Simple Facts Expose The Climate Change Hoax
To believe in the climate change hoax, you must believe 5 (palpably untrue) things:
CO2 is the “control knob” for the climate. This has been proven to be ridiculous. CO2 makes up only about 0.04% of the atmosphere, while 96–99% of the atmosphere is oxygen and nitrogen. Water vapor, a much larger determinant of temperature, varies from 1-4%. But what determines temperature more than anything else? Changes in the Earth’s solar orbit (obviously). NASA has admitted this.
CO2 is harmful. Wrong! CO2 is plant food. Humans inhale oxygen and exhale CO2. Plants do the reverse. It is scientific fact that higher levels of CO2 lead to greater plant growth. This is essential if we are going to continue to be able to feed an increasing world population and one of the reasons why the planet now supports 8 billion humans.
We are at historically high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Again, not true. We are actually at historically low levels of CO2. Before the Industrial Revolution, the seminal starting point for climate hysteria (often cited by climate hysterics), the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was approximately 290 ppm (parts per million). Plant life begins to succumb (it dies) around 150ppm. The amount of CO2 currently in the atmosphere is roughly 420ppm.
But is this historically high? Hardly. During the period of the dinosaurs, cold-blooded reptiles that required warm climates, consumed massive volumes of vegetation, and perished when the earth cooled, CO2 levels were roughly 3600ppm, creating the Jurassic conditions that enabled the dinosaurs to flourish, roaming the earth for millions of years.
Were the dinosaurs driving larger SUVs than Americans now drive? What caused CO2 levels to reach such heights then? It certainly wasn’t humans. It occurred, as it always does and has, due to solar cycles, which NASA has admitted.
Image. Oak Ridge National Lab. Public domain.
As the linked article states,
The data clearly establishes that there has always been a cycle to CO2 long before man’s industrial age. This is data government wants to hide. As along as they can pretend CO2 has never risen in the past before 1950, then they can tax the air and pretend it’s to prevent climate change. Moreover, while we can clean the air with regulation as we have done, under global warming, they allow “credits” to pollute as long as you pay the government. It is the ultimate scam where they get to tax pollution and people cheer rather than clean up anything.
The more accurate way to describe our current CO2 situation is that we are experiencing a CO2 famine that could lead to the disappearance of plant life:
“We’re in a CO2 famine now,” says Princeton Professor Emeritus Dr. William Happer on SkyNews Australia. “More CO2 is good for the world.” pic.twitter.com/cJxIL8IqY8
It’s nonsensical to create government policies based on future hypotheticals about natural processes. Does it make sense that anybody would base policy (and spend money) on predicting what could happen in the future? Are there not infinite possibilities as to what could happen?
The odds of predicting correctly are far worse than winning Powerball. Who in his right mind believes that any person or computer model can predict the future? Anybody that does should be asked if he (or she) is willing to place a meaningful amount of their personal wealth on the line. Furthermore, if somebody really were able to predict the future, would they be predicting the weather, or would they be predicting perhaps stock market and individual equity moves, or perhaps lottery numbers?
The conclusion: Any attempt to predict the future is a guess. Models that are, and have been, wildly inaccurate are not science; they are science fiction. Neither anybody nor anything can predict even next week’s weather accurately due to the millions of atmospheric and stellar variables. This is so obvious that we still must GUESS as to the path and severity of a hurricane—even after it’s formed.
If we can’t even predict the weather, how can we control it? If you still have arrived at a point where you believe that CO2 is the weather control knob, it’s harmful, we’re at historically high levels of it, and that the US government (or any other entity on earth, perhaps maybe the UN) can predict the weather, then how would they go about controlling it?
If the US government could control the weather, then why didn’t it stop Helene (September 26, 2024) or Milton (October 7, 2024) before all that destruction and save FEMA from the bother of having to clean up? Why didn’t the National Weather Service or NASA stop it? Well, it’s because the US government, which can’t even stop illegals at the Southern border, can’t do anything to stop modest changes in atmospheric CO2 levels.
And let’s say at this point that you’re still a “believer.” Do you really even believe that the pathological liars in the US government can control enough of the weather on our side of the planet that it can offset activity in the rest of the world? What if a volcano erupts? What then? And how do you factor into all this the fact that China is building a new coal-fired power plant each week (52 per year)?
“The greatest folly is to believe in the palpably untrue. It is the chief occupation of mankind.” – HL Mencken
Greta Thunderbutt was a Propaganda stooge paid for by the Rothschild family. Its all coming apart.
https://x.com/HellenicVibes/status/1849880146280669313
This is what is being pushed & parts of this was quoted in today’s news.
World Meteorological Organization (WMO)
.
28 October 2024
⚫ CO2 concentrations have increased 11.4 % in just 20 years
⚫ Long lifetime of CO2 in atmosphere locks in future temperature increase
⚫ El Niño and vegetation fires fuel surge in later part of 2023
⚫ Effectiveness of carbon sinks like forests cannot be taken for granted
⚫ Improved understanding of carbon-climate feedbacks is needed
.
……. alarm bells ringing among decision makers.
We are clearly off track to meet the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming to well below 2°C and aiming for 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.
These are more than just statistics.
Every part per million and every fraction of a degree temperature increase has a real impact on our lives and our planet,” said WMO Secretary-General Celeste Saulo.
.
The 2023 increase of CO2 in the atmosphere was higher than that of 2022, …….
.
…… CO2 is the single most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere related to human activities, accounting for approximately 64% of the warming effect on the climate, mainly because of fossil fuel combustion and cement production. …..
.
…… Methane accounts for about 16% of the warming effect of long-lived greenhouse gases.
Approximately 40% of methane is emitted into the atmosphere by natural sources (for example, wetlands and termites), and about 60% comes from anthropogenic sources (for example, ruminants, rice agriculture, fossil fuel exploitation, landfills and biomass burning). …..
.
…… Nitrous Oxide is both a powerful greenhouse gas and ozone depleting chemical.
It accounts for about 6% of the radiative forcing by long-lived greenhouse gases. …..
https://wmo.int/news/media-centre/greenhouse-gas-concentrations-surge-again-new-record-2023
.
This is part of the reinforcing loop feed, that is now deep in the education system, our schools, politics, via well paid academia modellers, amplified by the media.
Such lovely reinforcing graphs, leading to the disturbing concept of tipping points, runaway out of control, need more $money, etc.. 😵💫
This study seems to point out that as far as global warming CO2 response is concerned, the atmosphere is already saturated, and any more CO2 does not have any further effect.
.
October 19th 2024 …… researchers have found evidence suggesting that Earth’s atmosphere may already be saturated with CO2, potentially nullifying the warming effect of future emissions. ……
.
…… challenges the increasingly prevalent narrative that rising atmospheric CO2 levels will lead to catastrophic climate change. ….. ….. suggests that the impact of additional CO2 emissions on global temperatures may be far less significant than commonly portrayed. …..
.
…. ,” introduces the concept of “saturation mass” – the amount of an absorbing gas above which further increases produce negligible additional absorption of radiation. …….
.
…… Critically, the authors note that the current amount of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere is already over 6 kg/m2 – about ten times the saturation mass. This implies that additional CO2 emissions may have little to no further warming effect, as the gas has already absorbed nearly all the infrared radiation it can within its absorption spectrum.. ….
.
….. “Nevertheless, the question arises as to whether the additionally emitted carbon dioxide into the atmosphere will absorb thermal radiation.”
.
Carlson writes: “Hundreds of studies have consistently demonstrated significant improvements in plant growth, crop yields, and drought resistance under elevated CO2 conditions.” He cites research showing that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 increased agricultural yields by an average of 33%. …
.
Furthermore, Carlson points to evidence of global greening in recent decades, with satellite data showing an 8% increase in vegetation cover in Australia from 1981-2006 and increased foliage cover across Earth’s warm, arid environments in proportion to rising CO2 levels.
Some studies attribute 70% of observed greening to the CO2 fertilization effect.
.
The new Polish study adds weight to Carlson’s argument that the prevailing narrative around CO2 and climate change may be overly simplistic and alarmist.
The researchers conclude: “This unequivocally suggests that the officially presented impact of anthropogenic CO2 increase on Earth’s climate is merely a hypothesis rather than a substantiated fact.”
.
While acknowledging the need for responsible environmental stewardship, the study’s authors caution against unsubstantiated arguments that could hinder economic development.
They call for more empirical research to definitively resolve disputed issues in climate science.
.
“In science, especially in the natural sciences, we should strive to present a true picture of reality, primarily through empirical knowledge,” the researchers assert.
.
This study, along with the work of independent thinkers like Randall Carlson, underscores the need for a more nuanced and empirically-grounded approach to understanding CO2’s role in Earth’s complex climate system.
As the scientific debate continues, it’s clear that simplistic narratives about CO2 as an unmitigated environmental threat may not align with the latest research findings.
.
Furthermore, advocates of the prevailing global warming narrative that focuses myopically on carbon dioxide and methane emissions, including Bill Gates, are taking this view to such extremes that recently,
Bill Gates suggested a methane vaccine scheme to ‘fight climate change.
Clearly the thinking has gone in the wrong direction, and we need to have deeper, more open, and more constructive discussions around how anthropogenic climate change is affecting the environment,
e.g. asking questions on how are microplastics and the petroleum industry as a whole polluting our bodies and our environment.
https://greenmedinfo.com/content/saturated-science-new-study-challenges-co2-climate-narrative
.
That Bill Gates is pushing for vaccines into all farmed livestock.
The worst part many of the NZ agrarian scientists & politicians are buying into it and want to engineer genetics in the grasses and animals.
In a few weeks time I will be attending where Jacqueline Rowarth, who I figure does not like the concept of vaxx farm livestock in the manipulations of genetics to reduce so called methane emissions.
.
So much of climate change has been pushed by computer modelling, then academicized, then amplified by the media, to be monetized by politicians and all in the loop.
Is that the same computer modelling that predicted 80,000 people would die unless we all got the jabby?
I bet they haven’t updated their prediction, now so many are adversely affected more and more each day.