Tag Archives: CO2

WHAT!!!! Increased CO@ Does Not Cause Climate Change?

Posted on by

Cows Do NOT Cause ‘Climate Change,’ Top Study Confirms

Frank Bergman12 Comments

A bombshell new study has debunked the globalist narrative that emissions from cows are causing “climate change” while proving that cattle herds actually lower methane gas levels in the atmosphere.

In recent years, unelected foreign organizations such as the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the United Nations (UN) have been demonizing the agriculture industry while calling for limits, or even bans, on the general public’s consumption of meat and dairy products.

The WEF, UN, and green agenda politicians argue that methane gasses from cattle, or “cow farts,” cause “global warming.”

This so-called “settled science” on alleged cattle emissions has led to increasing scrutiny of farmers around the world.

Global governments have responded by ramping up regulations for the agriculture industry in an effort to shut farms down.

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that 11.1% of emissions worldwide come from livestock production.

The FAO released a report last year urging Americans to eat less meat.

The UN argues that if people “fight climate change” by eating less meat, there will be less demand for cows.

If there are fewer cows, there will be fewer emissions, according to the UN.

However, new research from Alltech and Archbold suggests that these anti-cow claims from globalists are a hoax.

According to the new study, blaming cows for methane emissions ignores cattle’s relationship with the land.

The researchers found that, if grazing cattle were removed from pastures, emissions would actually go up, not down.

Besides trying to convince people to change their diets so we can get rid of more cows, other efforts seek to attack the emissions at the source.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation awarded a $4.8 million grant to a London-based company to develop gas masks for cows.

The masks are a similar concept to carbon capture technology.

Other research is looking into food additives that go into the cows’ feed.

Bill Gates is also pushing for cows to be genetically “modified” to advance this agenda.

The additives seek to reduce the amount of methane emissions coming out of the animal.

In Ireland, dairy farmers were looking at possibly having to kill a lot of healthy cattle in order to comply with the WEF’s “Net Zero” emission reduction targets.

Dr. Vaughn Holder, research project manager for beef nutrition at Alltech, and Dr. Betsey Boughton, director of agroecology at Archbold, studied the impacts that cattle production has on the ecosystem on a wetlands pasture at Buck Island Ranch.

The ranch is about 150 miles northwest of Miami, Florida.

The researchers found that 19%-30% of methane emissions were from the cattle.

However, the rest of the methane was from the wetland soils.

If the cows are removed, it actually increases the amount of methane the wetland ecosystems give off, the research shows.

Globalists argue that methane is more potent in terms of “greenhouse warming” than carbon dioxide.

Yet, methane only lasts about 12 years.

So reducing methane can have a more immediate impact on warming than reducing carbon dioxide, according to the study.

Cattle emissions are often demonized in a similar way to fossil fuel emissions, the researchers note.

When we burn fossil fuels, the emissions go into the air. So eliminating a coal-fired power plant, for example, removes an emissions source, which produces a drop in emissions.

“There is a far more complex process in agriculture than it is in fossil fuel systems,” Holder said.

Ruminants, as they’re called, which includes cattle and sheep, have a large chamber in front of their stomach that acts as a fermentation factory.

Inside are bacteria, yeasts, fungi, and other microorganisms that help the animals digest grasses that humans can’t.

Methane is a natural waste product of that process.

In a series of videos on the Buck Island research, Holder explains that cattle take a lot of plants humans can’t eat.

The cows turn them into edible proteins humans can consume, increasing global food security.

WATCH:

The animals also consume a lot of food byproducts that can’t be used for human consumption.

For example, orange pulp used in orange juice production can be fed to livestock.

Those byproducts can be used in composting, but composting increases emissions five times more than feeding it to dairy cows, Holder said.

If byproducts are disposed of in landfills, the emissions go up 50 times over feeding it to dairy cows.

It is possible to put additives in the cows’ diet to inhibit that methane production, but at about 30% inhibition, Holder explained, you start to see negative effects.

There are some viable strategies to reduce emissions with additives, but that can only go so far.

Additionally, cattle are part of a carbon cycle.

If studies only model the emissions coming from the animal, the rest of the ecosystem is being ignored, Holder said.

The study notes that the ecosystem is absorbing carbon as a result of the animals being on the land.

The research alliance between Archbold and Alltech is increasing their understanding of this process, Dr. Holder explained.

“We weren’t looking at food production from an ecosystem standpoint before we came together with Betsey’s [Boughton] group,” Holder said.

“So it really has adjusted our perspective on how big we need to be looking at these systems in order to get this right.”

When cattle graze on land, the plants prioritize root growth over the plant matter above the surface.

The deeper the roots, the more plants sequester carbon in the soil through the photosynthesis process.

Grazing also removes grasses from a pasture, reducing the dead plant matter that falls into the soil and decomposes, which also produces greenhouse gasses.

“It’s a natural process,” Dr. Boughton said.

“We’re not saying that’s bad. Wetlands are good.

“That’s just a natural part of a wetland.”

At the Buck Island Ranch, Boughton and her team measured the amount of greenhouse gasses emitted on a pasture that had no grazing.

They compared it to pasture that had grazing.

What they found is that cattle grazing ends up as a carbon sink, meaning there’s a net reduction in the amount of emissions from that pasture compared to pastures with no cows.

“From my perspective, it’s more of a proof-of-concept type evaluation,” Holder said.

“We’re showing that we need to be looking at more than just emissions if we want to have a decent idea what’s happening in those ecosystems and what the effects are on global warming or food security or whatever it might be.”

There’s a lot of carbon locked up in the soil, he said.

The exact impact of removing grazing from those lands isn’t fully understood.

“It’s sort of an unintended consequence if we pull animals off the land and we don’t know what effect the next land use is going to have on those carbon stocks,” Holder said.

The livestock industry has long held that it’s being unfairly demonized in the effort to stop “climate change.”

The Alltech-Archbold research is showing that farmers are correct and the globalist narrative is nothing more than a hoax.

This news comes after a recent peer-reviewed study provided conclusive scientific evidence proving that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in Earth’s atmosphere cannot cause “global warming.”

Dr. Jan Kubicki led a group of world-renowned Polish scientists to study the impact of increases in CO2 emissions on the Earth’s global temperatures.

However, not only did they find that higher levels of CO2 made no difference, but they also proved that it simply isn’t possible for increases in carbon dioxide to cause temperatures to rise.

Kubicki and his team recently published three papers which all conclude that Earth’s atmosphere is already “saturated” with carbon dioxide.

This saturation means that, even at greatly increased levels of CO2, the “greenhouse gas” will not cause temperatures to rise.

READ MORE – Top Study: Carbon Emissions CANNOT Cause ‘Global Warming’

from:    https://slaynews.com/news/cows-do-not-cause-climate-change-top-study-confirms/

THe Big Global Warming Schmooze

Posted on by

Top 15 Unbelievable Reasons That Prove Global Warming Might be a Hoax

global-warming-burning-earth-burning

Global Warming is the name given to the current belief that the earth’s temperature has been gradually increasing over the past few hundred years since the dawn of the industrial revolution.

The human impact on this is believed to only account for 10% of all the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and as such, it is highly unlikely that we, as a species, are having a massive negative impact on the stability of the earth’s climate. In this article, we will be giving you 15 reasons that prove global warming might be a hoax.

More from global warming:

Top 15 Unbelievable Reasons That Prove Global Warming Might be a Hoax

1. The climate of the earth is warming up rapidly

If you look at the HadCRUT3 surface temperature index, which is based in the UK, records show warming to 1878, cooling to 1911, warming to 1941, cooling to 1964, warming to 1998 and cooling to 2011. The increase in temperature between 1964 was the same rate as recorded between 1911 to 1941. Numerous satellites, ground stations, and weather balloons show recorded cooling since 2001.

The current warnings of a temperature increase of 0.6 degrees to 0.8 degrees are nothing irregular and fit into the natural rate of the warming recorded over the last few centuries.

The placement of these global weather stations should be taken into account. They are mostly based in so-called heat islands in cities where temperatures are normally higher, and few have been placed in rural countryside locations.

Two teams have corrected the average temperature readings between all the stations and have reduced the reported increase in temperature by half since 1980. Up to today, there has never been any sort of significantly extreme event caused by warming.

There was global warming about a thousand years ago (Medieval Warm Period) – it’s a cyclic matter, no need for alarmism.

2. Reports show that the global climate has been cooling for the past 1000 years and recently, temperatures have skyrocketed

Throughout history, the climate of this planet has fluctuated greatly, many ancient people and religions alike talk about a great flood, which was probably caused by the melting ice caps or glaciers. Recorded history tells us of a warm period from around 1000 to 1200 AD, which allowed the Vikings to farm crops on Greenland. This was followed by the little ice age.

Since the end of the 17th century, the average global temperature has been rising at a steady rate, except for the period of 1940 to 1970 in which the climate cooled off, which in turn led to a global panic about global cooling!

Over a century, stratocumulus clouds forming off the coastlines can turn the global temperature up or down by a few degrees, and the “climate models” cannot predict which way it will go. (July 2018 issue of “Science).”

3. The rate of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been directly credited to the human species and greenhouse gasses, causing the current warming trend

The carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere has fluctuated due to various reasons over time. Since the industrial revolution, the CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased on average by roughly 120 parts per million. Most of this is linked to the human cause, and during the current century, the increase is approximately 0.55% per year.

See also  Causes, Effects and Solutions to Global Dimming

Though there is absolutely no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As ancient ice core measurements have proven that CO2 levels in the past have often changed after a temperature drop or increase. Solid evidence exists that shows that as temperatures fluctuate naturally through solar radiation and other galactic and local influences, the warming of the surface levels of the planet results in more CO2 being released into the atmosphere.

The ratio of man-made CO2 to natural CO2 on Earth is about 1 to 2400. That means man’s portion is about 2 drops if a 12 ounce glass held Earth’s CO2.

Recent findings show Mt. Katla buried under a glacier in Iceland emits up to 24,000 tons CO2 per day; it’s possible that many more other sub-glacial volcanoes worldwide are dumping much more CO2 into the atmosphere. There are 40,000 miles of volcanically active mid-ocean ridges, of which only a tiny fraction has been mapped. That’s a real big thermal and CO2 output area we know little about.

4. The poles are warming, and ice caps are melting, apparently

Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979. Temperatures at the poles have not increased since 2005. In fact, apart from the Palmer Peninsula, the entire Antarctic region is cooling down. Icecap thickness in the arctic and north poles are increasing in size and will continue to do so until things naturally warm up.

5. Computer models are being used to calculate the future impacts of CO2

These computer models are programmed to assume that CO2 is the largest climate driver and that the sun has little effect on the climate. These computer models can be programmed with a large number of variables in order to come to the conclusion that the earth will cool down or warm-up. A computer model is no way to measure anything, as it is purely a matter of who inputs the data for the model.

The sun is a major driver of the climate, with daily additions of solar radiation that are completely random and follow no pattern at all. These computer models do not take this into account and, therefore, do not give a true representation of the actual climate. And as such, they should not be used as a base for such claims.

6. The melting of natural glaciers proves global warming?

Glaciers have naturally receded and grown countless times throughout history. Recent glacier receding is simply an outcome of the warming planet after the little ice age of the early medieval period. Scientists have discovered evidence that the ice caps and glaciers have receded and increased in size on numerous occasions throughout history.

It is a normal thing for the glaciers to shrink and expand over time. Anyway, this is more driven by precipitation than temperature.

7. CO2 is a toxin?

A lot of people believe this, and it plays a part in many scientific studies from a purely theoretical standpoint. CO2 is just as important as nitrogen to the atmosphere.

CO2 plays a major role in the bringing about of life on earth, it is necessary for plant growth, and in some areas with higher levels of CO2, records show that some tree and plant life can grow at extraordinary rates. The assumption that CO2 is a pollutant is completely false.

melting-glacier-global-warming
Source: Canva

8. Global warming apparently will cause storms and extreme weather

These claims are completely baseless. No evidence exists of the weather being affected by global warming on a global scale. Regional variations do occur. Extreme weather can be affected by a large number of variables; things like the jet stream, for example, can change the weather for many seasons in different European countries. Even sand swept up from the Sahara desert can change the climate of the northernmost European nations.

See also  Various Human Activities That Affect an Ecosystem

Global warming has no impact on these weather systems. Some argue that global warming will lead to droughts across the world, but if global warming happens the way we are being told, there should be more moisture in the air all around us as the moisture evaporates due to high temperatures.

9. Does global warming cause a shorter lifespan?

Considering that the earth’s climate has been forever changing since the formation of the planet. It didn’t stop just because our human race popped up. Even during our history, the earth’s climate has fluctuated from cold to hot and back again; we do what we have always done, and what life always does, we adapt.

Due to all the major increases in scientific and medical studies, our current lifespan is vastly superior to our ancestors, and this will continue to grow as time goes on.

10. Does CO2 form the largest part of the greenhouse gases?

Greenhouse effect causing gas forms roughly 3% of the volume of the atmosphere. 97% of which is water vapor and clouds, with the remaining percentages being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone, and N20. CO2 makes up about 0.4% of our atmosphere.

The small amounts of gasses in the atmosphere are capable of retaining the heat from solar radiation, but due to the relatively small amounts of them in comparison to the other 90% of water vapor. That 90% is believed to cause 75% of the greenhouse effect.

At their current levels, if water vapor were to increase just 3%, that would amount to the same level of the greenhouse effect as if CO2 increased by 100%.

11. “The impacts of climate change are expected to act as a ‘threat multiplier’ in many of the world’s most unstable regions, exacerbating droughts and other natural disasters as well as leading to food, water and other resource shortages that may spur mass migrations.”

Regarding food and water supplies, global crop production has soared as the Earth gradually warms. Atmospheric carbon dioxide is essential to plant life, and more it added to the atmosphere enhances plant growth and crop production. Plant growth and crop production also benefit from longer growing seasons and fewer frost events. Global crops set new production records virtually every year as our planet modestly warms.

The same holds true as per objective data for water supplies. As our planet warms, there is a gradual increase in global precipitation and soil moisture. Warmer temperatures evaporate more water from the oceans, which in turn stimulates more frequent precipitation over continental landmasses. This results in enhanced precipitation, which means an improvement in soil moisture at almost all sites in the Global Soil Moisture Data Bank.

If crop shortages, declining precipitation and declining soil moisture cause national security threats, then global warming benefits rather than jeopardizes national security.

12. “Sea Levels Rising – Warmer temperatures are causing glaciers and polar ice sheets to melt, increasing the amount of water in the world’s seas and oceans.”

The pace of sea-level rise remained relatively constant throughout the 20th century, even when global temperatures rose gradually. In recent decades, there has similarly been no increase in the pace of sea-level rise.

When utilizing 20th-century technologies, humans effectively adapted to global sea-level rise, then utilizing 21st-century technologies, humans will be much more equipped to adapt to global sea-level rise.

Although alarmists frequently point melting of polar ice sheets and a recent modest shrinkage in the Arctic ice sheet, that decline has been completely offset by ice sheet expansion in the Antarctic. Since NASA precisely began measuring those 35 years ago with satellite instruments, cumulatively, polar ice sheets have not declined at all.

13. “Economic Consequences – The costs associated with climate change rise along with the temperatures. Severe storms and floods combined with agricultural losses cause billions of dollars in damages, and money is needed to treat and control the spread of disease”

Extreme events such as severe storms, floods and agricultural losses may cost a great deal of money, but such costs are dramatically declining as the Earth modestly warms. Therefore, EDF’s asserted economic costs are actually economic benefits.

As per the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, severe storms are becoming less frequent and severe as the Earth modestly warms. The hurricane and tornado activity both are at historic lows.

Similarly, scientific measurements and peer-reviewed studies report no increase in flooding events regarding natural-flowing rivers and streams. If there was an increase in flooding activity, that is due to human alterations of river and stream flow rather than precipitation changes.

Also, the modest recent warming is producing the U.S., and global crop production records virtually every year, creating billions of dollars in new economic and human welfare benefits each and every year. This creates a net economic benefit completely ignored by EDF.

14. 31,000 scientists say “no convincing evidence”

While polls of scientists actively working in the field of climate science indicate strong general agreement that Earth is warming and human activity is a significant factor, 31,000 scientists say there is “no convincing evidence” that humans can or will cause “catastrophic” heating of the atmosphere.

This claim originates from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, which has an online petition (petitionproject.org) that states:

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.

Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

15. No Real Proof or Evidence

According to an article by the Huffington Post, President Donald Trump told the American public about his disbelief in climate change because he didn’t see any real evidence. This comment has been made by millions of other people since the 2016 election, and since the American President pulled out of the Paris Accords, an agreement signed by several countries to change their environmental practices.

Geo-engineering scientists working on blocking the sun’s rays to cool the planet say that: “Even if we completely stopped carbon dioxide emissions today, the earth will continue warming over the next several decades.”

from:    https://www.conserve-energy-future.com/top-10-unbelievable-reasons-that-prove-global-warming-might-be-hoax.php

“Hacking The Human Body” – Bad Idea

Posted on by

The Waiting-For-Pandemic Transhuman Cult of Biodefense

Biodefense Experiencing Tremendous Demand Worldwide in Face of COVID-19 – ResearchAndMarkets.com (PRNewsfoto/Research and Markets)

POSTED BY: SASHA LATYPOVA VIA BROWNSTONE INSTITUTE MARCH 31, 2023

Please Share This Story!
The Transhuman quest for genetic modification in order to change the human condition will end in total disaster. “Hacking the human body” is a myth perpetuated by academics like Yuval Noah Harari and Klaus Schwab with his Fourth Industrial Revolution narrative. Globally, however, biodefense spending is in the trillions and shows no signs of restraint. ⁃ TN Editor

Yuval Noah Harari is a leading ideologue of the wannabe one-world government criminal cartel and the WEF’s favorite mouthpiece. His main message seems to be that humans can be technologically captured, controlled, and “hacked” or manipulated and thus enslaved to serve the WEF/WHO controlling uber-class.

I was alerted to this video by a reader. In this TED talk from 2015 Harari postulates that humans, as opposed to animals, are unique in their capacity to believe fictional stories, and thus can be controlled via the narrative, via fiction, as long as everyone believes the same story. According to him, the idea of humans having a soul and free will is “over.” Therefore via this method you can make people cooperate with their own demise (even in lining up to be injected with poison) via mass brainwashing and narrative control.

Humans do fall for nonsense, and in fact, we seem to crave it. We love good stories, imaginative, aspirational ones, hero journeys, romances, whodunit (the genre of this Substack), or the sci-fi stories of technological advances. The sci-fi fantasies are highly popular. They are indeed so popular that for the most part, the general public and most of the professionals cannot distinguish legitimate science from the imaginary sci-fi narratives anymore, and this became plainly obvious during the current fake “global pandemic” years.

We also love scary stories! Looming prospects of fake invisible catastrophes seem to be perennially in vogue. Here is a great book I recommend on this topic by Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace. To quote:

“A while back it dawned on me that the great majority of scare stories about the present and future state of the planet, and humanity as a whole, are based on subjects that are either invisible, extremely remote, or both. Thus, the vast majority of people have no way of observing and verifying for themselves the truth of these claims predicting these alleged catastrophes and devastating threats. Instead, they must rely on the activists, the media, the politicians, and the scientists – all of whom have a very large financial and/or political stake in the subject – to tell them the truth. This welcomes the opportunity to simply invent narratives such as the claim that “CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels are causing a climate emergency.”

No one can actually see, or in any way sense, what CO2 might actually be doing because it is invisible, odorless, tasteless, silent and cannot be felt by the sense of touch. Therefore, it is difficult to refute such claims because there is nothing to point to and tangibly expose the falsity of these claims.”

There is a bit of a problem with overused narratives. Climate change narrative is becoming harder to maintain as Greta Thunberg is now past the expiration date for a child actor, polar bears refuse to cooperate and keep multiplying, and the glaciers are not melting away like Al Gore promised. UFOs and aliens can only get us so far.

New fear narratives must be established: the narrative of “emerging” novel viruses has been in the works for years. Scary invisible viruses that can pounce out of a jungle any minute and are just a plane ride away from infecting half the planet with a lethal new pathogen! Even more exciting is the prospect of evil scientists making new deadly and super-spreading viruses in labs that can “leak.”

The Government mafia (HHS, NIH, DOD, DARPA, BARDA, DTRA, etc, etc,) and their vassals in academia, the biopharma industry, and media have all been feeding at the “biodefense” money trough for decades. What can be better than an invisible threat to justify printing and spending truckloads of money for mega-defense/research contracts, while flying to the global champagne-caviar events and giving each other diverse-inclusive-sustainable science awards?

Debbie Lerman, a journalist, in her recent article for Brownstone, points out the time and money spent by the military-industrial cartel’s scam of “biodefense and pandemic preparedness.” There are some eye-watering dollar amounts described in a Lancet paper she referenced “Biodefense Research Two Decades Later: Worth the Investment?”

“Prior to 2001, annual US biodefense funding totaled an estimated $700,000,000. Following the incidents of 2001, the worldwide surge in biodefense-related funding was largely spurred by the realization that many countries were not prepared for bioterrorism attacks. The 2001 US Amerithrax attack revealed shortcomings in medical countermeasure availability through the Strategic National Stockpile (SNS), the laboratory response network system, public health infrastructure, and communication.”

Many of the funding programs were associated with the US federal government. A $1,000,000,000 program was implemented in the US in 2002 in the form of bioterrorism preparedness grants, biodefense research funding, and medical countermeasure stockpiling within the Department of Health and Human Services. Additional notable post-2001 US biodefense funding efforts include the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Biowatch Program (2001), The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) preparedness program, the DHS’s Project Bioshield (2004), the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA; 2006), and the National Bio and Agro Defense Facility (2014).

These programs typically address matters outside of biodefense, such as public health, national and international security, and healthcare issues, adding to their broader impact. Total US biodefense funding dramatically increased from ~$700,000,000 in 2001 to ~$4,000,000,000 spent in 2002; the peak of funding in 2005 was worth nearly $8,000,000,000 and continued with steady average spending around $5,000,000,000.

In 2019, the global biodefense market was valued at $12,200,000,000 and is expected to grow at a compound annual growth rate of 5.8% from 2020–2027, resulting in a projected market value of $19,800,000,000 in 2027. Factors such as sustained government and private funding resources driven by the looming threat of bioterrorism and the recent occurrence of natural outbreaks of bioterror-related pathogens including Coxiella burnetii, Ebola virus (EBOV), SARS-CoV-1, SARS-CoV-2, influenza, and Lassa virus are likely major contributors to the ever-expanding global biodefense market.

And what were those billions devoted to? In a 2003 abstract entitled “Expanded Biodefense Role for the National Institutes of Health” Dr. Anthony Fauci articulates his biodefense  vision: “the goal within the next 20 years is to have ‘bug to drug’ within 24 hours. This would meet the challenge of genetically engineered bioagents.”

Many events have been capitalized on by the growing behemoth of the government-industry cartel over time. Policymaking in the past 20 years increasingly aimed to set up regulations to maximize the ruling powers of authorities by simultaneously eradicating existing laws and constitutional checks to set them free of any responsibilities and install de-facto martial law. Each policy was installed after so-called “events” which were used to introduce new “Acts.”

It is legitimate to have the possibility in mind that it may have been also the other way around – they installed the events to justify new “Acts” – after each “attack” a new more authoritarian legislation was shaped and put in place to fit the totalitarian agenda.

The narrative of biodefense/biosecurity articulated by Fauci is totally bogus of course. Viral pandemics do not happen in reality, despite decades of very busy and crowded international traffic (have you experienced Ryan Air?).

Ok, maybe scary viruses won’t jump naturally from the jungle, but surely they will one day “emerge” from a Dr. Evil’s laboratory? Here is Ralph Baric “predicting” in 2016 that Wuhan Virus 1 SARS-Co-V was prepped and ready to “emerge” from his lab at UNC Chapel Hill. Our Congress is still searching for a “leak” in Wuhan. Hello! Congress!

Giant amounts of money, investors, resources, projects, studies, research grants, conferences, round tables, TED talks, policy committees, Congressional acts, lots of lawyering and lobbying, tabletop simulations – an entire $19 billion/year industry is awaiting THE BIG ONE someday. Thousands of adults participating in this make-believe play eventually must start to fully believe it in order to cope with a massive soul-destroying cognitive dissonance.

The ones that can’t stomach this due to a functioning moral compass, quit and go to work elsewhere. What starts as a B-movie script (Dustin Hoffman chasing an escaped monkey with tanks and helicopters), through the alignment of individual economic incentives and narratives, grows into an ideology and subsequently into a full-fledged religion. Thus, a dangerous cult is born – The Cult of Waiting for Pandemic of the Church of Biodefense.

The numerous state, military and private investors who backed the biodefense narrative, including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation among hundreds of private, sovereign, and non-profit funds that plowed all that cash into the “biodefense” are waiting for the returns!

From the same Lancet paper:

“Fifteen years later, with no such fantastical platform in sight, DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) published an updated medical countermeasure plan in 2017 entitled “Removing the Viral Threat: Two Months to Stop Pandemic X from Taking Hold.” Instead of Fauci’s 24 hours from bug to drug, this plan tells us “DARPA aims to develop an integrated end-to-end platform that uses nucleic acid sequences to halt the spread of viral infections in sixty days or less.”

If the Big One doesn’t show up, the cult is going to try to “assist” it.

Many attempts were made at starting pandemics from local “outbreaks:” SARS1, MERS, zika, ebola – but nothing spread. Characters like Michael Callahan, a swashbuckling Indiana Jones-type epidemiologist and reported CIA agent, always “first on the scene” of exotic “outbreaks,” chasing Ebola patients through the jungle with “vaccines” seems to be not enough to produce a pandemic. Even fear porn propaganda in the media fizzles out. They play with soups of “chimeric viruses” in petri dishes funded by billions in NIH grants, fund many contract biolabs in China, Ukraine, and the Middle East, but nothing simultaneously dangerous and highly transmissible results. Why?

You may believe in billions of years of evolution, but my preferred explanation is that God’s cannot be improved upon. All life forms, from humans to microorganisms, are in the state of perfect dynamic equilibrium for this moment in time, as dictated by physical laws. Biological pathogens are already fully optimized for this state, too, by billions of years of work or by God’s genius design, whatever you want to believe.

They are either contagious (a fuzzy term as there are vague and conflicting explanations of contagion mechanisms in science), or they are deadly, in which case they don’t spread much. Artificially making a biological pathogen more deadly and more transmissible is impossible, because, if it were possible, it would have happened already in nature, and then we would not be around to discuss this on the internet.

If it were possible with lab techniques, it would have already been successfully deployed by a state or non-state actor since 1969 when biological pathogen research really took off.

There are 1,000+ “biodefense” labs in the world today, many in third-world countries with lax or nonexistent safety standards, or even war-torn places like Ukraine – yet nothing of note “leaks” anywhere. Certainly nothing leaked and went global until the WHO decided that covid should.

Lab-“emerging pathogens” seem to need a lot of help to emerge, i.e. get synthesized, manufactured at scale and deployed, and even then they are not particularly dangerous (except with very large exposure), and are treatable. Biological toxins are known to be unstable, denature quickly, are somewhat more persistent indoors but they do not pose mass lethal danger.

Just like any chemical toxin, they pose individual/localized danger. These substances are not “alive and replicating particles” any more than the poison oak is – yes you can get it from your dog and give it to your family members, and the bugger will stay on your clothes and is hard to get rid of! But poison of poison oak is not an infectious virus that “jumps” from dogs to humans; it’s a biological toxin in plant oils.

In my opinion, the Ohio train explosion is much more dangerous to a lot more people over a larger area and longer period of time than any “bioweapon lab leak.”

All natural biological pathogens are already perfectly optimized and balanced and cannot be “modified,” despite the sci-fi narratives of hackable “software of life” and gene splicing. No complex life form can be “genetically modified” and continue as a viable life form, because that modification will interfere with its living balance, and deviate it from the perfect current state of equilibrium. In multicellular organisms, you have to modify all cells (not possible with single injection), and keep modifying all of them in perpetuity.

Once injected with “gene-modifying” juice, the body frantically tries to figure out WTF just happened (FDA calls it “immunogenicity”), tries to undo the assault by eliminating the damaged cells (FDA calls it “reactogenicity”), and if the assault was large enough or with multiple injections – the body will destroy itself (CDC calls it “misinformation”).

These “gene modification” narratives are simply stupid talk. All that can result from any such attempts is either the organism defeats and clears the assault from foreign material inside the cells, or local/systemic damage results, leading to injury or death. That’s why all mRNA/DNA technologies failed despite 20+ years of attempts and gazillions plowed in by the biodefense cult of doomsday.

People promoting the gene modification narratives reduce the human body to a “bucket of sequenced genes” but cannot even begin to explain how it functions normally as a living being. They exclude the possibility of human soul, spirit and free will, but cannot explain nor define the normal state of life.

Yet, they claim they can control and modify it! They do not understand what humans are, and that’s a massive point of failure when they attempt to “capture, control and subjugate” humans, whether by brute force as in previous centuries of warfare, or by the Harari’s “fictional narrative control” of the 5th generation one.

Don’t fall for doom cults and their false narratives. When we are not afraid to seek the truth, we cannot be captured, controlled or enslaved. Once you understand this, you see Harari as not a powerful technocrat, but what he really is – a clown with a whiny voice, spinning idiotic narratives for his masters. They already failed anyway because the truth is coming out day by day. They had a good run of it but their plans utterly flopped and left devastation in their wake.

from:  technocracy.news/the-waiting-for-pandemic-transhuman-cult-of-biodefense

Actually, It Is Less Than.a Carbon Thumbprint!

Posted on by

Can You Guess How Much CO2 is Mankind Responsible For?

Global warming and climate change alarmists harp on about “dangerously high” manmade CO2 output levels. So how much are they? The answer will shock you.
by Makia Freeman, guest writer,
HumansAreFree.com

You would think manmade CO2 output levels must be sky-high, given all the relentless guilt-tripping propaganda we are fed about how humanity is the cause of global warming. The agenda to push AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) or manmade global warming started around the 1980s and has been gaining momentum for decades, fooling many people along the way.

Yet, despite all the publicity it has gotten, it has still failed to make clear a very fundamental point: exactly how much and what percentage of carbon or specifically CO2 (carbon dioxide) does humanity contribute to the atmosphere?

If man is really driving global warming (now conveniently called “climate change”), surely this level must be pretty high or at least significant, right? The answer may shock you … and give new meaning to the term global warming hoax.

Manmade CO2 Output Levels … Straight out of the IPCC’s Mouth

One of the difficult things about ascertaining the truth in the climate change debate is that there are so many different sets of measurements. Which one do you trust? How can you tell the truth when one side uses one set of data to prove its point, and the other side uses another set of data to prove its (diametrically opposed) point?

To bypass this dilemma, we are going to get the figures straight of the horse’s mouth so to speak by using data from the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). The IPCC is not a scientific body as you may imagine but rather a political one with a very clear bias towards promoting AGW and climate change alarmism.

It’s their job to push the AGW agenda onto the public, even though they disguise that with claims that they “provide rigorous and balanced scientific information.”

Here’s what Wim Rost had to say in his article IPCC ≠ SCIENCE ↔ IPCC = GOVERNMENT:

“IPCC is government and not science. And the workers of the IPCC prepare the work in accordance with the rules and procedures established by the IPCC.

“In order to be scientific the scientific method has to be adhered. The use of many scientists to fill important parts of IPCC reports does not mean that everything is science. A report is just a report. In this case, a report from the IPCC. And the IPCC is (inter-) government.

“Scientists involved can produce their own scientific papers about their own specialised part of science, but a small group of writers writes the summaries and the conclusions – for the IPCC. And IPCC is government. …

“The IPCC’s stated mission is not to discover what accounts for climate change, but to assess “the risk of human-induced climate change.”

“Consequently, there is almost no discussion in its lengthy reports of other theories of climate change. Policymakers and journalists took this to mean the AGW theory was the only credible theory of climate change, and the IPCC’s sponsors and spokespersons had no incentive to correct the mistake.”

CO2 in the Atmosphere

Here are the simple facts. Earth’s atmosphere consists of the following gases at the following levels:

Nitrogen (N) – 78%

Oxygen (O) – 21%

Argon (Ar) – 0.9%

Trace Gases – 0.1%

So far, so good. CO2 is a gas in such small concentrations that it hasn’t yet entered the picture. So, the next step is to break down the composition of trace gases (which are also the greenhouse gases) in our atmosphere:

Water Vapor (H2O) – 95% of trace gases / 0.95% of overall atmosphere

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) – 3-4% of trace gases / 0.03 or 0.04% of overall atmosphere

Neon (Ne) – 0.1% of trace gases / 0.001% of overall atmosphere

There are also some gases at tiny concentrations, including helium (He), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and ozone (O3), as well as halogenated gases (CFCs) released by mankind which have damaged ozone.

Water vapor is far and away the largest greenhouse gas, but the IPCC chooses to ignore it! Check out these tables below where you can see that water vapor is excluded from the percentages. The IPCC and other AGW proponents claim they need to exclude water vapor from their calculations because it varies so much from region to region.

Yes, it does vary greatly all over the Earth, but to just exclude the largest greenhouse gas (and a massive driver of temperature too) from your calculations because it’s inconvenient or varies too much is grossly misleading and unscientific.

A pie chart typical of one used by the IPCC and AGW proponents. Water vapor, despite being the overwhelmingly largest greeenhouse and trace gas, is simply ignored and omitted.

Humanity’s Contribution to CO2 Levels

To recap: trace gases are 0.1% of the atmosphere, and carbon dioxide makes up 3-4% of these trace gases, so therefore CO2 is 3-4% of 0.1%. For simplicity’s sake, let’s call it 3%, so CO2 comprises 0.003% of the atmosphere.

That’s pretty damn small, but we can’t stop there, because the next question to ask is: how much of this is caused by human activity? The IPCC has conflicting sets of data here, but both are within a small range of each other, either 3.0% (using the 2007 figures) or 3.6% (using the 2001 figures):

Manmade CO2 output levels (IPCC data from 2001)
Manmade CO2 output levels (IPCC data from AR4, 2007)

No matter which set of data you use, the IPCC data shows that manmade CO2 output levels are ~3%. How do you figure this out? The 2001 data shows the total amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere (119 + 88 + 6.3 = 213.3) and the human portion as 6.3. Divide 6.3 by 213.3 and you get 2.95%.

The 2007 data shows the total amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere (29 + 439 + 332 = 800) and the human portion as 29. Divide 29 by 800 and you get 3.63%.

Manmade CO2: 3% of 3% of 0.1%

So here’s the bottom line. According to the IPCC’s own data, manmade CO2 output levels are 3% of 3% of 0.1% of the total Earth’s atmosphere. That’s 0.000009%! That’s 9 millionths.

CO2 is measured in ppm (parts per million) because it is such a tiny and insignificant gas, yet somehow, the propaganda has been so successful that is has sprouted into what some state is a US$1.5 trillion industry.

The IPCC Can’t Deal with Water Vapor

The IPCC is basically stuck on water vapor. It can’t actually measure it, since the variability across the world is so high, H2O vapor changes so quickly, and it takes place above a variety of different landscapes/topographies. There are too many variables to calculate to produce a good model. So it just shuffles it to the side and states it has no “confidence.”

Here’s exactly what the IPCC says:

“Modelling the vertical structure of water vapour is subject to greater uncertainty since the humidity profile is governed by a variety of processes … because of large variability and relatively short data records, confidence in stratospheric H2O vapour trends is low.”

It doesn’t suit the IPCC’s agenda to really dive in and better understand the role of water vapor as the key greenhouse gas driving climate temperature. It’s far easier to just pretend it doesn’t exist and only focus on the tiny amount of CO2 in the atmosphere instead.

Manmade CO2: A Massive Diversion

The idea that manmade CO2 output levels is a big problem, in the scheme of all of Earth’s eco problems, is a giant hoax. It diverts environmentalists’ attention away from the true issues that need addressing. Does it make any logical sense to spend so much money, energy and attention on 0.000009% of CO2, when there are very palpable, tangible and dangerous threats to our environment?

What about geoengineering, the aerial chemtrail spraying of barium, aluminum and strontium all over us, and the flora and fauna of the Earth? What about the release of synthetic self-aware fibers that cause Morgellons’ Disease, in line with the NWO synthetic agenda? What about unstoppable environmental genetic pollution caused by the release of GMOs?

What about the contamination of waterways with industrial chemicals, pesticides like glyphosate and atrazine, poisons like dioxin and DDT, heavy metals and pharmaceutical residues? Why are people wasting their energy on 3% of 3% of 0.1% when we have real MASSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL issues facing us as a species?

Respected theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson said:

“The possibly harmful climatic effects of carbon dioxide have been greatly exaggerated … the benefits clearly outweigh the possible damage.”

Final Thoughts

Despite all the politicians, celebrities and soul-for-sale scientists AGW has recruited to its cause, there is no real basis for the fearmongering.

At the very top, those pushing the manmade global warming hoax know that it’s a scam, so rather than focusing on the facts, they appeal to emotion with fake images of starving polar bears (to arouse anger) and underwater cities (to arouse fear).

The truth is that the green movement has long been hijacked by the very same NWO manipulators who helped to ruin the environment in the first place, through their ownership of oil, chemical and pharmaceutical multinational corporations.

These manipulators rely on the average person being too busy or lazy to check the facts or think critically. They promote scientific illiteracy via their control of the MSM, the educational curriculum and their numerous think tanks.

Finally – if you dare – dig into the birth of the modern environmental movement, and you may be shocked to find how deeply it is steeped in eugenics and depopulation. It’s time to realize that those pushing this gigantic scam aren’t interesting in saving the environment – but rather depopulating it.

From:    http://humansarefree.com/2018/10/can-you-guess-how-much-co2-is-mankind.html

No CO2, No Beer

Posted on by

Beer Shortage Looms in Europe As CO2 Supply Dwindles

By Mindy Weisberger, Senior Writer |
Beer Shortage Looms in Europe As CO2 Supply Dwindles

Beer drinkers in Europe could soon find that their favorite pub’s taps have run dry.

Credit: Shutterstock

Forget the conundrum of whether your glass is half-empty or half-full — pretty soon, plenty of beer glasses in the United Kingdom may not have anything in them at all.

Soda drinkers won’t have much to toast with, either. And it’s all due to a severe disruption in the European supply chain of industrial, food-grade carbon dioxide (CO2), the gas that lends the beverages their fizz, gas industry website Gasworld reported on June 19.

The CO2 shortage isn’t just affecting beverages — it’s also serving up a generous helping of trouble for meat production in Europe. Carbon dioxide is used in meat packaging to slow the growth of microbes and preserve the meat’s color and freshness, and in slaughterhouses, CO2 is used to stun animals prior to killing them, representatives of the British Meat Processors Association (BMPA) reported in a statement released June 21.

The trouble began with the recent closure of several industrial plants that provide liquid CO2 across northern Europe; they were shuttered “for various reasons, including maintenance and refurbishment,” affecting a number of businesses that produce or distribute food and beverages, Gavin Partington, director general at the British Soft Drinks Association, said in a statement on June 20.

BMPA officials reported on June 21 that the CO2 shortage would likely last “approximately four weeks.” In the days that followed, the flow of CO2 across northern Europe slowed to a trickle, with the U.K. the hardest hit by the CO2 scarcity. On June 26, a widely used British wholesale food and beverage company began rationing distribution of carbonated drinks, restricting businesses’ purchases to no more than 10 cases of beer and a maximum of five cases of cider or soda, CNBC reported.

Meanwhile, concerns were growing that meats, beer and carbonated beverages would disappear from British supermarket shelves “if a normal supply of CO2 is not restored as quickly as possible,” Ian Wright, a representative of the U.K.’s Food and Drink Federation (FDF) said in a statement released June 29.

A purified gas

CO2 that puts the fizz in your beer and soda is fundamentally the same as CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere, but it must be food-grade quality. In other words, to be used in food or drink, CO2 has to be purified according to local regulations and standards, and then shown to be free of contaminants, chemist and American Chemical Society member Richard Sachleben told Live Science.

This CO2 is typically produced as a byproduct of industrial or chemical manufacturing processes, such as those used in ammonia plants. It is dissolved in liquid in sealed containers under high-pressure conditions, Sachleben explained. Once the CO2 is sealed up, it has nowhere to go until the container is opened, which is why you see fizz rising in a bottle after you open the cap and release the pressure inside, enabling the CO2 to convert to gas and escape, he said.

“As long as you maintain the pressure, carbon dioxide will stay in the liquid — if you release the pressure, it’ll release into the atmosphere,” Sachleben said.

But in case you’re wondering if the U.K. and the rest of Europe could get some relief from the CO2 shortage by siphoning CO2 from the atmosphere — that wouldn’t be a practical solution, Sachleben told Live Science.

Even with rising levels of atmospheric CO2 due to climate change, CO2 in the air is still only about 400 parts per million, and is mixed with nitrogen, oxygen and other elements. It would therefore be quite a costly and time-consuming challenge to extract and refine purified CO2 from air — at least in the amounts that are typically collected from industrial processes, he said.

Original article on Live Science.

from:    https://www.livescience.com/62968-beer-shortage-co2-supply-dwindles.html

Another Look at Global Warming

Posted on by

Global Warming

SUMMARY: Global warming is a theory with four components:

1. The Earth’s surface temperature is rising because of human activity, particularly industrial production and personal consumption;

2. Weather extremes we now experience are more destructive than in the past because of this warming effect;

3. If this trend is not stopped, the planet will soon be unable to sustain human life as we have known it; and

4. The solution is government management of all human activity, including the elimination of private property and personal freedom.

We reject the theory of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming for three reasons:

1. It is based on junk science and fraud. In other words, it does not exist. The driving force behind this theory comes from politicians, bureaucrats, and those employed by institutions that depend on government funding. All of these benfit from the alleged solution to the alledged problem.

2. The proposed solution requires crushing taxation, confiscation of private property, and denial of freedom-of-choice. This is contrary to The Creed of Freedom, paragraphs 3 and 4.

3. The threat of global warming is the bedrock foundation of almost all programs on behalf of totalitarioan government based on collectivism.

Exposing the Myths

Analysis by G. Edward Griffin

Myth 1.

Leaders of the crusade against global-warming have no financial conflict-of-interest because they only care about the environment, but those who challenge their theories do so because they are paid by the fossil-fuel and nuclear-power industries.

ANALYSIS: There is no doubt that the rank-and-file, true believers in global-warming are motivated by a desire to protect the environment, but those at the top are not so naĂŻve. They know that the specter of environmental disaster is a made-up horror story to frighten us into accepting crushing taxes and a global totalitarian system in the name of saving the planet. How do we know that? Because they say so.

Ottmar Edenhoffer, an official at the UN’s IPPC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) was a former co-chair if the IPCC Working Group III and lead author of the IPPC’s Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007. His report concluded:

One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. … One has to free one’s self from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy…. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War.” (Story) (Cached) (Original in German)

For an eye-opening summary of the meaning of “green” in the environmental movement (it means money), see “Climate Policy as Political Entrepreneurship”, uploaded to the University of Utah website here. (Cached)

MYTH2.
Temperatures have risen since 1998, and reports to the contrary are false.

ANALYSIS: One of the most troublesome facts challenging the theory of global warming is that, even according to UN sources and in spite of data manipulation, global temperatures have not risen since 1998. The dire predictions of increasing temperatures simply have not been validated by nature.

By 2014, this was damaging the credibility of the myth makers and causing skepticism in the public mind. Something had to be done to restore confidence in the global-warming narrative − and, with the Paris Climate Summit scheduled to begin in November of 2015, it had to be done fast in order to have an impact on the proceedings there.

In June of that year, an article appeared in Science magazine, written by a nine-man team at the Environmental Information office of the tax-funded National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). This article was exactly what was needed. It said that the reported ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming was an error − and it had data and charts to prove it.

Because this article came with the imprimatur of NOAA, it well served the purposes of the Paris Conference. Afterward, however, it was learned that the article was politically inspired, and the authors had violated numerous principles of scientific inquiry. That was the conclusion of a former top scientist at NOAA itself, Dr John Bates who, in 2014, was awarded a gold medal by the Obama administration for his work in setting standards for producing and preserving climate data.

Bates said that all the scientific standards he had helped to establish at NOAA had been violated to produce a politically useful document at the Paris Climate Summit. The lead author of the article, Thomas Karl, had insisted on “decisions and scientific choices that maximized warming and minimized documentation … in an effort to discredit the notion of a global-warming pause, and rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy.”

Dr. Bates said that the NOAA team used fraudulent data, applied methods of analysis that overstated the speed of warming, relied on software that was known to be inaccurate, never submitted data for verification by others, and failed to archive the data, making it now impossible to examine. In other words, they lied and then destroyed the evidence.

MYTH3.
Global warming is caused by pollution and weather-modification programs. Therefore, it IS man-made.

2016 Nov 18 from Nikeros
To Ed Griffin:
You don’t believe that Fukushima, nuclear testing, extensive military operations involving gawd knows what, fracking, aerosol spraying of aluminum, barium, strontium and gawd knows what else worldwide and on and on has no effect on the earths climate? Ok fine. I will say no more.

ANALYSIS: The anthropomorphic mantra of most global-warming proponents is that the “man-made” cause is CO2. Period. They claim that CO2 is the byproduct of industry and consumption and that it produces a “carbon footprint”. Therefore, they seek expanded government power and funding to reduce CO2. That’s the basis for all the carbon-tax and regulatory nonsense. None of these people are talking about taxing or regulating “Fukushima, nuclear testing, extensive military operations, fracking, aerosol spraying of aluminum, barium, strontium and gawd knows what else”. They talk only about CO2, the non-toxic greenhouse gas that does NOT cause global warming. The global-warming hoaxers are very good at lumping together pollution (which is real) and man-made global warming (which is not). They are countng on us to fall for the trick and fail to see that these are two entirely different issues.

from:    https://freedomforceinternational.org/position-statements/global-warming/

El Hierro Update

Posted on by

11/12/2011 — El Hierro LARGE undersea eruption — CO2 makes geologist sick — nearby NUCLEAR WASTE DUMP !
Posted on November 12, 2011 by sincedutch
watch RAW video of the latest El Hierro eruption here:

Screenshot below is from the pinnacle point of the undersea eruption.. this was a major event.. since the volcano vent itself is a few hundred feet below the surface of the water..

Link to story on geologist getting sick from CO2 after eruption: http://video.uk.msn.com/watch/video/underwater-volcano-offshore-eruptions-in-canary-islands/2g5jq7z6?cpkey=354b68a2-91c6-4841-8ba2-4aa80bfdf63c

Screenshot of geologist who was made sick by the CO2 gasses:

It is worthy to note the NUCLEAR WASTE DUMP nearby this eruption!!!!

===========================================

FYI — the AD that appears on this video is NOT from me.. this video matched “canary island broadcasting” even though its public use RAW footage.. attempting an appeal on this “3rd party” notice.. til then.. THEIR ad appears.. either that or I have to take down these great shots of El Hierro erupting etc..

sorry, could not get a lot of the photos, but if you go follow the link below (story source), you can find them:

11/12/2011 — El Hierro LARGE undersea eruption — CO2 makes geologist sick — nearby NUCLEAR WASTE DUMP !