On Greta
At a critical time in human history, what she is causing is indeed a deflection, and the so-called “climate debate” has been turned into a political football, a ploy for some would-be beneficiaries. After all, how can the world be captivated watching a teenager crying when the bells of war are tolling in the Arabian/Persian Gulf and tension simmering between America and China? How can the world be silent with crippling trade sanctions and embargos in place, all of which threaten peace and stability? How can we expect stability with an unfinished war in Syria, an on-going genocidal war in Yemen, a highly volatile impasse between India and Pakistan, and very uneasy stalemates in Ukraine and Venezuela? And now we are told that we can ignore all of the above, but how “dare” we not listen to Greta? Bizarre indeed.
But as Western media outlets are moving their news bulletins further away from actually reporting news, and as public opinion in the West is becoming akin to the mob mentality on “The Simpsons”, we must get used to this kind of media consumption; because “Hollywood stuff” does not have to be based on reality or concrete evidence.
The irony here is that Greta, like most other climate campaigners, is far from being a scientist. She is a kid. She is surely passionate about what she is saying, but she is a kid. And one of the ironies is that she is not warning us of the most dangerous gas in the atmosphere. After all, there is an atmospheric gas that can cause a serious blood disorder medically known as alkalosis, and if people inhale high concentrations of it for a long time, it can even cause death. It is very chemically active and highly corrosive. It can corrode the toughest of metals and can turn the mighty Titanic into dust; even under water. Imagine what it might do to the human body. It is very abundant, and we cannot escape it. It is neither carbon dioxide nor hydrogen cyanide. It is oxygen.
Human-induced global warming advocates use the same above theatrical melodramatic approach in their description of the so-called greenhouse gases and refer to this as science, because if one believes the news, he/she would be led to believe that greenhouse gases are categorically bad. This is because all the rhetoric about greenhouse gases is negative, and it is rare, if not impossible, to find a single good attribute given to them.
As a matter of fact, greenhouse gases are not any less essential for life than oxygen. Without them, we would not have rain, we would not have plant life, and the global temperatures would fluctuate between very highs and lows, making it impossible for life to exist as we know it.
Earth’s atmosphere is mainly comprised of oxygen and nitrogen. They tally up to 95-99%. The main other components are argon, solid particles, and the greenhouse gases.
The greenhouse gas that is most abundant is water vapour (moisture), but its percentage varies greatly depending on location and climate. In humid regions, the content can be as high as 3% or more, and in dry desert locations, it will go as low as 0.01% or less.
The thing with water is that it has a high “Specific Heat”. As a matter of fact, it has the highest Specific Heat of all naturally occurring substances. In other words, it takes a lot of heat to heat up water, and at the same time, water stores heat like no other substance. This is why swimming pools, sea water, and all massive water bodies resist temperature change and take a long time to cool down or warm up.
Greenhouse gases, mainly and primarily atmospheric moisture, regulate the temperature on earth. Without them, earth would experience dramatic day/night temperature fluctuations (like on the moon) but having too much of them will cause heat to build up.
Now, we have been bombarded by theories about the alleged effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. This statement is a political statement and far from scientific truth. It is atmospheric moisture that is the biggest and most significant greenhouse gas, and it is very easy for cynics to Google this statement.
Before we talk about carbon dioxide however, the other main greenhouse gases to take a look at are methane, nitrous oxide, CFC’s and ozone.
Most of methane in the atmosphere is the outcome of natural fermentations and volcanic activities. Some of it is produced as an industrial by-product and many ill-informed global warming activists and alarmists blame cattle for methane emissions from their flatulence, but it doesn’t take much intelligence to compare the orifices of cows with volcanoes to figure out which is the major contributor.
Nitrous oxide is produced in nature and by some industries. Two thirds of it however is produced naturally. Main sources of nitrous oxide emissions | What's Your Impact (whatsyourimpact.org)
When it comes to ozone, if anything, human activity and the emission of CFC’s into the atmosphere are meant to be deplete the ozone layer, not enhance it.
This leaves us with carbon dioxide, and it has been the hot topic for at least a whole decade now and blamed as the major culprit behind global warming. Activists, politicians, movie stars, opportunists, “scientists”, fear mongers and highly vocal people are all united in vocalizing endless on-going harangues about the role of carbon dioxide in global warming.
But have they heard about photosynthesis? Do they know that it is the basic step in food production? Do they know that without carbon dioxide in the atmosphere photosynthesis would stop?
We are now inundated with lectures about carbon footprints, low-carb beer and carbon-neutral air travel, and mostly from people who do not even know what carbon is and cannot find it on the periodic table. The rhetoric is coming out of our ears and talks of such issues as carbon sequestration come from people who have never heard the term until they heard it from businesspeople or politicians with vested interests. This is rather offensive for anyone who is trying to make some scientific sense out of this debate.
As a greenhouse gas, it is a fact that carbon dioxide absorbs heat. However, it does not retain it like water vapour does. Instead, it reflects it back. This video represents what a carbon dioxide molecule does with heat it receives:
Some climatologists who are protagonists of global warming argue that even though atmospheric moisture is the most abundant and most significant greenhouse gas, the much less abundant carbon dioxide plays a huge role in the so-called “positive feedback”. They define positive feedback as a loop process in which carbon dioxide traps heat, reflects it back at the atmospheric moisture, heating it up, and eventually producing more atmospheric moisture that will trap more heat. This is how they allege carbon dioxide is the main contributing factor to “global warming”. https://www.science20.com/news_account/greenhouse_gases_and_water_vapor_when_positive_feedback_is_a_bad_thing?fbclid=IwAR3Xp2WJCCRd9cYasM07B6hjtRLgMMNZkWurt7to01IseFOlbD-VjYbS3BE
This theory is at best debatable. First of all, there are no studies that validate it. Secondly, if this theory has any merit, we must then expect similar scenarios around the globe to what happens in deserts.
In deserts, midday temperatures can go higher than fifty degrees Celsius but a few hours later, they can drop at night to freezing temperatures and below. This is because the atmospheres of deserts have very low moisture content. Atmospheric moisture is not any different than liquid water. It stores heat, and this is why regions that have high atmospheric moisture levels, unlike deserts, do not experience those massive day-night temperature fluctuations.
The logic in this self-evident fact should also apply to regions in the world that are highest in carbon dioxide, right? If the “positive feedback” theory is accurate, atmospheric moisture accumulation and warming should be experienced mostly in and around big industrial cities, right? So why is it then that it is the glaciers in Antarctica that are melting? Why is it that the effect of low atmospheric moisture levels in deserts can be seen locally while the effect of high levels of carbon dioxide production has to travel for thousands of kilometers to show its effects? And where are the positive-feedback-generated huge clouds that lurk over big cities?
Something is certainly amiss.
Carbon dioxide-induced global warming advocates often lash out their anger, and often violently, in response to any counter argument, yelling out “stop ignoring the evidence”. They are confusing the evidence of the melting of the glaciers of Antarctica with a theory that doesn’t have a single foot to stand on.
But even if the theory about the role of carbon dioxide in global warming is accurate, naturally produced carbon dioxide from volcanoes exceed that produced by human activity by tenfold. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans/?fbclid=IwAR3WFesLrvi8k8U9QFWesBHG35rZGuJ5wFH0Sr0k5dvf_QjCJbPc6VuQLfE
No one knows why Antarctica is melting. There has been a recent theory about a radioactive activity happening below Antarctica. Such an explanation would be more plausible, but it doesn’t seem to be gaining much attention probably because it doesn’t suit the agenda of the anti-carbon dioxide brigade. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans/?fbclid=IwAR3S3QPZWBWJyJ1MQzfi-jmtHCTodp42wiJuL-koiMRMmZvaYtIZF3z4YJw
Among other things, global warming protagonists ignore the fact that hurricanes dissipate energy and act as virtual global cooling natural phenomena. The amount of heat dissipated by a single hurricane “is equivalent to about 200 times the total electrical generating capacity on the planet!” NASA says that "during its life cycle a hurricane can expend as much energy as 10,000 nuclear bombs!" And we're just talking about average hurricanes here, not Katrina” How much energy in a hurricane? - How much energy in a hurricane, a volcano, and an earthquake? | HowStuffWorks By expending this energy and changing it into “work”, hurricanes leave behind a cooling effect, but climatologists working for media outlets do not seem keen to talk about it. They only seem to want to blame “global warming” for generating the hurricane.
When “scientists” start telling half-truths, then they are in fact telling whole lies. When their “science” cannot be substantiated by the scientific process, it becomes a matter of opinion. When politicians and groups with vested interests take on board such opinions, as intelligent human beings, we must at least stop and ask questions. When the “thought police” stand in the way to stop us from asking questions, casting aspersions on anyone who doesn’t follow them like sheep, we should become more determined to challenge their thoughts, ideology and real objectives.
The term “global warming denialist” or just “denialist” is now akin to a term we know from history; “heretic”.
In the age of the Renaissance, scientists were persecuted and prosecuted in the West for daring to proclaim scientific facts because they were seen to be challenging the rules and authority of the Church.
Fast forward a few centuries, labelling moved from focusing on witches, to Communists, Jews, gays, people of colour, ethnic minorities and Muslims. The latest new demonising label seems to be that of the “denialist”. It is quickly becoming the crime of the age.
When big brother wants to control free thinking, including scientific thinking, the “thought police” always manage to conjure up derogatory catchy terms that are aimed at insulting those who disagree with them. This is one of the basic manipulative tricks of creating controlled opposition. They want people to follow their theories unquestionably, and if one asks to see the science, one is branded, insulted, and labelled.
But why do they do this some may ask? It is all about diverting and deflecting attention away from their crimes that are causing the real problems and dangers facing humanity.
Baby boomers in the West grew up in an era when young people toppled governments and changed the course of history by partaking in peace movements seeking to end wars and achieving peace. People, especially youth, want to feel that they are trying to make the world a better place. If today’s youth find out who is standing in the way of progress and justice, then the beneficiaries of inequity will be dethroned, and this is why the youth are given a diversion, a decoy. If there is indeed such a thing as a “false flag”, then during this era, the human-induced global warming would have to be the biggest of them all.
I am moved by Greta’s passion, but I unashamedly say that her tears do not move me in the direction they are intended to. What does, is seeing children under real and imminent danger. It is the tears of war-stricken children, victims of sanctions and injustice, victims of hunger and the shameless global silence that I really care about. These are the children who have been chased and bombed and ravaged. Some of them have lost their homes, their schools and hospitals. Others have lost their parents, their siblings, body parts and livelihoods. It is a young child who has lost everything and everyone, and tearlessly gazes at the lens of a reporter wordlessly asking “why me” that moves me.
“How dare” anyone deflect the attention away from them?
More on Greta
There is no doubt that the whole world, especially the West, needs huge reforms and even a reset. But what is the alternative that Greta is suggesting? Is the NWO Fascism the alternative that humanity needs?
Greta Thunberg: It's time to transform the West's oppressive and racist capitalist system (telegraph.co.uk)
No comments:
Post a Comment