"Climate change" and environmental hysteria used to implement control, not save environment

[JBG]

I have excerpted an excellent article Here are some links to the cited article which my be paywalled, which is sourced at bottom of quote (link) and (link).

*************

The theory that CO2 contributes to "global warming" is a very clever one, because CO2 is said to comprise approximately 80% of all greenhouse gases, both natural and man-generated. Thus by implicating it as a potential threat to the environment, it gives totalitarianism exactly the occasion it seeks to control the vast sphere of industry which could produce it.

*******************
Neither the Green New Deal nor its predecessors give an honest, definitive limit as to how much CO2 is acceptable, and how much is too much. Instead, it sets arbitrary, yet progressive restrictions, allegedly based on what they say is an "acceptable" or "unacceptable" trend in the weather and climate. This of course is a completely unrelated, inaccurate reference. The use of such hazy, undefined boundaries is what allows the "experts" to always subject industry to whatever degree of control they so desire- control which supersedes legislation.

************

The introduction of the ozone depletion theory in 1974 gave the student environmental movement of the 1960's and 1970's a reason to raise its gaze to the skies. Rather than the movement being limited to real problems that were easily understood and verifiable by the public, such as smog, deforestation or contaminated water, the ozone theory gave it the opportunity to extend its influence across all spheres of industry by operating in an unknown scientific realm, where information on both industry and nature alike could be controlled, fabricated, suppressed or distorted- yet believed.

On March 15th, 1988, Robert Watson of the Ozone Trend Panel announced that the ozone layer had been depleted. According to Watson, the ozone layer had decreased by more than 3 percent in northern latitudes between 1969 and 1986. The announcement was heralded in newspapers with headlines about expected new epidemics in skin cancer, and it generated the expected public hysteria. *****

*Joseph Scotto, Gerald Cotton, Frederick Urback, et al., 1988. "Biologically Effective Ultraviolet Radiation: Surface Measurements in the United States, 1974-1985," Science, Vol 239 (Feb.12), pp. 762-764.

**Joseph Scotto, 1988. "Global Stratospheric Ozone and UVB Radiation," Science, Vol 239 (Nov. 25), pp. 1111-1112

During the 1970's and before a belief developed that our consumption-based society was unsustainable. This philosophy of life was expressed in the U.S. via books such as the 1950's classic by John Kenneth Galbraith, The Affluent Society. This was foreshadowed by other authors and thinkers, such as Travels with Charley: In Search of America by John Steinbeck. In Travels Steinbeck rails against conspicuous consumption and other signs of affluence. There was also the Club of Rome report, written over a period between 1968 and 1972, affiliated with MIT (link). This was at the end of the sunshiny era of the 1950's and early 1960's, a halcyon ear when grown was promoted. It was mostly a "let the good times roll" era, until it wasn't. The "Arab Oil Embargo," for example, was seized upon as an excuse to limit highway speeds to 55 m.p.h. and the "Club of Rome" mentality became general.

The "intellectual" movement was largely ineffectual in changing anything. Thus, an emergency had to be conjured where we were doomed if we did not take "action," however futile. As this article points out, the fulcrum which the "movement" uses is keyed to control, not effectiveness.

 

[whitehall]

Through the years we heard a dozen theories from a new ice age to the seas rising and obliterating coastal cities. None of it was true but the "experts" never apologized. In geological terms we might still be coming out of the last ice age but leftie extortionists can't enjoy the nice weather unless they are picking someone's pocket or threatening extermination unless you vote a certain way.

 

[Woodznutz]

We're trying save ourselves from the environment.

 

[MisterBeale]

Well, it is just a simple fact, that the world has 5 billion people and counting.

Scientists and Economists claim to know how much, and have roughly estimated how long the resources of the planet we have will last, and also how much it would take for all of the population to live at the economic standard of living of those in Europe or America.

What they say, is we would need somewhere between three and five planet Earths, to provide a standard of living that everyone in America now enjoys. If we just ignore the whole climate question, and assume it is about a control and this resource question. . . . . then?

With that in mind, what IS the solution?



Anyone that remembers their first year Economics class, remembers the definition they were given and the very FIRST question on every econ test (which most of the social democrats seem to have always forgotten? ; )

But ARE resources really limited?



What if fusion were perfected, and AI were combined with quantum tech?



What if government regulation disappeared tomorrow, and scientists are finally free to make something like this?

 

[cnm]

During the 1970's and before a belief developed that our consumption-based society was unsustainable.

So, do you believe an unrestricted consumption based society is sustainable? Resources would have to be infinite for that to be possible, Shirley?

 

[cnm]

Through the years we heard a dozen theories from a new ice age to the seas rising and obliterating coastal cities.

And no scientific consensus for those early versions of click bait. Still, they sucked in the suckers, fer shure.

 

[Woodznutz]

Well, it is just a simple fact, that the world has 5 billion people and counting.

Scientists and Economists claim to know how much, and have roughly estimated how long the resources of the planet we have will last, and also how much it would take for all of the population to live at the economic standard of living of those in Europe or America.

What they say, is we would need somewhere between three and five planet Earths, to provide a standard of living that everyone in America now enjoys. If we just ignore the whole climate question, and assume it is about a control and this resource question. . . . . then?

With that in mind, what IS the solution?



Anyone that remembers their first year Economics class, remembers the definition they were given and the very FIRST question on every econ test (which most of the social democrats seem to have always forgotten? ; )

View attachment 1001792


But ARE resources really limited?



What if fusion were perfected, and AI were combined with quantum tech?



What if government regulation disappeared tomorrow, and scientists are finally free to make something like this?

It's a little late for solutions. We must manage our demise.

 

[Woodznutz]

View attachment 1001792


But ARE resources really limited?

If properly managed, by man or by nature, earth's organic resources are recyclable and sustainable.

 

[jc456]

So, do you believe an unrestricted consumption based society is sustainable? Resources would have to be infinite for that to be possible, Shirley?

do you have any evidence we don't?

 

[jc456]

It's a little late for solutions. We must manage our demise.

what demise?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

I have excerpted an excellent article Here are some links to the cited article which my be paywalled, which is sourced at bottom of quote (link) and (link).

During the 1970's and before a belief developed that our consumption-based society was unsustainable. This philosophy of life was expressed in the U.S. via books such as the 1950's classic by John Kenneth Galbraith, The Affluent Society. This was foreshadowed by other authors and thinkers, such as Travels with Charley: In Search of America by John Steinbeck. In Travels Steinbeck rails against conspicuous consumption and other signs of affluence. There was also the Club of Rome report, written over a period between 1968 and 1972, affiliated with MIT (link). This was at the end of the sunshiny era of the 1950's and early 1960's, a halcyon ear when grown was promoted. It was mostly a "let the good times roll" era, until it wasn't. The "Arab Oil Embargo," for example, was seized upon as an excuse to limit highway speeds to 55 m.p.h. and the "Club of Rome" mentality became general.

The "intellectual" movement was largely ineffectual in changing anything. Thus, an emergency had to be conjured where we were doomed if we did not take "action," however futile. As this article points out, the fulcrum which the "movement" uses is keyed to control, not effectiveness.

Natural Air Is the Most Toxic of All

It's primitive and mindless even without being a form of control. Nature-worship is behind it, so it attacks the very essence of science. The balance of nature has never been in man's favor. Without man's effect on the hostile natural order, the human race would have gone extinct long ago.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Well, it is just a simple fact, that the world has 5 billion people and counting.

Scientists and Economists claim to know how much, and have roughly estimated how long the resources of the planet we have will last, and also how much it would take for all of the population to live at the economic standard of living of those in Europe or America.

What they say, is we would need somewhere between three and five planet Earths, to provide a standard of living that everyone in America now enjoys. If we just ignore the whole climate question, and assume it is about a control and this resource question. . . . . then?

With that in mind, what IS the solution?



Anyone that remembers their first year Economics class, remembers the definition they were given and the very FIRST question on every econ test (which most of the social democrats seem to have always forgotten? ; )

View attachment 1001792


But ARE resources really limited?



What if fusion were perfected, and AI were combined with quantum tech?



What if government regulation disappeared tomorrow, and scientists are finally free to make something like this?

ZPE Zero Point Energy

The Confiscated patents are 75 years old already

The Pentagon is using the technology to fund a secret space program (Pentagon can't account for something like $6 Trillion)

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Scientists and Economists claim to know how much, and have roughly estimated how long the resources of the planet we have will last, and also how much it would take for all of the population to live at the economic standard of living of those in Europe or America.

What they say, is we would need somewhere between three and five planet Earths, to provide a standard of living that everyone in America now enjoys.




Anyone that remembers their first year Economics class, remembers the definition they were given and the very FIRST question on every econ test (which most of the social democrats seem to have always forgotten? ; )

View attachment 1001792


But ARE resources really limited?

Unlimited Resources and Suppressed Desires

 

[Woodznutz]

Natural Air Is the Most Toxic of All

It's primitive and mindless even without being a form of control. Nature-worship is behind it, so it attacks the very essence of science. The balance of nature has never been in man's favor. Without man's effect on the hostile natural order, the human race would have gone extinct long ago.

God told Adam that he would have to overcome nature to survive, and us by extension.

 

[ding]

I have excerpted an excellent article Here are some links to the cited article which my be paywalled, which is sourced at bottom of quote (link) and (link).

During the 1970's and before a belief developed that our consumption-based society was unsustainable. This philosophy of life was expressed in the U.S. via books such as the 1950's classic by John Kenneth Galbraith, The Affluent Society. This was foreshadowed by other authors and thinkers, such as Travels with Charley: In Search of America by John Steinbeck. In Travels Steinbeck rails against conspicuous consumption and other signs of affluence. There was also the Club of Rome report, written over a period between 1968 and 1972, affiliated with MIT (link). This was at the end of the sunshiny era of the 1950's and early 1960's, a halcyon ear when grown was promoted. It was mostly a "let the good times roll" era, until it wasn't. The "Arab Oil Embargo," for example, was seized upon as an excuse to limit highway speeds to 55 m.p.h. and the "Club of Rome" mentality became general.

The "intellectual" movement was largely ineffectual in changing anything. Thus, an emergency had to be conjured where we were doomed if we did not take "action," however futile. As this article points out, the fulcrum which the "movement" uses is keyed to control, not effectiveness.

The climate community is fraudulent.

 

[Crick]

ZPE Zero Point Energy

The Confiscated patents are 75 years old already

The Pentagon is using the technology to fund a secret space program (Pentagon can't account for something like $6 Trillion)

Frank, do you seriously believe what you just wrote?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank, do you seriously believe what you just wrote?

Some posts tend to be tongue in cheek - not that!

Absolutely 100% serious

https://youtu.be/zxoZsALMaL8?si=IwbBQL2FUl2ax3YF

 

[Woodznutz]

Through the years we heard a dozen theories from a new ice age to the seas rising and obliterating coastal cities. None of it was true but the "experts" never apologized. In geological terms we might still be coming out of the last ice age but leftie extortionists can't enjoy the nice weather unless they are picking someone's pocket or threatening extermination unless you vote a certain way.

Rising seas are wreaking havoc in some low-lying regions.

 

[Woodznutz]

The climate community is fraudulent.

The climate isn't the problem, it's the weather.

 

[EMH]

Since Co2 does nothing, and the Co2 FRAUD has known that all along, obviously the motive behind it is sick, treasonous, anti American, anti human, and anti Earth.