The climate change narrative assumes without real evidence, that carbon in the atmosphere is the problem. Climates are cyclical and change happens due to many complex and interactive systems both on the earth and in our solar system. Reducing climate to a few gases is naive and unscientific.
All fine and good, John, except I disagree with the entire premise that CO2 needs to be captured/sequestered. The climatistas' artificial computer models have yet to show any correlation between CO2 levels and climate/temperature. But there is plenty of past geological data showing the opposite, which their computer models have likewise failed to reproduce, much less future conditions -- as 50 years of failed predictions have shown: https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/
They assume what inputs are relevant and in what proportion. They neglect to admit there are hundreds, possibly thousands, of potential climate factors, including planetary alignments and gravitational pull, submarine volcanic activity, etc. Cyclical solar activity is routinely ignored or downplayed, and no one is talking about the documented/patented geo-engineering operations being conducted by DOD and corporate entities: https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/
I will begin to take "climate change" seriously when the people pushing it abide by their own pronouncements they seek to impose upon everyone else -- voluntarily forego their jets, limos, wealth and property, own nothing, eat bugs, and be happy...including all those with conflicts of interest such as windmill and solar panel manufacturers/installers/owners who have profited on taxpayer subsidies. Their inventions are inserting toxic heavy metals into our prime ag soils and mountain tops with no regard for safe disposal, especially given their limited lifespan. https://www.americanexperiment.org/solar-panels-are-starting-to-die-what-will-we-do-with-the-megatons-of-toxic-trash/
These pushers are not environmentalists; they are liars and tyrants. Prove me wrong.
I don't disagree, except that 1) much like communists, many climate cultists actually believe that what they embrace is good. There are those who know it is a scam, but many sincerely believe they are doing good. and 2) we are losing topsoil at alarming rates, especially from farmland. This is in large part due to plowing, which churns up the soil and releases carbon dioxide that is crucial to microbial health, and ultimately, plant growth. Sequestration of carbon dioxide for THIS purpose makes sense -- regardless of climate change. It's a win-win.
True that plant growth requires CO2 in the soil, but without an adequate level of CO2 in the atmosphere, they will wither on the vine and/or die before maturity. Greenhouse growers routinely introduce much higher levels of CO2 into their greenhouses to speed up and maximize growth.
Greenhouse Carbon Dioxide Supplementation - Oklahoma State University ...
The carbon dioxide level may drop to 150 to 200 parts per million during the day in a sealed greenhouse, because CO2 is utilized by plants for photosynthesis during daytime. Exposure of plants to lower levels of CO2 even for a short period can reduce rate of photosynthesis and plant growth.
Our politicians and their puppet masters seek to get us to NET ZERO, which is a clever way to signal their desire to cancel out human input, as though some of us have no right to exist in the natural world. The fact that they have to invent a carbon "credit" scheme to demonstrate their virtue while having no real world impact on climate proves it cannot be done.
I totally agree with the initial premise of your article that going no-till/grass fed with all livestock is the best and most natural route. Our family farm of 8 generations has weathered the various trends in agriculture, but I can testify that our sustainability and profitability has significantly improved since we adopted organic 10 years ago and 100 percent grass fed 5 years ago.
Whatever happened to PETA? Whatever happened to free choice?
The irony applies broadly here: replace an existing resource, such as farming, energy production, livestock, etc., and replace that resource with a "green" new "hot" deal. (Note that "green" is also defined as novel, or untested.)
Example: what idiocy supports a narrative that involves killing (literally or figuratively) an existing resource, only to replace it with a not yet existing "hopium" resource? Kind of like mandating an unproven vaccine while simultaneously trying to hide any data for 75 years.
Such as energy. What the heck is the plan for all the manufactured junk that will be generated when the green new junk has been forced on the populace? "A junk yard for everyone"? I thought we were supposed to care about our beloved earth? Why do the green pushers never comment on the brutal rape of the earth committed from the harvesting and production of these green resources?. We know why.
In what realm is killing a living creature for the carbon demerits the controlling narrative? At what point does this same carbon law affect pets, or even humans?
"Kind of like mandating an unproven vaccine while simultaneously trying to hide any data for 75 years." Yes!
And also, that green gadgetry will not wait for the junkyard to pollute. Solar panels are manufactured by burning coal, and they generate huge amounts of water and air pollution long before they are shipped to virtue-signaling Americans who embrace a false notion that they have done anything at all. It is a cult, plain and simple. Thanks for commenting!
I'll give these climate warriors some credit - they are persistent, if nothing else. Even when failing *every single damn time* in their attempts to outsmart Mother Nature, they persist with their delusion. Remarkable!
It's time for a mechanical cow. RoboBetsy produces delicious grass-patties, NEVER farts and only needs its batteries and solar panels replaced every 3 years. A carbon-sequestration miracle of modern science.
The climate change narrative assumes without real evidence, that carbon in the atmosphere is the problem. Climates are cyclical and change happens due to many complex and interactive systems both on the earth and in our solar system. Reducing climate to a few gases is naive and unscientific.
All fine and good, John, except I disagree with the entire premise that CO2 needs to be captured/sequestered. The climatistas' artificial computer models have yet to show any correlation between CO2 levels and climate/temperature. But there is plenty of past geological data showing the opposite, which their computer models have likewise failed to reproduce, much less future conditions -- as 50 years of failed predictions have shown: https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/
They assume what inputs are relevant and in what proportion. They neglect to admit there are hundreds, possibly thousands, of potential climate factors, including planetary alignments and gravitational pull, submarine volcanic activity, etc. Cyclical solar activity is routinely ignored or downplayed, and no one is talking about the documented/patented geo-engineering operations being conducted by DOD and corporate entities: https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/
I will begin to take "climate change" seriously when the people pushing it abide by their own pronouncements they seek to impose upon everyone else -- voluntarily forego their jets, limos, wealth and property, own nothing, eat bugs, and be happy...including all those with conflicts of interest such as windmill and solar panel manufacturers/installers/owners who have profited on taxpayer subsidies. Their inventions are inserting toxic heavy metals into our prime ag soils and mountain tops with no regard for safe disposal, especially given their limited lifespan. https://www.americanexperiment.org/solar-panels-are-starting-to-die-what-will-we-do-with-the-megatons-of-toxic-trash/
These pushers are not environmentalists; they are liars and tyrants. Prove me wrong.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/10/the_hidden_agenda_behind_climate_change.html
I don't disagree, except that 1) much like communists, many climate cultists actually believe that what they embrace is good. There are those who know it is a scam, but many sincerely believe they are doing good. and 2) we are losing topsoil at alarming rates, especially from farmland. This is in large part due to plowing, which churns up the soil and releases carbon dioxide that is crucial to microbial health, and ultimately, plant growth. Sequestration of carbon dioxide for THIS purpose makes sense -- regardless of climate change. It's a win-win.
True that plant growth requires CO2 in the soil, but without an adequate level of CO2 in the atmosphere, they will wither on the vine and/or die before maturity. Greenhouse growers routinely introduce much higher levels of CO2 into their greenhouses to speed up and maximize growth.
Greenhouse Carbon Dioxide Supplementation - Oklahoma State University ...
The carbon dioxide level may drop to 150 to 200 parts per million during the day in a sealed greenhouse, because CO2 is utilized by plants for photosynthesis during daytime. Exposure of plants to lower levels of CO2 even for a short period can reduce rate of photosynthesis and plant growth.
https://extension.okstate.edu › fact-sheets › greenhouse-carbon-dioxide-supplementation.html
Our politicians and their puppet masters seek to get us to NET ZERO, which is a clever way to signal their desire to cancel out human input, as though some of us have no right to exist in the natural world. The fact that they have to invent a carbon "credit" scheme to demonstrate their virtue while having no real world impact on climate proves it cannot be done.
I totally agree with the initial premise of your article that going no-till/grass fed with all livestock is the best and most natural route. Our family farm of 8 generations has weathered the various trends in agriculture, but I can testify that our sustainability and profitability has significantly improved since we adopted organic 10 years ago and 100 percent grass fed 5 years ago.
Whatever happened to PETA? Whatever happened to free choice?
The irony applies broadly here: replace an existing resource, such as farming, energy production, livestock, etc., and replace that resource with a "green" new "hot" deal. (Note that "green" is also defined as novel, or untested.)
Example: what idiocy supports a narrative that involves killing (literally or figuratively) an existing resource, only to replace it with a not yet existing "hopium" resource? Kind of like mandating an unproven vaccine while simultaneously trying to hide any data for 75 years.
Such as energy. What the heck is the plan for all the manufactured junk that will be generated when the green new junk has been forced on the populace? "A junk yard for everyone"? I thought we were supposed to care about our beloved earth? Why do the green pushers never comment on the brutal rape of the earth committed from the harvesting and production of these green resources?. We know why.
In what realm is killing a living creature for the carbon demerits the controlling narrative? At what point does this same carbon law affect pets, or even humans?
Idiocy must be ridiculed at every opportunity.
"Kind of like mandating an unproven vaccine while simultaneously trying to hide any data for 75 years." Yes!
And also, that green gadgetry will not wait for the junkyard to pollute. Solar panels are manufactured by burning coal, and they generate huge amounts of water and air pollution long before they are shipped to virtue-signaling Americans who embrace a false notion that they have done anything at all. It is a cult, plain and simple. Thanks for commenting!
I'll give these climate warriors some credit - they are persistent, if nothing else. Even when failing *every single damn time* in their attempts to outsmart Mother Nature, they persist with their delusion. Remarkable!
It just stuns me they have so little common sense. Reminds me of Thomas Sowell's "Intellectuals and Society," as I discuss in the upcoming podcast. :)
It's time for a mechanical cow. RoboBetsy produces delicious grass-patties, NEVER farts and only needs its batteries and solar panels replaced every 3 years. A carbon-sequestration miracle of modern science.
:)
"Science" can't create an amoeba. It certainly can't recreate something as beautiful and perfectly designed as a cow!