There are a few things in modern times that have fooled the majority of citizens in our nation. All of them have led to you having less power, freedom and money than you had before it happened. JFK's assassination, the bank bailouts, Covid, etc. The climate crisis lie is number one, hands down, as the biggest scam of all time. The entire planet has been hoodwinked, mostly in the West, but all over. The reason it is so successful of a lie is that it is plausible. Even people I know who are conservative, like to point out the changes in the severity of winters from when we were kids and the heat in the summer. Yes, it is different, but not thanks to human carbon usage. After years of failure in proving their case, in the absence of real proof and the narrative completely falling apart, suddenly the science was settled. Hijacked by the climate alarmists and their advocates in the Democrat Party, it was now time to cancel and destroy the naysayers. Many Republican politicians have caved in too and people on the fringe, like me, are called deniers and all kinds of other names. It's taught in schools everywhere and is now talked about only as a foregone conclusion. It is really hard to get the word out about the actual data in the face of a 24 hour, 365 day onslaught. Try watching any documentary on the planet and all the scientists studying the ecosystem talk ad nauseum about climate change. The glaciers are melting, the seas are rising, the oceans warming and the poor polar bears are drowning. Some of those claims are currently accurate and some are not. More on that later.
When I find contrary evidence to all of this garbage, I put it out there. There are a few scientists who refuse to follow the narrative and instead, follow the science. It is like pissing in the wind, but like any story on corruption, if you just follow the money, you will find the truth. The fact that the bureaucrats in the UN have been caught dozens and dozens of times saying the quiet part out loud, speaks very loudly to my ears. To them, they know the science doesn't prove their case, but they are in lockstep that a climate crisis is the best way to redistribute the wealth of the West to everywhere else. The scientists not following the science are all banking on their grants to continue their work and all the work is funded by notorious climate cultists. Which side of the argument has had their scientists caught cheating with the numbers or placing instruments to collect temperature data next to heat exchangers on air conditioners all over the planet? Just one side. Which side has had their science debunked hundreds of times? Just one side. Who has benefited to the tune of billions of dollars on scams like carbon credits? Just one side. Virtually all the carbon being emitted today is done by China and India. Look it up. They will never cut their carbon footprint back and guess who is ok with that? The UN and Democrat Party. That monstrous fraud, John Kerry, flies around in a private jet, polluting more than a small city to plot our destruction with UN suckholes and lies that he is twisting arms in China and India to cut their emissions, but it's jut not true. China knows, as do the rest of us, that they just need to hold out a little longer until we collapse after ruining our future to be green, while they become so wealthy and powerful that the world is there's.
The science has never proven that we are alone in altering the planet's climate. They claim the science is settled and that is why you should never believe them. Their science cannot be proven every time, over and over, which is the definition of science. It's only proven with their data in their carefully crafted circumstances. Even I believe just by the fact we are on the planet, that humans contribute to an increase in carbon. However, they cannot prove that carbon is even the real culprit. One thing that has been proven in all science is that the universe can be explained by mathematics. Everything is math. Math is everywhere in the fabric of the universe and mathematics is the same now as it has always been. When in doubt, go to the math. I will attach the link to the article I found today that makes the case, but I will also post the main context of the article so you don't have to. I would read it, if I was you, because if you're a climate cultist, you'll want proof and in the face of facts, you won't believe it anyways. You might be part of the problem, really.
Here's the premise, let's say that the United States was willing to spend trillions and trillions of dollars, destroy all citizens standard of living, destroy our national security and beg our enemies to take us over, just so we could be a net zero carbon emitter. This is what Democrats are planning with their adherence to the UN Climate Accords and the Green New Deal. Let's say we did it and sacrificed our future. How much difference would it make to the planet?
Here's the math, according to three MIT, Princeton and York University scientists. Richard Lindzen, William Happer and W. A. van Wijngaarden, respectively. Their credentials are impeccable and are three of the top scientists in the world. Go ahead and look them up.
Using feedback-free estimates of the warming by increased atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and observed rates of increase, we estimate that if the United States (U.S.) eliminated net CO2 emissions by the year 2050, this would avert a warming of 0.0084 ◦C (0.015 ◦F), which is below our ability to accurately measure. If the entire world forced net zero CO2 emissions by the year 2050, a warming of only 0.070 ◦C (0.13 ◦F) would be averted. If one assumes that the warming is a factor of 4 larger because of positive feedbacks, as asserted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the warming averted by a net zero U.S. policy would still be very small, 0.034 ◦C (0.061 ◦F). For worldwide net zero emissions by 2050 and the 4-times larger IPCC climate sensitivity, the averted warming would be 0.28 ◦C (0.50 ◦F).
See the link for the mathematics. One important factor is that CO2 is relatively saturated in the atmosphere. Each incremental addition of CO2 adds less and less warming:
The proportionality of the temperature increment ∆T to the logarithm of the concentration ratio C/C0 means that the warming from increased CO2 concentrations C is “saturated.” That is, each increment dC of CO2 concentration causes less warming than the previous equal increment. Greenhouse warming from CO2 is subject to the law of diminishing returns.
Dr. Happer has commented on the paper:
“This is something anybody with a calculator can figure out,” said [Dr. Happer], who may be best known for his contribution to a laser-based technology for destroying incoming ballistic missiles as part of the so-called Star Wars program of the 1980s.
***
Noting that others using different approaches have come to conclusions similar to the paper’s, Dr. Happer said he and his coauthors wanted to show that the controversial subject of climate change need not be complicated.
“More members of the public should understand that they are being victimized by false information disseminated by those whose interests have more to do with money and power than with environmental concerns,” he said. “Answers found in relatively simple mathematics strongly suggest this to be the case.”
Boom! Suck on that. The amount of carbon in the atmosphere is .04%. Humans have contributed just 3% of the .04%. That's virtually nothing. If that level of carbon fell to .02%, all plant life on the planet would die. Think about that. We're closer to killing the planet with the cure than killing it with the supposed cause. In recent months two rather interesting factoids have come out that also blow up the climate narrative. One, is that we, the human race, has never pulled more water out of the planet than we currently are. There is a study showing that this may actually be a direct cause of a warming planet. A similar story appeared in 2021, which squarely put the blame in global warming, despite providing zero proof. This new story doesn't mention global warming at all. Instead, it actually used science to discover why the earth's polar drift has increased recently. The earth wobbles on its axis and has forever, but since we've been studying it, the drift has increased. Satellite data has gotten so precise that we can measure in millimeters now.
Clark R. Wilson, a geophysicist at the University of Texas at Austin, and his colleagues thought the removal of tens of gigatons of groundwater each year might affect the drift. But they knew it could not be the only factor. “There’s a lot of pieces that go into the final budget for causing polar drift,” Wilson says.
The scientists built a model of the polar wander, accounting for factors such as reservoirs filling because of new dams and ice sheets melting, to see how well they explained the polar movements observed between 1993 and 2010. During that time, satellite measurements were precise enough to detect a shift in the poles as small as a few millimeters.
Dams and ice changes were not enough to match the observed polar motion. But when the researchers also put in 2150 gigatons of groundwater that hydrologic models estimate were pumped between 1993 and 2010, the predicted polar motion aligned much more closely with observations. Wilson and his colleagues conclude that the redistribution of that water weight to the world’s oceans has caused Earth’s poles to shift nearly 80 centimeters during that time. In fact, groundwater removal appears to have played a bigger role in that period than the release of meltwater from ice in either Greenland or Antarctica, the scientists reported Thursday in Geophysical Research Letters. The change in the tilt of the earth may actually then cause warming where it may not have happened otherwise through the loss of ground water, possibly changing the degree the sun hits polar regions and changing the climate slightly in most regions of the earth. CO2 plays zero role in any of that.
Another very interesting fact is that the most common greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is actually water vapor. It is so prevalent and such a good insulator that almost all warming seen in earth is actually attributed to it and not CO2.
We can thank water vapor for about half of the “greenhouse effect” keeping heat from the sun inside our atmosphere.1 “It’s the most important greenhouse gas in our climate system, because of its relatively high concentrations,” says Kerry Emanuel, professor emeritus of atmospheric science at MIT. “It can vary from almost nothing to as much as 3% of a volume of air.”
Compare that to CO2, which today makes up about 420 parts per million of our atmosphere—0.04%—and you can see immediately why water vapor is such a linchpin of our climate system. The reason water doesn't get the blame is because it is an enabler and instead of remaining a gas, like CO2, it falls back to earth as rain or snow or evaporates. However, if you combine the amount of water pulled from the earth and the amount put in the atmosphere you can see that the answer is probably right in front of our face and doesn't include destroying our standard of living by cutting CO2 levels.
Also, there has been a long time study of some 13,000 islands on the planet. Using satellite photos, in an attempt to show rising sea levels are causing a loss of shoreline, it has been discovered that virtually no shoreline has been lost at all. An amount of land equivalent to the Isle of Wight has been added to the shorelines of 13,000 islands around the world in just the last 20 years. This has blown a hole in the mass hysteria of climate cultists that have predicted the end to ocean front cities and island countries due to sea level increases from melting ice caps. A simple explanation for the loss of some shoreline would be everyday erosion, but many factors, including human activities like land reclamation and volcanic activity or even coral reef exploitation effect shorelines more than sea levels. When science is applied, fears are erased and level heads prevail. However, the fact you've probably never heard any of this is because your news is censored. These things don't fit the narrative you've been sold and an educated populace is a very dangerous one. I'm not a climate denier, in the sense that I disregard everything we are told about the environment. I'm a healthy skeptic and the more you read, the more you will be convinced you're being lied to. The agenda is so massive now that it may be unstoppable, but the cost will be unbearable. Very few people are benefitting from the cult, but one thing is for certain. Our enemies are benefitting greatly and our demise at the hands of this lie are obvious. A bunch of socialists are getting filthy rich, while America's wealth and national security are being stripped away. China owns all the rare earth minerals and every time an EV is built and a coal plant shut down, another pillar of freedom is lost.
https://www.science.org/content/article/humanity-s-groundwater-pumping-has-altered-earth-s-tilt
Here's one of my favorite studies I stumbled upon and it really proves the point that so often the climate cultists actions have detrimental impacts on the earth. When the proof is given, they just double down and disregard the facts. Like petulant children. This comes from scientists at Harvard and was published in the academic journal, Joule.
According to the study, wind turbines measuring between 100 and 150 meters (328ft to 498 ft) operating at night can pull down warmer air from as far as 1,640 feet in the air down to the surface, warming the surface of the earth, where it would impact the people, plants, and animals living near the turbines.
The study looks at what would happen if the United States tried to obtain all of its energy from wind turbines. It found the mixing of warmer air and cooler air results in a temperature increase of 0.54 degrees Celsius (0.97 degrees F) in the areas where the wind turbines would be located, as you can see in the figure below from the study. The amount of warming experienced in some regions would be even greater, as Southwestern Minnesota could see a temperature increase of 0.6-0.8 degrees C due to wind turbines, while Northeastern Minnesota would see an increase of 0.3-0.5 degrees C. I've always hated wind turbines. Terrible eye soars, bird killers and not efficient in any way, here is another reason to despise them. Yes, the impact is local, but talk about unintended consequences.
So, if you pay attention to the news, you will see nothing but stories on the damage climate change is doing to the planet. You're scared every time you watch the news or any show on the environment in believing that the glaciers are melting, sea ice is melting, seas are warming and we are at the point of no return. Of course, the hype doesn't match the truth of it all. Yes, we have seen glaciers retreating in places, pack ice breaking up early and a spot or two in the ocean where the temperature has risen slightly. You would also never know if any of that is true or not. You're too busy with your life to pay attention to details like that. I usually try twice a year to check on pack ice coverage at both polls. Winter in the arctic is different than winter where I live, so checking it at the wrong time will be useless information. Guess what? Pack ice has expanded every year since I started looking. We also know that throughout history glaciers expand and recede. Humans play no role in that. Greenland has been covered in ice since any of us were born, but it's called Greenland for a reason. It was green at some point. There are very old maps of the world that show Greenland ice free. I'm confident that if glaciers recede we will discover some very interesting findings that will expand our knowledge of ancient earth. I'm not afraid at all that the glaciers will never return. The truth is that we know less than the morons that say the science is settled will admit. There are tons of factors that go into global temperatures and with carbon at just .04% in the atmosphere, an all-time low by the way, human activity is not even on the list of things that effect the temperature. Again, human activity is a factor, and cutting our carbon output was a good thing, to a point, but forcing our country into unrealistic and dangerous levels has affected our ability to maintain its leadership. We've already shifted some of our power to China and as all energy prices rise and access to that power becomes strained, we are hurting ourselves immensely.
I'll leave you with this. We have entered into Solar Cycle 25 back in 2019. Solar cycles of the sun are generally considered to be in 11 year increments, though only cycle 24 was actually 11 years in duration. One of the main things that we track during solar cycles is sun spots. There is a direct correlation to sun spot activity and temperatures on earth. It also effects our magnetic field. In cycles of low sun spot activity, global temperatures have been less, in fact, from 1645 to 1715, during a cycle called the Maunder minimum, there was almost no sun spot activity. Temperatures were at their coldest during this time and at that time we were in the middle of the Little Ice Age, which went from 1500 to 1850. The Thames River froze over and the Vikings had to abandon their settlements in Greenland as a result. Since almost everything is censored, those that control the data set the rules and they would like you to know that just because solar activity was less during that time, doesn't mean it directly effects global temperatures. Really? Cycle 25 has been one of major sun spot activity, with this cycle already having a 37% increase from Cycle 24. It is the reason why summer temperatures have been unusually hot. It has nothing to do with carbon output. Year Five, which we are in, runs from December 2023 to November 2024. It has had 72% more sun spots than in the corresponding year of Cycle 24. No one tells you this shit because it doesn't fit the narrative. Sciencealert.com stated;
Case in point: according to official predictions, the current cycle of solar activity should be mild. But the gap between the prediction and what's actually happening is pretty significant – and it's getting wider. Sunspot counts, used as a measure for solar activity, are way higher than the predicted values calculated by the NOAA, NASA, and the International Space Environmental Service.
In fact, sunspot counts have been consistently higher than predicted levels since September 2020. This could mean that, in contrast to predictions, the Sun is in the swing of an unusually strong activity cycle.
Unusually high solar activity, coupled with the pulling of massive amounts of water from the planet, coupled with large amounts of water vapor in the atmosphere, coupled with mathematics that prove there is no benefit to going to net zero. No benefit. Carbon output has nothing to do with it, yet we are asked to sacrifice our future for what? I will not give up my life style, nor should you, until it is proven over and over and over that my gasoline powered car is causing the planet's death, and we have a cheaper, more efficient fuel. The alternatives already exist, but they aren't electric, solar or wind. On a large scale, all those were designed to fail. Wasting our country's money on useless sources of power is by design. The sooner we redistribute our wealth to China, the sooner America dies and with it any hope of the liberty we were promised. To do this, they must hate this country to its core, and they do. It's proven on a daily basis. It's why Kamala Harris has proposed Soviet-style price controls instead of capitalistic answers to our economic problems. It's why our sovereignty has been destroyed by letting in 10's of millions of illegals. It's why we have bled our military down and sent most of our weapons to Ukraine and Israel. All of this makes us weaker as does pushing global warming energy policies all while scaring us into believing the earth has a fever. It doesn't.
Add comment
Comments