36 Comments
Jun 1, 2022Liked by 2nd Smartest Guy in the World

This is very well stated. For those interested in the claim that a 1 ppm increase of a molecule that makes up a small percentage of the atmosphere can cause all of this warming, here is a very in depth and detailed YT series on CO2. It will take a while to watch, and there are parts that are very tedious, but it's also well worth it.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLX2gX-ftPVXVzU5jGY3FaYEuuu3ANvMZb

Expand full comment

1ppm? Going from 280 to 419ppm is a tad more than that. It's a 50% increase. That ignores the similar spikes in NOx and CH4 resulting from human activity.

Expand full comment
author

At 280ppm we were at historically critical levels. At 50% increase we are still at historically critical levels on relative basis. We need another several hundred percent increase at minimum, but before then the Grand Solar Minimum will shift temps way lower and more CO2 mendacity will ensue.

Expand full comment

Yet the oceans, forests, and grasslands of the world were thriving at this level which gave rise to human civilization. At current levels, none of that is true.

The grand solar minimum resulted in about a 1 degree (c) temperature decrease. If humans ever stop burning fossil fuels, the resulting loss of atmospheric particulates (which shade the planet and reduce temperatures) will more than overcome such small changes.

Perhaps our solar cycles won't follow recent patterns, if we're lucky. Oceans will still be acidified even if temps drop. Last time I checked about 7 years ago, record highs outnumbered newly recorded record lows by a factor of 11:1.

Expand full comment
author

There is not a single legitimate research paper that would in all decency make a claim that by removing anthropogenic CO2 levels that there would be any temp change.

I am sorry, but you really should re-research this.

Expand full comment

You do realize, I hope, that it was demonstrated in a laboratory in the 1800s (and is still very much reproducible) that CO2 is much more efficient at storing infrared (i.e.) heat energy than the dominant gasses of N2 or O2 in the atmosphere. Strangely enough, they suggested that global warming could occur from coal burning back then (1870's if my memory serves) as well. Didn't even need Al Gore to tell them.

Expand full comment
author

And how exactly did these 1800s researchers ascertain the PPM for this CO2?

And you believe that extrapolating from an 1800s lab all kinds of "climate" effects that modern computing can't even accurately predict basic weather patterns a few days out confirms all of your beliefs? Really?

I wish you all the very best in your research.

Expand full comment
Jun 1, 2022Liked by 2nd Smartest Guy in the World

As long as CO2 is labeled as a "pollutant" we don't have a chance.

Clearly, the CO2 level has been trending down with each glaciation.

The following quote from "Watt's Up With That "says it all.

“Why do temperature ADJUSTMENTS correlate with CO2? The probability that this happens by chance is shockingly close to zero.”

“It is proof of man-made climate change – created by adjusting the temperature data to fit a premise – that man-made CO2 released into the atmosphere is driving temperature.”

It is a scam. We already knew that from the climate gate emails.

Only an idiot, useful or not, would believe these charlatans.

Expand full comment
author

W/out the anthropogenic industrial revolution this planet could have withered away, quite literally. Which is precisely the aim of the 4th industrial revolution.

Expand full comment
Jun 1, 2022Liked by 2nd Smartest Guy in the World

Just one of the recent big tricks from the wizard of oz, and looking behind the curtain we see how it works but most don't look behind the curtain but remain mystified by the high priests of $cience. The fact is, most people don't think for themselves so they are subordinate to those who do.

Expand full comment
Jun 1, 2022·edited Jun 1, 2022Liked by 2nd Smartest Guy in the World

something I'd like to mention:

attempting to centralize and distribute solar/wind powered electricity by corporate entities is a failing model, yes.

there's too many issues with peak load times and lack of decently efficient massive quantity storage methods for power generated during low demand times.

but if decentralized, and applied to individual properties, those technologies can get people off the centralized grid, which is a very good thing for those people (not so much for the corporations that run and profit from the grid, of course.)

small scale power production can utilize existing battery tech for storage and doesn't cause the same direct environmental issues at the point of installation due to the reduced scale of turbines and panels needed. (yes there's still the environmental issues from mining and production, but petroleum/gas/nuclear fission all have those in abundance too.)

small scale renewable energy systems can also use passive solar power to reduce electrical demand, using direct heat conversion from photons... which isn't nearly as feasible at large scales and can't easily be transmitted to a grid without converting the heat to electricity, wasting energy in the process.

small scale energy self sufficiency which is not tied back into the centralized grid is not generally promoted, because it's not profitable for the existing energy production/distribution power bloc, and if widely implemented, would cause them to lose massive amounts of captive customers/profits.

//end rant

Expand full comment

I agree 100% with you 2SG. I saw Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" film back in 2006 and I became a CO2 alarmist myself. It took many years and a great deal of research before I finally woke up and realized it was a scam. The globalists invented the CO2 hoax in order to justify depopulation and brainwash enough "useless idiots" to implement it. (Scientists are mostly prostitutes who will believe whatever their funders want them to believe.) The globalist elite are simply satanic monsters but they probably have lots of minions who truly believe depopulation is a "necessary evil" in order to "save the world".

Expand full comment
Jun 2, 2022Liked by 2nd Smartest Guy in the World

Co2 is our plant life’s food. This nothing but another globalist scam to enslave and depopulate humanity.

Expand full comment
Jun 1, 2022Liked by 2nd Smartest Guy in the World

As 2nd Smartest points out, CO2 is plant food and essential for our own survival. Below excerpts from book cited give some specifics of its importance to plant life and how it’s being misrepresented. (Inconvenient Fact 3 below)

Inconvenient Facts

The Science that Al Gore Doesn’t Want You to Know

Gregory Wrightstone

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B079MLP7DN/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

Gregory Wrightstone - geologist... more than thirty-five years (at time of book) ... researching and studying ... Earth's processes, including how paleogeography and paleoclimate control geologic processes

458: Inconvenient Fact 1 Carbon dioxide is not the primary greenhouse gas.

447:National Geographic climate-change website reports that greenhouse gases “include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide (N2O), fluorinated gases, and ozone.” [Fails to mention water vapor]

454: Chart showing that when water vapor is not shown, makes it look like CO2 is 63% responsible for greenhouse warming. However, when water vapor is included, it shows that CO2 is only responsible for 6% and water vapor 92%.

476: Inconvenient Fact 2 The warming effect of CO2 declines as its concentration increases.

531: Inconvenient Fact 3 First and foremost, CO2 is plant food.

531: Nearly 99% of the atmosphere consists of nitrogen and oxygen. The remaining 1% consists of several trace gases ... including CO2, whose current concentration represents just 0.04% of the atmosphere, ... incredibly small percentage of the atmosphere ... advanced plant life could not survive without at least 150 ppm. ... that 150 ppm “line of death” is dangerously close to recent concentrations.

597: Inconvenient Fact 4 In the last four ice ages, the CO2 level was dangerously low.

607: Inconvenient Fact 5 140-million-year trend of dangerously decreasing CO2

Expand full comment
author

100% correct.

Expand full comment

HEMP OIL! Does everything petroleum does with a lot less pollution! We already have the infrastructure for oil. Transitioning to hemp oil ought to be a no brainer! Recycled cooking oil is good too.

Expand full comment
Jun 1, 2022·edited Jun 1, 2022

you can run diesel engines directly on vegetable oil with no more processing required than sediment filtration.

fast food joints throw that stuff away and pay to have it hauled off by the dumpster full.

and Diesel's original models ran on hemp oil.

Expand full comment

Used cooking oils are sold for Biodiesel usage after going through a process and also used in pet foods. Diesel engines can use Biodiesel @ 5% veggie oils that has deoxidizers, stabilizers and correct storage and handling.

Expand full comment
Jun 1, 2022·edited Jun 1, 2022

yes, the industry puffs up recycled vegetable oil with tons of additives and stabilizers, and uses it to slightly dilute petroleum diesel fuel instead of using vegetable oil as the primary ingredient for biodiesel. (5% is an insanely low proportion except for purposes of greenwashing their "sustainable" product.)

how else could they obtain their standard level of massive profits?

vegetable oil will still run your diesel engine without those modifications... though you might want to switch to petroleum for a minute or two before turning it off to use that as a solvent to clean out any remnants of the cooking oil, like when using wood gas as fuel for internal combustion.

Expand full comment

this is the reason rockenfella demonized cannabis aka hemp (reefer madness) back

in the 1930,s, a clean competitor no no can,t have that, their answer was to brand the

hemp plant a criminal

Expand full comment
Jun 1, 2022·edited Jun 1, 2022

anything you can make from petroleum oils can be made (better) from hemp oils. pharmaceuticals, fuel, synthetic fibers, plastic... you name it. plus food/stock feed value from the seeds, alcohol from the leftover biomass after removing everything useful from the plant material, and add the uses for the fiber, then it's a threat to numerous very profitable industries.

Expand full comment
Jun 1, 2022Liked by 2nd Smartest Guy in the World

there was a book years ago that listed the uses of the hemp plant, seeds, fibre,

everything henry ford was a big promoter of hemp, model "T",s at the time rolled

of the production line with 5 gallons of hemp seed fuel in the tank, there was a picture of henry with a sledge hammer beating a model T panel that was on the floor, this was a composite panel made entirely from hemp fibres and resins,

the panel showed no signs of damage

Expand full comment

Refinery infrastructure is designed for specific types of crude feedstocks. Now EU is commenting economic suicide because they cannot practically replace Russian oil that the EU system was designed for since 1963.

Expand full comment

Humanity is just another geological homeostatic mechanism which keeps Earth's natural cycles stable (look up Lovelock's Gaia theories). From this point of view, human activity and volcanic activity are the only 2 processes releasing substantial amounts of C02 into the atmosphere, to balance the huge amounts of carbon sequestered from the atmosphere by plankton and laid down on the sea bed as carboniferous rocks. It's called the Carbon Cycle and it is the basis of life on Earth as we know it.

'Net Zero' Carbon is pure neo-Malthusian nonsense.

Expand full comment

No diesel fuel= starvation and societal collapse it’s that simple really!

Expand full comment

I'm not smart enough to make such a binary statement.

Expand full comment

Just ask an environmental nutter WHY CO2 is bad for the environment. It is fun to watch them contort as they try to come up with an answer...

Expand full comment

As someone who has closely followed climate change since age 12 (I'm 50 now), worked in a university climate lab, and has a solid understanding of plant growth, chemistry, and the carbon cycle, I have to respectfully disagree.

Yes, climate change is being used by the Davos crowd as a tool for coercion. They're all hypocrites, and their proposed solutions are BS. We probably agree on that.

First issue of contention... the idea that CO2 is plant food and we need more of it. Yes, it's utilized by plants, but it is almost *never* the limiting nutrient. Plants and tree growth is determined by the nutrient in shortest supply. Adding nitrogen fertilizer to a lawn that's short on water won't improve growth, and adding CO2 to the atmosphere will rarely improve vegetation growth. In a marijuana grow tent where everything is supplied in adequate quantities, adding CO2 gets utilized. In the real world where water, nitrogen, phosporous, and potassium are typically limiting factors... it doesn't do a whole lot.

The fact that CO2 has risen 50% in the last few centuries tells us what we really need to know. If it were plant food which was *actually being utilized*, we would not be seeing such a rise.

Also ignored is the fact that CO2 dissolves in seawater to create carbonic acid. We're now witnessing many parts of the world's oceans where the pH regularly drops low enough to dissolve calcium carbonate marine shells. This was observed 15 years ago on the Oregon coast as oyster growers found that they were unable to raise oyster seed, and is showing up all over now. The oceans aren't dead yet, but the trends aren't good.

Another factor of note is the fact that the heat trapping effects of CO2 take decades to become fully realized. Just as turning your oven to 400 degrees doesn't immediately make the oven's temperature 400 degrees, the earth has a "preheat time". Most of the CO2 we've emitted has been within the last few decades. Multiple feedback loops have now been triggered that will likely end human civilization imho.

I'd be happy to discuss in more detail with anyone who's interested. This subject has been a core concern of mine for my entire adult and teen life, and I've taken every possible opportunity to educate myself about it. About 2018, as major shifts started to become obvious, I grew seriously concerned - this was no longer an issue of what *would* happen. A massive die-off in the gulf of Alaska, or smoke filling the Puget Sound basin for weeks each summer, or the "heat dome" where friends near Bellingham WA recorded 116 degrees last year, are all hard to ignore. Seeing all this and more happen while climate concern actually decreased was too much for me -- I finally gave up, and came to accept what's going to happen.

Expand full comment
author

PS your first problem is that you worked at a university lab, that was and continues to be funded by the usual suspects such that they indoctrinate everyone there. I type this respectfully.

Expand full comment
author

I have poured over the research and there is not a single proof that CO2 is a knob for climate and temperature changes.

We are still at critically low levels.

False equivalence in climate "science" is all we see.

There is no die off anywhere as direct or indirect function of CO2.

If you really believe any of what you write, surely you have excellent research to back it up?

We also are now witnessing thickening ice shelfs in Antartica, not the nonsense that has been peddles re: melting ice caps, etc.

I could go on.....but you have already accepted what's going to happen, which 100% won't happen as you believe it to.

Expand full comment

While I hesitate to point to "mainstream" research in the covid-nonsense era, I have to say that I've got the education to understand it and observe it in the natural world. In this case, the mainstream research is in fact much more muted than reality -- particularly that compiled by the IPCC, due to the same corporate influence that's driving the covid narratives.

We're watching, in real time, the death of the biosphere. First time in recorded history that the salmon runs along the Yukon river failed, to the point that the state of Alaska is flying food in to feed communities who would otherwise starve.

At the same time, that seabird colonies in the Lofoten Islands of Norway -- which numbered in 10s of millions, have all but disappeared in the last 5 years.

A biologist acquaintance documented 10s of thousands of starving seabirds wash ashore in the Gulf of Alaska (circa 2015 or 2016) as sea temps there shot up by 15 degrees. Never been seen before.

At the same time, most of the sea-stars in Puget Sound died. Used to see them everywhere.

Where I grew up north of Seattle, I'd never seen smoke filled skies (born in 72). Since about 2016, several weeks of dangerous smoke levels have become the norm.

Last year, while my son visited family in that area (we've since moved to Michigan), record temps were smashed beyond belief. Places where I can't remember any temps over 95 recorded 116 degrees. Marine life in the intertidal zone (the heat coincided with a minus tide) literally cooked in their shells. The smell afterwards was quite nasty. Never seen that in my lifetime until now.

Last summer, I took my first vacation in 13 years. I'd purposely avoided long distance travel before then largely due to climate concerns. My wife and I paddled through a drought-stricken Boundary Waters Canoe Area in northern Minnesota. Fires were banned, and dead trees & vegetation were everywhere. The sun was obscured by smoke most of the time, from fires burning in Canada. A week after we got back, the entire area was closed to all entry -- also a first.

Most of the people I know simply shrug and avoid stringing these facts together, afraid of the implications. I don't.

So you're right -- there is not a "single proof that CO2 is a knob for climate and temperature changes". There are in fact many *thousands* of them -- some of which I helped to create when I worked with scientists doing this work (I was just an undergrad tech).

Expand full comment

Yes! I remember from school back in the day that CO2 was not labelled a bad thing. So always thought it odd that it has been marked as bad/evil now. The various prongs to depopulate and/or sicken/weaken carbon life forms (esp we humans) is breathtaking in it's scope and tenacity by those running the scam on us.

Expand full comment