The co-founder of Greenpeace on CO2
 

It's like with the vaccine - slowly I feel forced to surrender to the fact that I feel more scepticism for the mainstrea m narration than I feel convinced by it anymore. Even more so since the mainstream narration fits so perfectly into the conspiracy against our health that I try to make you all aware of in the health thread.
I feel like getting lied and lied to again and again and again.

Es stinkt mir.


https://youtu.be/TclmRoTGsO4?si=Fp-DE3AuYqB-DO_h

Couldd it be that alien invvaders from outer space alraedy walk amongst us, acting as our political and ideological leaders and implement environmental and health related policies that will extinct the human race so that their alien people can colonise it without war, or by war against an already wekened native enemy? Infiltration instead of invasion, or infiltration before invasion?



When you look at these many incarnations of utmost malicous policy and this neverending display of stupidity and contempt for reason and logic, you get really strange thoughts, dont you... :hmmm:


As the proverb goes: one time is accident, two times is bad luck, three times is intention.

It is not nice to bring this alien invaders idea about, don't always blame it on others.
It's only human. Einstein, stupidity, the universe and all that..

No I did not take it seriously :D

Dear me, there are still people quoting Patrick Moore? His views have long been debunked and proven wrong (which is actually quite easy, a relatively simple lab is more than enough to do so).

He was one of theirs, but when they replacd scientific integrity with ideological crusade, he left them - and apostate that he, is they will never forgive them. even worse, he speaks in favour of nuclear energy. He is satan himself!

https://www-cicero-de.translate.goog..._x_tr_pto=wapp

When I was finishing school, at that age give and take some time, I sympathized with Greenpeace. Today I see them as a doomsday sect with a totalitarian core structure. I dispise them and am absolutely hostile to them. When you are young you can be easily attracted and excited, you try and test new things and tis way walk straight into quite some dead ends and do foolish things. Me too. The point however is that some sooner or later learn, develope, and if need be, correct opinions of theirs that they held in the past. Again, so did I. Thats also the priciple of science, its always about testing and correct formerly held theories.


Fearmongering is the best tool to discipline the masses and make them easier to control and being obedient. its also about redistributing global wealth, from the North to the South.

Churchill had a quote about this:

"If you're in your 20s, and you're not a liberal, you have no heart. If you're in you're 60s, and you're not a conservative, you have no brain."

^ One good thing is that science does not care about politicians or opinions :D

Marc: The amount of oxygen we have in the atmosphere depends on plants producing O2, which usually is being bound in CO2 again when the plant dies. This is a zero number game.

What gives us an O2 surplus is when plants (marine (plankton) or terrestrial) die without being oxidized (=binding O2 again taking it out of the atmosphere).
This means they do not rot, but are being taken out of the cycle by being buried under sediments or whatever, essentially kept off the free O2 in the atmosphere.
The amount of oxygen being spared from oxidizing this dead stuff is what gives us surplus oxygen.
The existing plants hold us on a given level based on millions of years.
(B.t.w. the amount of oxygen/O2 in the earth's atmosphere has already been higher e.g. during jurassic times some million years ago)
Now you tell me what happens if you burn fossil fuels thus oxidizing the stuff.

Rising CO2 levels fuelling the glasshouse effect is a side show adding to the rest.
But add deforesting large areas for whatever reason to all that and you probably get what it all is about.

^ Yes, okay. And what has that to do with or contradicts what the man talked about in his speech? He was about something different!

Alright. I admit I did not read it all :oops:
I just thought that the second part of the text was a repetition of what was written before and gave up.
I don't know if nuclear power will be the saviour now, not after a lot more research, but also I do not see any workable solution to reduce CO2 without using it. The idea of using wind and green energy alone is very nice and adorable, but it does not stand up to facts like where we get the rare earths and all that from (exploiting children labour in third world countries or import it from Russia or China under doubtable conditions?), to produce the batteries and build it..
Let alone copper reserves for charging stations, or the cumulative energy bilance needed until you have the gadget standing in front of you.

But also – as long as we have not found a secure deposition for spent nuclear fuels I remain highly sceptic. Tchernobyl and Fukushima are no joke, the latter will be poisoning the environment for millenia. And better not think about contamination in Russia.

Eh - that was a speech on youtube... Nothing to read.


Whatever you had last night, I want some of that stuff, too!

?
Your link:

https://www-cicero-de.translate.goog..._x_tr_pto=wapp

Ah, yes, forgot that one. However, I was about the video and the speech in it, the cicero essay I only posted in reply to comments. The video is the relevant part. That part that temperature rise forgoes rise in CO2 I heard before somewhere, but there it was not thoroughly and believably explained (or I just did not understand it), thus I stayed sceptical. His speech is much easier to comprehend the topic.