THE DEMONIZING OF CARBON DIOXIDE
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide is under attack throughout the world today through a constant onslaught of dire messages being thrown at the public by politicians, influencers, industry giants, media outlets, tribal believers, science communities, government organizations (NASA, NOAA).
We are being told that we MUST believe that carbon dioxide is causing destructive climate change that will eventually destroy our societies and eliminate human life. It is not acceptable to debate this concept and all attempts to do so are squashed. Why?
We are being told that we MUST stop burning fossil fuels of all kinds to stop the growth of carbon dioxide in our atmospheres. We are encouraged to do so by pricing carbon dioxide creation (such as by our use of fossil fuels) through various forms of federal and provincial carbon taxes. We are being encouraged to support new industries such as carbon dioxide capture and sequestration, so that excess C02 can be removed from the air and hidden away underground where it cannot cause further damage. We are being told to cheer and support the expenditures of billions of tax dollars in projects that replace carbon dioxide fuels with electric batteries, hydropower, solar energy, wind or water power while eliminating high density energy materials such as coal or oil that support our present high energy societal demands.
There is a still heated debate raging between proponents of the carbon dioxide based global warming climate change scenario versus those who discount this theory and point to natural sources of climate change such as the Sun (that massive ball of nuclear fire that is 330,000 times the size of earth and cycles through high and low periods of energy output). Unfortunately, the "winner" of this debate is not judged by scientific merit or scientific method, but rather by obtaining "consensus" of the masses as to which side presents the best argument (ie. he who has the most scientists on their side "wins").
What's the score? I hate to say it but, because of the strength of media and the biased power structure our world operates under the "alarmists" have essentially won the argument over the "deniers" for the hearts and minds of the general populace. On masse we now support the demands of government to pay for burning fossil fuels based on how much carbon dioxide we generate. On masse we also quickly blame the invisible poison that gives us personal grief through inconveniencing us with practically every weather phenomenon we might experience.
(Note: Please note that just because alarmists have "won" it does not mean they are "right". They may have simply shouted their way into dominance over the non believers and flex the power that brings) .
Also please note that, although invisible to the general public through media manipulation, there is indeed a scientific argument ongoing about this C02 driven warming phenomenon we have supposedly caused. If it were an unbiased argument as it should be in the scientific world carbon dioxide would almost certainly be exonerated as the culprit behind climate change and natural processes would be demonstrated to be the true reasons we have hot and cold seasons with varying degrees of weather extremes we label climate change. The evidence is there but it won't be considered by "expert groups" such as the IPCC or government funded research institutions that receive grants to strength the global warming scenarios.
SO THE QUESTION IS "WHY DO WE HAVE TO DEMONIZE CARBON DIOXIDE"?
Why do we have to accept that it does all these bad things? Why must we feel shame for using fuels that generate carbon dioxide as they burn? Why must we pay extra for those fuels and subsidize fuels (electricity by wind and solar) that do not? Why all the pressure from our leaders to conform? What do they have to gain from it, anyway?
MONEY. $$$$$$$$ - THAT'S WHY!
Why would the Icelandic people (who live next to one of the world's largest active volcanoes) create a processing plant that uses massive fans to suck air through cells that remove the carbon dioxide and then transport that carbon dioxide to the depths of the underground, never to be seen again. For the good of mankind? Not likely. Why would billionaires like Bill Gates support and own similar projects such as the one in Squamish, BC that does the same thing? He says he feels guilty about the amount of C02 his industries produce and wants to "offset" that by removing C02 from the air to compensate for that expulsion. He does this by buying "carbon credits" that are subtracted from his output tonnage and allows the balance sheet to well, balance.
CARBON CREDITS - THE NEW BITCOIN?
Purchase carbon credits. Save the world. Take it out if you put it in. What could make more sense? Everything balances out. Net atmospheric carbon is steady and unchanging. Massive smokestacks from coal plants in China counterbalanced by hundreds of fans pulling C02 out of the air in Iceland and Squamish. What could be better?
Pass the cost on to the general public through higher prices for these "clean" fuels; raise prices through carbon taxing that supports government subsidization of "clean" energy such as solar and wind, eliminate present high energy oil and coal sources of energy or get them to join the sequestration game in order to survive our green future.
Of course we'll agree. If we don't conform that poison will keep accumulating above us and eventually we and our children and our children's children will perish! Who could possibly say no when the consequences will be so severe? How dare you!
COP26 - STARTED TO SHOW THE JUST HOW GREEDY AND CORRUPT THE WORLD IS. BEST DESCRIBED IN THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE:
The story really starts to unfold when the subject of compensation for third world or developing countries comes up. The demand for trillions of dollars to compensate for the "damage" developed countries have caused is nothing short of extortion - but hey, what the hell? - give it a shot and we might just fall for it. Well written by Sabrina Maddeaux and nice to see mainstream media give it a place.
And the consequences of attacking oil and gas and forcing a shift to green energy sources such as wind power? - well, sometimes the wind stops blowing!
THE PROBLEM IS - WHAT IF CARBON DIOXIDE ACTUALLY DOESN'T CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING?
Oh, oh! Here's a thought. Why are we making all this effort to remove C02 if it doesn't do anything bad after all? Why pay for it with our usage $ or tax $ or carbon credit $ ? In the end the public pays, it always does one way or the other. We're told that we should do so willingly to save the Planet. But. What if we find out that this is nothing more than a scheme to create new industries that pay their founders billions?
Let's use an analogy to evaluate the new green industry of the future - What if we compare this new industry, based on shame and guilt and regulation, to the auto industry that originally was created by Henry Ford and changed the world in such a good way? It was new also and it literally created its own marketplace that drove and employed and society for decades and gave them wealth and health. Will carbon capture do the same? Or will it lower our standards while enriching those at the top?
If C02 is nothing more than an innocuous gas then why scar our landscapes for lithium when we can continue drilling for oil and then process it cleanly (ie. removal of real pollutants such as sulfur, not carbon dioxide) to continue to deliver a proven material that has the ability to power our energy reliant society?
WILL WE?
Nope. We can't let that happen and so we don't. Demonize carbon dioxide. Scare the shit out of everybody. Provide "solutions" to our problems that threaten our existence. And rake in the cash.
WOULD WE SUPPORT THE FOLLOWING IF WE DIDN'T BELIEVE C02 WAS BAD?
- Paying carbon taxes based on how much fossil fuels we burn.
- Going to electric economy, particularly with respect to transportation.
- Paying for massive research to confirm C02 is a gas causing climate change.
- Not allowing scientific debate on the greenhouse effect scenario.
- Allocating research funds to be according to gospel, not as search for truth.
- Accepting the output of the UN based IPCC as gospel.
- Sucking air through fans and pumping the C02 collected back into the ground.
- Destroying our oil and gas industry in spite of its importance to our daily lives.
- Subsidizing inefficient solar and wind power farms.
- Demonizing nuclear power in favour of solar and wind power.
- Ignoring warnings of environmental destruction by lithium mining.
- Not questioning media when they blame weather on C02.
- Listening to Greta.
- Accepting the "great reset" and the "new economy" as something to strive for.
- Allowing lockdowns and quarantines based on authority rather than facts.
- Idolizing billionaire wealth while accepting lower living standards for ourselves.
- Polarizing our society and politics over concepts such as global warming.
- Ignoring the Sun.
- Allowing the elite to treat the masses like crap.
ASK YOURSELF WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO THE ABOVE IF WE JUST STOPPED BELIEVING THAT CARBON DIOXIDE CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING ALONG WITH ALL THE INCIDENTS OF WEATHER THAT IT SUPPOSEDLY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR.
HOW MANY OF THOSE POINTS LISTED ABOVE WOULD JUST DISAPPEAR?
WHO WOULD BE AFFECTED, ESPECIALLY FINANCIALLY, IF WE JUST STOPPED BELIEVING AND WORSE YET SUPPORTING, THOSE C02 DRIVEN ACTIONS THEY HAVE INVESTED IN. WHAT WOULD WE FIND IF WE JUST FOLLOWED THE MONEY..
YES, EXACTLY...