormous thirst for power.
Ian Plimer is a good source of information on the truths of the climate.
Many years ago, I was a 1st year geology student and had him give his now infamous lectures. At the time, we had 2nd year Natural Resources Degree students (a type of Environmental Science degree) also as part of the 1st year Geology course - they jad to understand rocks to understand soil.
Anyways, he put forth the same details you have, as well as some more interesting details on Solar Cylcles and Sea Level Rises (the best Mineral Sands - historical beach erosion deposits are found at 120m above sea level).
I distinctly remember the Nat Res students getting angry and vocal, asking questions and generally being snowflake style upset.
While we geology students sat in stunned silence at the anger around us.
It was, and always will be, a scam.
But it suckered in many, who it became a sort of religion, or a reality.
Nitrogen does form the vast majority of the earth's atmosphere, but almost certainly not in the chemical form you wrote: nitrous oxide. Nitrous oxide is also known as "laughing gas." We'd all be perpetually zoned out, incapacitated, or unconscious, if our atmosphere consisted mostly of nitrous oxide. Breathing air with an 80% concentration of laughing gas might well be lethal.
The phrase sticks in my craw. Once you “use” energy, i.e. do work with it, it is dispersed. Perhaps if your energy “use” heated something up you could use the residual heat to warm a cup of tea. Energy however can not be “reused” or renewed
Mitochondria however are interesting; Cellular energy use strips a phosphorus from an ATP molecule resulting in ADP + energy/work. The mitochondria uses acid+oxygen to spin a turbine mechanically attaching a phosphorous back onto an ADP molecule. So in this example we see the waste products of fuel “use” can be recycled to make more fuel (ATP is fuel, ADP is the waste product of converting the fuel to work. ). The difficult part is neutralizing the free oxygen ‘radical’ left over from the acid oxygenation in the ADP turbine - melatonin molecules are used to buffer this.
Energy is not, is never renewable. We are doing work by moving from a higher energy state to a lower one.
Then there is the breeder reactor thorium cycle where thorium is converted to plutonium and the Pu is split to convert more thorium into Plutonium and ...
an actual renewable fuel cycle. Lets do this instead. 💡