Aren’t people tired of the climate change bamboozle narrative? I know I am. It’s called the weather…and if you concerned about it talk to that giant yellow orb in the sky 🤦♀️. Pax
Climate “science” is not science in its conclusions and projections, it is modeling. Read Steve Koonin’s excellent book: “Unsettled”. He is a top tier physicist who breaks down why modeling is ineffective to base long term predictions on, and the fact that the further away we move from the present into the future, the greater exponential inutility of these models. What we do know: CO2 has an albido effect which allows solar radiation in, but less out. But, as we increase global temperatures we increase global relative humidity which means more clouds which reflect more light. More CO2 also means a greener earth. Greenhouse growers will pump up to 1600ppm (we are below 450ppm now) to encourage growth. Since 1980 the globe has greened by 20%.
2.
Our instruments do show the earth has been warming. For the predictions on what that means for humans see above. However, I think most all of this can be explained by land use and not co2. Urban heat island effect is real. I am a chicken rancher (I know sounds fake, but my birds live outside on grass, so I don’t know what else to call it) and my valley has a large lake and agricultural land, mostly perennial cattle pasture and hay. Our valley is 7 degrees cooler than the adjacent valley with the same level of rainfall and elevation as that of Reno NV, which has paved over its perennial pastures. 7 degrees is triple the worst case scenario for the COP at the UN. My point is that as urbanization has increased to surround most existing temperature stations, of course our instrumentation would say the Earth is warming. But fundamentally we have no way of canceling out the effects of pavement, roofs, tilled land and other man made land use which do not regulate temperature as well as evapotranspiring plants. If we should be attacking the automobile it is for its roads, not its emissions. (And any dummy can tell you this: laying on the pavement in the hot sun will kill you).
3.
The “solutions” to climatism cannot solve the problems they propose to solve. Meaning: solar and wind are great for local rural power generation, but they are not carbon negative. The embedded carbon in the mining, manufacture, transport and installation over a 10-30 usable year time frame is greater than the energy produced. We have no way of producing net energy except for burning stuff (including radioactive decay). We cannot mine lithium from the ground, or photovoltaics, or turbines and have them be energy positive. The amount of diesel to haul , refine, manufacture, transport and install is mind numbing, and these products are notorious for failing and needing to be replaced (planned obsolescence anyone?). I see the climatism as a CCP psy op which has convinced the western world to tank their industrial, agricultural and manufacturing bases and buy products for which the CCP has a stranglehold on the supply chain. It is actually quite brilliant, because expensive energy means a less affluent society, by definition. So China is selling us the loaded gun to shoot ourselves in the head.
4.
If you want no carbon and minimal land use per kWh, there is no clearer winner than nuclear. If you read (1967) “Report from Iron Mountain”, produced by the Department of State, you see the whole point to the environmental movement is a lever, analogous to war, for the central bankers to pull to lower consumption and prosperity. In a debt based money system (like we have) you need a way to artificially deflate economies to “control the economy” (ie make sure Rothschilds and Rockefellers can buy low and sell high). Nuclear is THE technology, because we will be running out of fossil fuels at the very latest in 200 years, but we have enough uranium for 10,000 plus years of growing energy consumption. And the land use requirements per MWH is top notch. New SMRs eliminate risk of meltdown but can be daisy chained in intermodal sized containers to create many gigawatts in a single site, and some of these even have no water cooling requirements. This is so exciting because places like the Arctic or Antartica will not have to worry about fuel shipments in winter storms because they will be able to produce power for years without maintenance or refueling. Also new SMR tech basically recycles spent radioactive material so that what is left at the end is easily encased in concrete for safety. I think the whole “radiation” scare of the 50s, 60s was a psyop by the Rockefellers to not have competition with their fossil fuel empire.
Any sentence ending in 'caused by climate change' should be discarded right off the bat. Scientifically, climate is a long term aggregate of observed weather. By definition, an aggregate observation cannot cause anything. An acceptable narrative would be: 'hot weather today is another data point supporting that long term weather patterns are changing.'
Of course, what causes these changes is a whole other topic for discussion. Just like the 'children effects' in the oceans mentioned here, solar storms are cited in many publications as at least correlated to weather patterns. And even if we assume the cause to be 100% anthropogenic, than most of the 'hyped' solutions will have no measurable impact, for instance taxing cow burps in Denmark:
It’s the natural variability that is always there. The cold winters of the late 1970’s was not a return to the ice age but the media and the scare mongers said it was. The climate change liars are after power and control and riches. The lies are now gospel taught to our children and they being good people believe the authorities whom they have no ability to understand that they would be lied too just like the young children in communist countries or Muslim countries are lied too about the western capitalistic societies.
After watching "The Dimming" at geoengineeringwatch.org, and also listening to other data from Keith Myers in PA, I think this is due to weather manipulation. Dispersing chemical and metal nanoparticles such as aluminum, strontium, barium oxide, sulphuric acid from airplanes and 'charging' them with 5G from the ground is one way to cause weather events. This is open air EMR. We are in trouble!!!
Exactly and this is the elephant in the room, not climate change via the habits of humanity or El Nino, but these pesky chemicals that have been pouring into our skies for decades. Just look up and observe! Until this is brought into the conversation, we cannot have an intelligent conversation. He who controls the weather, controls the world.
Trying to like your comment but can't, so I'll tell you here. I agree wholeheartedly with your evaluation and with Valora Kilby's response to it below, which I also can't like.
Question for John how dry or wet is New England this growing season. The Midwest is in great shape but I saw that the mid Atlantic states are suffering drought. I saw it first hand in the Shenandoah valley at the end of June.
We had a rather strong early drought that has broken. Just got slammed with a wicked thunderstorm, after a brief heavy rain last night. It is much improved though some farmers say yields will be down for the year due to a diminished First Cut crop from the drought....
The elephant in the room is geo-engineering. Look up! Those pesky chemicals that have been sprayed in our skies for decades have something to do with what we see in our world. "He who controls the weather, controls the world." Lyndon B Johnson
July. It’s hot because July. July is hot. There’s yer science. When it’s 95 in January we can panic.
:)
Aren’t people tired of the climate change bamboozle narrative? I know I am. It’s called the weather…and if you concerned about it talk to that giant yellow orb in the sky 🤦♀️. Pax
:) That orb is cooking today....
My 2 cents on climatism:
1.
Climate “science” is not science in its conclusions and projections, it is modeling. Read Steve Koonin’s excellent book: “Unsettled”. He is a top tier physicist who breaks down why modeling is ineffective to base long term predictions on, and the fact that the further away we move from the present into the future, the greater exponential inutility of these models. What we do know: CO2 has an albido effect which allows solar radiation in, but less out. But, as we increase global temperatures we increase global relative humidity which means more clouds which reflect more light. More CO2 also means a greener earth. Greenhouse growers will pump up to 1600ppm (we are below 450ppm now) to encourage growth. Since 1980 the globe has greened by 20%.
2.
Our instruments do show the earth has been warming. For the predictions on what that means for humans see above. However, I think most all of this can be explained by land use and not co2. Urban heat island effect is real. I am a chicken rancher (I know sounds fake, but my birds live outside on grass, so I don’t know what else to call it) and my valley has a large lake and agricultural land, mostly perennial cattle pasture and hay. Our valley is 7 degrees cooler than the adjacent valley with the same level of rainfall and elevation as that of Reno NV, which has paved over its perennial pastures. 7 degrees is triple the worst case scenario for the COP at the UN. My point is that as urbanization has increased to surround most existing temperature stations, of course our instrumentation would say the Earth is warming. But fundamentally we have no way of canceling out the effects of pavement, roofs, tilled land and other man made land use which do not regulate temperature as well as evapotranspiring plants. If we should be attacking the automobile it is for its roads, not its emissions. (And any dummy can tell you this: laying on the pavement in the hot sun will kill you).
3.
The “solutions” to climatism cannot solve the problems they propose to solve. Meaning: solar and wind are great for local rural power generation, but they are not carbon negative. The embedded carbon in the mining, manufacture, transport and installation over a 10-30 usable year time frame is greater than the energy produced. We have no way of producing net energy except for burning stuff (including radioactive decay). We cannot mine lithium from the ground, or photovoltaics, or turbines and have them be energy positive. The amount of diesel to haul , refine, manufacture, transport and install is mind numbing, and these products are notorious for failing and needing to be replaced (planned obsolescence anyone?). I see the climatism as a CCP psy op which has convinced the western world to tank their industrial, agricultural and manufacturing bases and buy products for which the CCP has a stranglehold on the supply chain. It is actually quite brilliant, because expensive energy means a less affluent society, by definition. So China is selling us the loaded gun to shoot ourselves in the head.
4.
If you want no carbon and minimal land use per kWh, there is no clearer winner than nuclear. If you read (1967) “Report from Iron Mountain”, produced by the Department of State, you see the whole point to the environmental movement is a lever, analogous to war, for the central bankers to pull to lower consumption and prosperity. In a debt based money system (like we have) you need a way to artificially deflate economies to “control the economy” (ie make sure Rothschilds and Rockefellers can buy low and sell high). Nuclear is THE technology, because we will be running out of fossil fuels at the very latest in 200 years, but we have enough uranium for 10,000 plus years of growing energy consumption. And the land use requirements per MWH is top notch. New SMRs eliminate risk of meltdown but can be daisy chained in intermodal sized containers to create many gigawatts in a single site, and some of these even have no water cooling requirements. This is so exciting because places like the Arctic or Antartica will not have to worry about fuel shipments in winter storms because they will be able to produce power for years without maintenance or refueling. Also new SMR tech basically recycles spent radioactive material so that what is left at the end is easily encased in concrete for safety. I think the whole “radiation” scare of the 50s, 60s was a psyop by the Rockefellers to not have competition with their fossil fuel empire.
Any sentence ending in 'caused by climate change' should be discarded right off the bat. Scientifically, climate is a long term aggregate of observed weather. By definition, an aggregate observation cannot cause anything. An acceptable narrative would be: 'hot weather today is another data point supporting that long term weather patterns are changing.'
Of course, what causes these changes is a whole other topic for discussion. Just like the 'children effects' in the oceans mentioned here, solar storms are cited in many publications as at least correlated to weather patterns. And even if we assume the cause to be 100% anthropogenic, than most of the 'hyped' solutions will have no measurable impact, for instance taxing cow burps in Denmark:
https://open.substack.com/pub/wildhorsewisdom/p/we-all-need-food-to-survive?r=31a4ti&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
It’s the natural variability that is always there. The cold winters of the late 1970’s was not a return to the ice age but the media and the scare mongers said it was. The climate change liars are after power and control and riches. The lies are now gospel taught to our children and they being good people believe the authorities whom they have no ability to understand that they would be lied too just like the young children in communist countries or Muslim countries are lied too about the western capitalistic societies.
After watching "The Dimming" at geoengineeringwatch.org, and also listening to other data from Keith Myers in PA, I think this is due to weather manipulation. Dispersing chemical and metal nanoparticles such as aluminum, strontium, barium oxide, sulphuric acid from airplanes and 'charging' them with 5G from the ground is one way to cause weather events. This is open air EMR. We are in trouble!!!
Exactly and this is the elephant in the room, not climate change via the habits of humanity or El Nino, but these pesky chemicals that have been pouring into our skies for decades. Just look up and observe! Until this is brought into the conversation, we cannot have an intelligent conversation. He who controls the weather, controls the world.
See my reply above to Ms. Wagner's comment. You are both correct.
Trying to like your comment but can't, so I'll tell you here. I agree wholeheartedly with your evaluation and with Valora Kilby's response to it below, which I also can't like.
Question for John how dry or wet is New England this growing season. The Midwest is in great shape but I saw that the mid Atlantic states are suffering drought. I saw it first hand in the Shenandoah valley at the end of June.
We had a rather strong early drought that has broken. Just got slammed with a wicked thunderstorm, after a brief heavy rain last night. It is much improved though some farmers say yields will be down for the year due to a diminished First Cut crop from the drought....
The first cutting is always the biggest of the year.
Yup. But the second cut may be higher than usual. I feed mostly second cut so I'll soon be looking to fill the barn.
UNITE WITH GOD AND JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD AND SAVIOR FOR ONE NATION UNDER GOD, PRAY AND PREPARE
Oh lord!! when I was growing up religion was a private matter, now it's in our face constantly like gay declarations. Sick of it.
YOU SURE ARE
The elephant in the room is geo-engineering. Look up! Those pesky chemicals that have been sprayed in our skies for decades have something to do with what we see in our world. "He who controls the weather, controls the world." Lyndon B Johnson