Make climate change a priority

easygerd This is about creating and controlling energy use to the benefit of the likes of the Davos crowd, who have their own unfortunately nefarious agenda for the rest of us. Solar and wind presently contribute a tiny percentage of energy needs. Those sources cannot provide the required power for heavy industry, such as, for example, to produce the steel needed to produce windmills and transmission lines, and the mining of lithium or the minerals required for solar. Wind and solar farms, and their associated transmission lines and pipes, are all extremely environmentally unfriendly in their own right.

If the goals of the planned reduction of carbon emissions are to be met it will result in a drastic reduction in our standard of living. We are looking at a future of energy rationing and energy shortages in first world countries as energy becomes very expensive, and this is planned. Most of the world is energy poor and have a much lower quality of life because of it. The likes of the IMF are telling these economically poor - but resource rich -countries that they can t invest in creating affordable plentiful energy sources to bring up their quality of life because of claimed climate goals, which is just a scheme to keep them impoverished.

The premise that higher CO2 will result in particular climate outcomes has not been conclusively determined and are based only on models. Science is the result of repeatable experiments not consensus of politically biased “experts.” They are biased for the simple reason that no alternative other than the prevailing climate dogma if allowed and if they were to deviate from that dogma they would be attacked regardless of scientific merit and could lose their position and income.

https://rumble.com/v51vbdi-escaping-calypsos-island-ep.03-energy-wars.html?e9s=src_v1_upp

Every one of the major oil companies had one of their CEOs trot out in front of the law or lawmakers, confessing under oath that they know climate change is real and that their researchers predicted negative outcome from CO2 already in the 1960s and 1970s.

The planet is heating up as we speak and at one point our air just becomes unbreathable for humans and animals alike. You can test that yourself, by sitting in a small, sealed-off room for a while. Please let us know how your self-test is going. And you should probably have a friend monitoring.

Easygerd The negative eventual outcome of a person in a sealed room is going to be the same regardless of outside CO2 levels. The earth’s atmosphere is not like a sealed room. There are things called plants and when CO2 increases, growth and quantity of plants increase (which is why growers put CO2 emitters in their greenhouses ). The higher growth of plants results in higher oxygen levels being released into the atmosphere. Higher crop yields and higher oxygen levels is something you never hear the climate alarmists talk about.

“The air is going to become unbreathable!” is an example of the type of extreme and deliberate climate alarmism going on. The oligarchs are using this alarmism to push policies that will be used to reduce our (not their) standard of living and control us. It is exactly the same as the covid alarmism that was preplanned by the same elements to get us all to inject into our bodies the gene therapy jabs. Problem/solution.

It is counterintuitive, but the oil industry, namely the Rockerfellers, have been the primary promoters through the UN and other corporate globalist organizations of the climate agenda to push through their policies for global domination by corporations and their Malthusian, Technocratic, anti-human agenda. Maurice Strong was the Canadian billionaire oilman, protege of David Rockerfeller, who was a radical ecologist and founder of the environmental movement. At the Strong-chaired Rio Earth Summit in 1992, the policies were formed that became the basis for public planning documents followed by all major local entities including the City of San Mateo (see: Democrats Against UN Agenda 21). Al Gore is another billionaire oilman, a frontman for Occidental Petroleum.

https://odysee.com/@corbettreport:0/how-big-oil-conquered-the-world:0

https://odysee.com/@corbettreport:0/why-big-oil-conquered-the-world:a

We do agree that currently all the climate "do-gooders" are also "greenwashers" and money makers. The US is a huge marketing company with a large scam department. We don't have to go far, we have Elon Musk and his water polluting company right in the Bay Area. There is absolutely nothing green about the Cybertruck. Any small diesel is way greener than that thing.

But that doesn't mean Global Warming isn't really. And of course the Earth atmosphere is a limited resource - matter is just circulating around. And the amount of plants producing oxygen is going down. The Earth's lungs - like the Amazon or Congo - are eradicated. North American and European forests are burning. So where is your oxygen coming from to counter the fossil fuel industry? From radishes or celery? Certainly not from all the wheat fields, they produce almost nothing. That just creates more methane farting cows.

Fossil fuels have contributed something like 90% of all CO2. And since all fossil fuel companies and their researchers have predicted this since the 1960s and 1970s, you will have a hard time finding real evidence from real scientists that global warming isn't happening. And the speed it is happening by isn't natural either. Things that used to take thousand or even millions of years don't just happen in one decade.

easygerd - the reason SMC has no wind turbines is the lack of sustainable wind. It would not make any sense to set these up in zones where wind speed and volume is sporadic. Just east of us are the wind farms of Altamont and in the Delta close to Rio Vista, there is a huge wind park. That energy is committed to SMUD. One cannot over rely on wind and solar as they are finding out in Western Europe. There are many days without sun and wind. The energy is then generated with standby fossil fueled sources, throwing a monkey wrench in their energy economics. The largest wind turbine generators in the North Sea are now throwing in the towel due to poor economics. You probably have no idea what it is like to be living close to these giant wind turbines. It drives the adjacent residents crazy because of low frequency humming, avian mortality and the destruction of their landscapes. BTW, Green Energy is a myth, only the ignorant believe in its virtues.

For a micro-grid to work, we would need renewable power close by, in the evenings and at night when California isn't so golden. Smaller turbines require wind speeds between 6-11mph or 3-5m/s. Anybody living along the coast or the bay knows that kind of wind comes in the afternoon on a fairly regular basis and is there when it's most needed during the hours between 4pm and 9pm.

In the sections going uphill or on top of the Santa Cruz mountain ranges there are plenty of location suitable and accessible.

Small farmers could make money becoming wind farmers like they do in Kansas, Texas, South Dakota. That could start tomorrow. In California however they want to create untested, off-shore wind farms that are 10x more expensive to built and even harder to service and maintain and will take another 10 years to be grid-ready.

Small farmers and small businesses would benefit from small on-shore wind turbines and residential solar installations. But here is where JCar's conspiracy theories are correct. CA only pushes projects like large wind farms and large solar farms that benefit only a few big companies with non-union jobs, PG&E and whoever sits on the board of C-PUC. While others like Peninsula Clean Energy, C/CAG and apparently Dirk can help with the "greenwashing" by stealing wind from old wind farms in Kern County or old hydro dams in Shasta - that's exactly the climate hogwash JCar is talking about.

easygerd -I couldn’t find any verification of the claim that rising CO2 will lead to breathing issues. Even the climate alarmists are not saying that.

You might add to the amount of plants going down: paving over millions of acres of farmlands and forests to build toxic non renewable solar panel and wind farms and associated dangerous transmission lines and pipes. Due to their low capacity factor, the number of solar and wind farms has to be multiplied multiple times in order to get close to find equivalence to non-renewables, but even then they are totally dependent on non renewable sources. It was estimated at COP26 that it would take an investment of 100 trillion dollars and 30 years to reach a “clean energy” future. Yet they are already taking down non-renewable sources in the EU and U.S!

Hellyeah it is one big boondoggle. But more than that it is about pushing through policies that the globalists want in order to control the world and reduce the human population-which they have been trying to do for hundreds of years. One of the ways you can tell the climate hysteria is fake is that -while climate science is far from settled - they are pushing these policies hard while other known dire environmental issues are ignored: drastic insect population decline due to agrochemicals, toxic and dangerous plastic chemical pollution especially pthalates, and the unconstrained threat of nuclear annihilation. Another way you can tell it is fake is no mention is ever made about reining in the biggest contributor to manmade CO2: the ever expanding US military and the destructive wars it promotes (which cause military spending by other nations to increase). You can be sure that the biggest reining in will be of us - the real source of carbon they want to get rid of.

JCar - have you done the closed-room experiment? Read up on all the material available about the Biosphere and long-term space travel. Just because the Planet is too vast for normal people to comprehend, physics, biology and chemistry do know better. If plants could counter CO2 production sufficiently - as you stated - then we wouldn't have global warming and the measurable CO2 levels in the atmosphere would be stable. They are not, they have been going up fast since we started burning fossil fuels with the start of the industrial revolution.

I agree with Dirk that there is no such thing as "green energy", but these guys lie even more with monikers like "Clean Coal", "Clean Diesel", "Natural Gas", "Organic Gas", ...

Without even checking, I guess the most subsidized industry sectors over the last 20 years in America are most likely farming, oil, and the automobile sector (EV and ICE). Farming subsidies have a point, the others are too cheap and therefore wasteful.

Martin Luther (not the King) rebelled against what the catholic church called "indulgence", where your sins are forgiven if you just paid enough money to The Church. Basically you bribed god, these "philanthropists" have committed a lot of sins to get where they are (e.g. Henry Ford, Rockefellers, Bill Gates), now they want to buy good karma.

If I ever find a really "green" politician or a "Philanthropist" with clean hands in America, I will tell you first. The name of the real game is "Astroturfing".

Climate science is complicated and it is hard to get a definitive conclusion. A reason is because the amount of manmade CO2 is small in comparison to the overall amount of total gases in the biosphere. Natural global CO2 output is around 750 gigatons a year, while manmade is around 30 gigatons. But CO2 is only .04% of the total of all other atmospheric gases. The claim that our CO2 output will lead to higher temps is challenged. (For one, a lot of the old data is questionable and only a small amount of the earth surface has any old temperature data.)

I would not automatically trust “the experts” as presented by the establishment as you appear to. Again, during the covid plandemic, almost every assertion of the officially sanctoned experts were either false or were outright lies. The big issue is that the “science” is heavily politicized and there’s large amounts of money being thrown around by the government and the private sector on only one side and critics are demonized and called names. Anytime you have that unfair situation with so called scientists acting like children, then doubts and questiong should set in, not unconditional support. Just because an expert comes from a big university doesn t automatically grant respect. Some of the worst corruption goes on at big universities. Those who come out of them and are deemed experts may have blind acceptance of certain dogma. During the Eugenics movement period in the there was widespread acceptance and teaching in academia of the pseudo science that condoned sterilization of the “genetically unfit.”

If you buy something on Amazon don’t you read the negative reviews before buying? Shouldn’t you do the same when you buy an idea like the Climate narrative? That is how real science works: debate and skepticism. Not dogma and silencing those who disagree.

A way to add sink is to plant more trees. Rather than polluting and killing large portions of the earth with solar panels and windmills that lower the quality of life, we should do something like China did when they reforested a desert area the size of France.

I never stated plants counter anything, maybe they do. I said plants produce more oxygen when their growth increases, as happens when CO2 rises -a biological fact.

All natural CO2 emissions and carbon sinking changed once

A) mankind started to release fossil fuels from the ground and started to burn it

B) mankind removed huge amounts of trees and grasslands and organic soil and replaced it with real deserts and deserts of concrete and asphalt.

Now the balance is off and - as predicted in the 1970s and by the oil industry researchers - we have sea level rising, pandemics, weird weather, huge amount of animal extinctions, and every year now is the hottest on record. All this has been changing way too fast to be all natural. Nature works slower.

The Earth's balance is off since the 1800s and the Industrial Revolution and driving a Tesla Cybertruck in 2024 won't fix that.

I know where you are coming from. I thought that way before. Even if what you say is 100% true -that the earth will boil over in a few decades and the environment will collapse -what the climate hysteria preaches through the corporate media - it doesn’t change the fact that the corporations and oligarchs alleged plans of actions are a big corrupt boondoggle, meant to get them more power, wealth, and control, which you appear to agree with.

Taking the example of wind and solar, we can see that the plans of building millions of acres of farms in the middle of the country is at least as environmentally destructive as using non-renewable sources, upon which wind and solar are completely dependent. they will not be scalable for decades.

I know where you are coming from. I thought that way before. Even if what you say is 100% true -that the earth will boil over in a few decades and the environment will collapse -what the climate hysteria preaches through the corporate media - it doesn’t change the fact that the corporations and oligarchs alleged plans of actions are anything but a big corrupt boondoggle, meant to get them more power, wealth, and control, which you appear to agree with.

Taking the example of wind and solar, we can see that the plans of building millions of acres of farms in the middle of the country is at least as environmentally destructive as using non-renewable sources, upon which wind and solar are completely dependent. they will not be scalable for decades.

The main focus is to lower everyone’s carbon footprint and standard of living drastically so that we are all living in high rises in dense 15 minute smart cities, eating bugs, owning nothing and being happy under totalitarian surveillance and censorship, which has already started.

CO2 rise never precedes a rise in temperature, but comes after temperature rise by several centuries. Many temperature readings are compromised and are caused by increase in urbanization around the gauges. If you look at gauges just in rural areas the rise is close to nonexistent. It as warm as today around the 1930’s - after which temperature dropped and then gradually rose again, which contradicts the climate model.

Most variations in temperature are more likely due to solar activity not climate.

What ocean rise has there been? If you look at a tide tables today it is the same as 75 years ago. Weather can always be weird. Proves nothing. There is no tmore hurricanes today as there were in the past. The biggest cause of pandemics these days is the miliary, with their gain of function research in hundreds of biowarfare labs.

The bottom line is there is no “climate emergency.” It is just a hoax used to usher in a new world order implemented under control of an international government.

I don’t get my science from the corporate media and Hollywood -which are controlled by those pushing the agenda. I have found in my over 50 years: what ever they say, reality is usually is the opposite.

The main focus is to lower everyone’s carbon footprint drastically so that we are all living in high rises in dense 15 minute smart cities, eating bugs, owning nothing and being happy under totalitarian survellance and censorship.

CO2 rise never precedes a rise in temperature, but comes after temperature rise by several centuries. Many temperature readings are compromised and are caused by increase in urbanization around the gauges. If you look at gauges just in rural areas the rise is close to nonexistent. It was at least as warm today as it was around the 1930’s - after which temperature dropped and then gradually rose again, which contradicts the climate model.

Most variations in temperature are more likely due to solar activity not climate.

What ocean rise has there been? If you look at a tide tables today it is the same as 75 years ago. Weather can always be weird. Proves nothing. There is no tmore hurricanes today as there were in the past. The biggest cause of pandemics these days is the miliary, with their gain of function research in hundreds of biowarfare labs.

The bottom line is there is no “climate emergency.” It is just a hoax used to usher in a new world order implemented under control of an international government.

I don’t get my science from the corporate media and Hollywood -which are controlled by those pushing the agenda. I have found in my over 50 years: what ever they say, reality is usually is the opposite.

Laura, are you out there? Come on, JCar has posed a wonderful question and your follow up is needed.