Global warming

I have little hope for the Western world. Eco-lobby killed nuclear power in Germany and is going to do the same thing in the US. At least Russia and China are sane enough.

Walther von Oldenburg wrote:I have little hope for the Western world. Eco-lobby killed nuclear power in Germany and is going to do the same thing in the US. At least Russia and China are sane enough.

You can thank Hollywood and western MSM hysteria for this. For some reason it is OK to have the coal industry and power plants
to kill millions around the world, pollute the soil with mercury (e.g. China), but nuclear power is some sci-fi nightmare.
Even with the criminal incident (not accident) at Chernobyl (forget about Fukushima, which is nothing in terms of human deaths),
the negative impact of civilian nuclear power has been benign. All the nuclear contamination cases you hear about are
associated with military activity.

Germany has been the poster joke for the triumf des grunen. The alt energy is stalled since the subsidies have been dialed back.
It is importing French nuclear power derived electricity and burning vastly more coal for its own power.

Not to mention the projected vast increases in the use of natural gas for europe for the next few decades....

OMG. I checked Time, it does not have this photo. But really it should use it. Greta is a Soros project and her parents are
antifa brownshirts.

Time magazine... I am surprised they don't have a photo of that whiny little bitch.

GarryB wrote:Not to mention the projected vast increases in the use of natural gas for europe for the next few decades....

OMG. I checked Time, it does not have this photo. But really it should use it. Greta is a Soros project and her parents are
antifa brownshirts.

Time magazine... I am surprised they don't have a photo of that whiny little bitch.

But they do:



Note how they try to make her into some sort of royalty.

Greta Thunberg is a political project which yet again pisses on the science. Some totally ignorant SJW drone is not a voice for
climate scientists. No scientist would support such theater. If they do, it is because they are afraid for their jobs.

Since Soros is the puppet master, we know that there is a pro-Washington and pro-NATO agenda. Russia should not sign any
treaty or agreement that can be bypassed by the USA and its minions. Note how the USA has never signed on to Kyoto and
didn't even try to facilitate a successor treaty. It always leaves its options open. But Russia keeps on treating treaties
and UN agreements as sacrosanct commitments. This is just stupid.

There is a substantial trend in sea ice volume reduction in the Arctic.

The 2004-2013 mean peak was just over 25,000 km^3 at the end of winter. This year it is down to 22,500 km^3
a roughly 10% drop in 7 years. The decline cannot be be linear since the volume has to be spread out over the
same surface area to cover the Arctic Ocean in winter. This means thinner ice and thinner ice is more easily disrupted
by wind drag which then enable wave action, which further disrupts ice continuity. So were are going to move
to a regime after 2040 where there is a slush layer and no solid ice. So no icebreakers are going to be needed.
You probably would be able to use a row boat in such an environment.

Nah, she is a bitch... getting used by everyone around her, and continuing with this shit anyway... I mean the tears and think of the children... it reminds me of that woman in the Simpsons who always cries out... but think of the children... the children will sort it out for themselves just like we had to deal with what we were handed...


Watch this...



The Los Angeles times states that 63% of American families are now considered disfunctional... that means they are the majority....

This TV show came out in about 2000 so it is probably worse... this TV show is based on Chris Titus's real live and for him it is therapy... and for everyone else it is an insight into the lives of a lot of people around you... a painless way to learn some of lifes harsher lessons... enjoy... Episode two is about sexual harassment at the office and is just as educational... Titus is releasing these on Youtube along with about four of his comedy specials for free... they are very enjoyable...

From another board but based on actual measurement data for CO2:

2020 414.01
2010 389.90
2000 369.55
1990 354.39
1980 338.75

414.01-389.90=24.11
389.90-369.55=20.35
369.55-354.39=15.16
354.39-338.75=15.64

Annual average CO2 in ppmv for various years.   You can see the 1990s increase slow down which was related to the collapse
of the Soviet economy.   People are puzzled as to why CO2 increased slowed down but you can see clear correlation with the
onset of the super-depression in the ex-USSR.   The biggest annual increase drops were at the beginning of the 1990s.

But the most important thing is that the increase in CO2 is substantially accelerating from decade to decade.   There is no
evidence of alt energy and electric vehicle impact.   CO2 emissions are basically a measure for entropy.   The global economy
is a heat engine that acts to maximize entropy.   As long as humans will have functional economic activity as opposed to economic
collapse, CO2 emissions will keep on growing together with the global population and development.

Agree. More diverse energy. Green energy. And plant more trees. And eat less meat..... God, I think I am turning into a peace loving, kaftan wearing, tree hugging,  sandal wearing, vegetarian anaemic..........

https://youtu.be/dNDI-hD4794

Iranians are building desalination in desert. From PG seawater pipe. Employ some young people in city. Go plant trees. Turn desert into paradise...

When people like Bill Gates talk about climate change then you know something is not right. I think they are manipulating us to accept their agenda and their plans....april was the coldest month in 30 years in my country and you talk about global warming...it's a big game and only people like Bill Gates and george Soros know what's behind all this...

We must not make error of only considering local conditions. What is in fact happening  is more extreme weather conditions. Larger and static high or low pressure air mass. The tendency is for bigger high pressure air mass. Leading to dry cold or warm conditions. Together with smaller low pressure air mass. Both static. Leading to local floods. If this trend continues, then we will have complete static weather systems. No summer or winter in some areas. But a continuous winter and summer. It may already be too late. Goodbye world.........

Climate change deniers are a multitude. All nations have economic and population pressures. Chop down more trees in Amazon, our country needs to export more Beef. Open up the old Coal mines, our country needs cheap fuel. Export more oil, we need to increase our economic growth......... No collective approach possible, since nation States are competitive in nature. The nation state reduces social tensions on a domestic level. But on international level, it does nothing to remove antagonism. Progress is possible but unlikely, given these problems and the fact that real long term solutions need very radical changes to the lifestyle of people. For it to work, people need to revert to an almost primitive lifestyle in many ways. Only using a minimal of today technology . We were expelled from paradise, never to return.......

Global warming is a bad choice of words.... global warming refers to climate, and climate has nothing to do with weather except very obliquely.

The average temperature for the entire planet is not effected by one area or another having a warm or cold one...

Climate change is natural and normal and is effected by all sorts of factors.

If you look at average world temperatures for the whole world over a period of millions of years you see a pattern, but what you also see is that over the last few hundred years a change in the normal pattern because lots and lots of carbon that was trapped underground in oil deposits and coal deposits is being released by the burning of fossil fuels by humans.

The fundamental problem is that a lot of people with a lot of money and power and influence made a lot of money off oil and fuel and energy and they don't want to give up that monopoly... hydrogen powered vehicles is an interesting concept because you already own one.

The chemical makeup of Petrol is 2C8H18, when it burns it essentially requires 25 O2 molecules and creates 16 CO2 molecules and 18 water vapour atoms (H2O).

The petrol engine in your car converts Petrol into water and CO2... by burning the hydrogen atoms in the petrol.

For a long while I've been trying to find out whats going on with the "global warming" claims.
Just as I have with "the Great Reset"/Coronavirus.

Something just doesn't seem to sit right with all these "climate change" claims that seem to have taken on the nature of the Spanish Inquisition and the doctrine of "heresy".

In the 1970s, NATO fell out with the Middle East (the overwhelming supplier of oil in that era). We were all told "use less fuel because we are running out". Except we weren't and we AREN'T running out. We were told it was all fossilised plants and dinosaurs that created oil. But the phrase "fossil" is a geology term. Its not the same as the imprints of ferns you see in million year old rocks. The Earth has a huge amount of hydrocarbons in one form or another. So basically it was a scare story against the rivals to NATO.

Now I can't help but think "climate change" has numerous aims. A Western led control of international policies. A way to ostracise Russia, the Arabs, Venezuela, Northern Africa etc from intl affairs.A way to slow down the development of emerging powers. A way to counter the fact NATO states have very little EASILY ACCESSIBLE oil nowadays (Canada and one or two others aside).

Certain things with the "official line" don't look right. Windmills are backward. Chemical batteries are filthy and cause awful harm to the environment. That idea to mine the seabed for rare earth metals for batteries and kick up clouds of dirt is plain abhorrent... yet supported by the "Climate Change Opposition Gang".
Nuclear energy seems to have been forgotten about by NATO powers. I get the feeling "green energy" people want to copyright and produce their stuff to profit over Russia, Venezuela, Rosatom etc and countless other viable rivals.

People don't seem to talk about the other side of the coin ie carbon capture. I mean reforestation, having grass in your garden not that plastic shit. Replanting the forests that you previously destroyed (like 90% of England for example).

We see moronic fads like "biofuel". Britain had a 10% biofuel target a few years back. But what happened? Forests were chopped down for biofuel, arable crops removed... and people suffered famines. It was inevitably going to be a disaster. Just like we were told diesel was more environmental than petrol.

Petrol and gas have huge benefits in that they can be far more enviromental to extract than battery chemicals, or materials for those giant windmills etc. And there's no recycling hassles like there are with batteries and solar panels etc.

I get the feeling Establishments just want to reduce our consumption and invent a need to tax.

The man in the street is always painted as the bad guy. But we don't set the trends or the fads. We were told "buy a bigger, faster car, a new one every2 yrs". We were told "move to the suburbs, and commute to an office on the other side of town", "holiday thousands of miles away". We were told "change your phone and PC every year or whatever, have disposable furniture and clothes". Our grandparents grew up on good quality items that could be repaired many times and still look great. Or replace them with things that WILL last far longer. We aren't the creators of the disposable society, we are the victims of it. Yet we are the ones who get persecuted. Meanwhil Bill Gates and co are reaping billions in OUR money for their latest so called "eco necessities".

We were assured it was all "global warming", but that was changed to "climate change". What does that mean? England was warmer hundreds of years ago thanit is today. And they didn't use petrol and gas!

Gates himself is so full of shit its unbelievable. He's got 4 private jets, personal homes with about 40 bathrooms. He's made a fortune out of making PCs obsolete every few years (when a free OS like Linux would have worked far better... if he wasn't orchestrating a cartel on the world). He's obsessed with churning out GMO crops and filthy pesticides etc which are destroying excellent farmland. He doesn't give a shit about the environment but gets the media to portray him as some sort of "eco-Jesus".

So.... what are people's views? What is the true agenda of it all? Is "climate change " real, or part of some other ploy?

GarryB wrote:Global warming is a bad choice of words.... global warming refers to climate, and climate has nothing to do with weather except very obliquely.

The average temperature for the entire planet is not effected by one area or another having a warm or cold one...

Climate change is natural and normal and is effected by all sorts of factors.

If you look at average world temperatures for the whole world over a period of millions of years you see a pattern, but what you also see is that over the last few hundred years a change in the normal pattern because lots and lots of carbon that was trapped underground in oil deposits and coal deposits is being released by the burning of fossil fuels by humans.

The fundamental problem is that a lot of people with a lot of money and power and influence made a lot of money off oil and fuel and energy and they don't want to give up that monopoly... hydrogen powered vehicles is an interesting concept because you already own one.

The chemical makeup of Petrol is 2C8H18, when it burns it essentially requires 25 O2 molecules and creates 16 CO2 molecules and 18 water vapour atoms (H2O).

The petrol engine in your car converts Petrol into water and CO2... by burning the hydrogen atoms in the petrol.

One thing that would be interesting Garry is to find out how clean petroleum is combusted in cars.
How much is complete combustion. And how much produces SO2, NO2, CO etc.
I also wonder how much petroleum could be combusted "perfectly" to simply produce CO2 and water.

Perhaps recombustion of the exit products could be done as well?

THis would certainly **** up the arguments of the anti fossil fuels brigade.
Perhaps petrol could be burned at large energy plants. Perhaps it could continue to be done locally in car engines.

But the "powers that be" have no desire to engage us the general population in this debate. Or even let us see much of the science sadly.
Google for example has set its kill switch up to derank anything relating to the harm caused by 5G or another RF radiation eg mobile phone masts.
So I am sure the "NATO gang" are also trying dirty tricks on their "climate change" agenda.

Firebird wrote:...We were all told "use less fuel because we are running out". Except we weren't and we AREN'T running out. We were told it was all fossilised plants and dinosaurs that created oil. But the phrase "fossil" is a geology term. Its not the same as the imprints of ferns you see in million year old rocks. The Earth has a huge amount of hydrocarbons in one form or another.

We are not running out. It is just that as existing wells get harder to operate you need to extract oil from increasingly smaller and harder to reach new wells.
So the extraction costs keep increasing. Price is another thing because to a large degree the oil & gas price is a fabrication.

There are other theories for the formation of oil & gas resources like the abiogenenic oil theory. According to that theory oil can be formed at the high temperatures and pressures close to the mantle by a purely chemical process. This oil & gas could then leach out to the surface through cracks and form pools there. This chemical process has been proven to work on the lab. But it has not been proven to happen in nature. At least not in a way that everyone can agree upon yet.

Firebird wrote:Now I can't help but think "climate change" has numerous aims. A Western led  control of international policies. A way to ostracise Russia, the Arabs, Venezuela, Northern Africa etc from intl affairs.A way to slow down the development of emerging powers. A way to counter the fact NATO states have very little EASILY ACCESSIBLE oil nowadays (Canada and one or two others aside).

Certain things with the "official line" don't look right. Windmills are backward. Chemical batteries are filthy and cause awful harm to the environment. That idea to mine the seabed for rare earth metals for batteries and kick up clouds of dirt is plain abhorrent... yet supported by the "Climate Change Opposition Gang".
Nuclear energy seems to have been forgotten about by NATO powers. I get the feeling "green energy" people want to copyright and produce their stuff to profit over Russia, Venezuela, Rosatom etc and countless other viable rivals.

I personally think it is a bunch of things. It is a scam to manipulate the price of oil to their own benefit. Just see what happened to oil prices over the last decade.

In the case of nuclear I think it is a fear by the US and other powers that if everyone gets modern nuclear fuel technologies these nations will eventually get nuclear weapons and become much harder to manipulate. Notice how even Rosatom basically builds nuclear reactors abroad with the provision that they control the whole nuclear fuel cycle. They provide the fuel rods and collect the spent fuel. I think the Green anti-nuclear movements were basically funded by both the US and the Soviet Union to prevent other countries from getting the bomb for themselves.

Modern windmills are a lot more efficient than older types so don't discount them. The problem is the energy they produce is highly variable and mostly at dawn and dusk when there is more wind due to temperature differences. This is fine for batch processes like grinding flour or any other process like that which is mostly automated and not instant time critical but not for general purpose electricity for anything which needs to run 24/7. It is the idea that windmills can be used to replace baseload that is idiotic.

I have nothing against batteries. There are enough battery chemistries possible and available that I think any possible material shortages will be limited. A lot of the population lives in cities and does not need to travel that far. Electric cars make regenerative breaking easy and the cities themselves get less air and sound pollution. The cars are more comfortable to drive. So I don't see what is the problem. Their price is still expensive but I think it has gone down far enough that electric cars will go mainstream over the next decade. Electric transport also means independence from fuel supplies and more reliable energy prices.

Firebird wrote:People don't seem to talk about the other side of the coin ie carbon capture. I mean reforestation, having grass in your garden not that plastic shit. Replanting the forests that you previously destroyed (like 90% of England for example).

Reforestation is happening. Over the past two centuries ever since we moved from wood burning to coal and oil. More modern farming methods also mean less and less land is needed for farmland. Just read about it. The problem is unless it makes financial sense they won't replant the forests. This also means the forests will be used to extract resources be it wood or paper or whatever.

Firebird wrote:We see moronic fads like "biofuel". Britain had a 10% biofuel target a few years back. But what happened? Forests were chopped down for biofuel, arable crops removed... and people suffered famines. It was inevitably going to be a disaster. Just like we were told diesel was more environmental than petrol.

The diesel vs petrol argument is kind of bogus. Sure diesel is somewhat more energy dense. But it is all a scheme to get more money. The fact is when you distill oil you get fractions of several fuels. Even if all you want is petrol you will still get some diesel. What do you do with this diesel? The fact is the US sells diesel they don't need to Europe and Europe sells petrol to the US. Biofuels are a disaster. They directly compete with food supplies like you said.

Firebird wrote:I get the feeling Establishments just want to reduce our consumption and invent a need to tax.

The rich think with automation a large part of the masses of low and middle class people need to go away so they can have more for themselves. It is all about control.

Firebird wrote:Gates himself is so full of shit its unbelievable. He's got 4 private jets, personal homes with about 40 bathrooms. He's made a fortune out of making PCs obsolete every few years (when a free OS like Linux would have worked far better... if he wasn't orchestrating a cartel on the world). He's obsessed with churning out GMO crops and filthy pesticides etc which are destroying excellent farmland. He doesn't give a shit about the environment but gets the media to portray him as some sort of "eco-Jesus".

We wants everything for himself and everything to him is a tool to enrich himself. These people want to control the food supply in order to control the entire planet. GMOs and buying farmland on the cheap as farmers go bankrupt from reverse sanctions by China are just examples of it.

One thing that would be interesting Garry is to find out how clean petroleum is combusted in cars.
How much is complete combustion. And how much produces SO2, NO2, CO etc.
I also wonder how much petroleum could be combusted "perfectly" to simply produce CO2 and water.

The problem is that the fuels contain hydrogen and they contain carbon... and every form of combustion of those fuels results in the hydrogen burning... which forms water, and carbon burning which causes carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide... both of which are bad for the air because they act like glass with sunlight.

A glasshouse gets very hot because the glass is completely transparent to sunlight so 99.9% of it just passes straight through, but when it hits something inside the glass house it reflects around the place but also heats up objects it shines on. Glass allows light to pass through but it blocks heat so the glass that let the sunlight in traps in the heat of all the things in the glass house being heated up by the sunlight.

The Earth has been here for about 4.5 billion years... that is a long time for algae and simple life forms to live and die and most of it happened in the oceans, but as we know we have tectonic plates so what is land now could have been the bottom of a shallow sea 5 million years ago, and for all the algae on the land there will be more in the sea... layers of rock like Lime and chalk are known to be made up of trillions of shell based life forms long since dead...

To say the dinosaurs are what makes up oil is not accurate... they were around for a much longer period than we have been but only a tiny fraction of the existence of life on this planet... on a 24 hour clock, with right now being midnight, humans have been around for less than a second, and dinosaurs perhaps a minute... and for most of the rest of the time much smaller and more primitive life dominated.

The problem with fossil fuels is that to use them we need to burn them and that releases all that carbon that has been trapped for millions or billions of years, and it turns out atmosphere into something rather dangerous to us.

Fossil fuels however would be fine if we could use the hydrogen without releasing the carbon as a gas, and the Russians have talked about extracting the hydrogen as a gas and carbon as a solid from diesel... that would be amazing as long as it didn't take too much energy to do it.

The problem with hydrogen as a fuel is that it is very light and low density so a balloon full would be huge and awkward to carry around but not contain a lot of actual hydrogen to use as a fuel. Two alternatives are compress it, which means you need a very strong pressure vessel to carry it around... potentially dangerous but not much more dangerous than carrying around petrols or diesels or other flammable fuels. Note hydrogen will burn but needs to be compressed to explode and it also needs the right combination of air to burn too... in that sense petrol and diesel are more dangerous. The other alternative is to cool it down to very low temperatures and that takes a lot of energy and it becomes very very dangerous... like liquid nitrogen dangerous.

The point is that if you could put petrol or diesel through a fuel cell that separates out the carbon as a solid and uses the hydrogen with atmospheric oxygen, the process would generate heat plus pure water, and solid carbon. Well solid carbon is actually quite valuable and useful... carbon nanotubes and carbon fibre are very expensive and not easy to make, but making it by using petrol in your electric car... it would be amazing.

Remember glass drink bottles where you buy it, take it home, drink it, and return the bottle to get 5c or 7c for a big bottle, well carbon is valuable so you could buy petrol or diesel or kerosene from a fuel station and then when you go to refuel you can get a refund on your carbon cubes.

It makes it a cheap and easy way of carrying around hydrogen that does not ultimately pollute... even if they just buried the carbon in the ground it is actually fine.. not toxic and not damaging to the environment like it is in the air.

Some method of extracting carbon from gas would be even better and could be fitted to vehicle and planes to scoop up all the carbon monoxide... though plants might start to suffocate if there is no CO2 in the air.

Personally I think hydrogen powered aircraft would effectively leave water vapour clouds in their wake and thousands of aircraft flying all the time that is a lot of sunlight that is not going to reach the ground.... the altitude planes will be able to fly at with new scramjet engines means water vapour, or more accurately ice crystals at 20km or 30km altitude where they don't normally form... that might dramatically reduce the temperatures on earth... we might have to pump more carbon dioxide into the air to fix it... but that would actually be easy... dig up the ground where we buried the carbon cubes and just set them on fire....

You hint at a conspiracy theory and I don't blame you... the people in power, the people with the money made their wealth on oil, but now oil is bad so they are looking for the next big thing to make money on, but they want to control the narrative because they want to control the new thing what ever it might be so they can keep making money... they don't care about the planet.... never did... they care about staying rich so they will control the narrative, and make sure they are investing in the technologies that will be in demand... all the oil companies have rebranded themselves as energy companies... they want to control that energy and this new Russian technology is the key... because you can sit at home with a solar panel and convert sunlight into electricity... you can charge up batteries and use them to power things, but to expand you can buy far more batteries and solar panels than you need, so how do you store even more power... well you can use it to do something that is reversible... so rather than charge a battery, use it to power a fuel cell... convert pure water into hydrogen and oxygen... store them both in a sealed container, so that if you need more power and the sun is not shining you can use your battery power or you can pump that hydrogen and oxygen back through the fuel cell and generate pure water and heat and an electrical current...

What I am saying is that you don't need petrol or diesel for hydrogen, you can use electricity from the national grid to convert water into hydrogen and pump that into tanks in your car, or just use batteries in your car.... solar power, wind power... not great on their own... a bit patchy, but wind can happen 24/7 and sunlight is free and available too. Wind during winter is probably more reliable but both are good and neither pollutes the air with carbon in any form.

The whole "stop eating meat to save the planet" spiel for the self-anointed savers of the planet is a total scam.

Feeding humans plant matter is more profitable for agro business. This has nothing to do with saving the planet.

Note the in-your-face lying about meat from so-called activists and politicians.   They talk about CH4 emissions when livestock are
not releasing any net carbon into the atmosphere because they consume plants which take CO2 from the air to grow.    If livestock
CH4 was such a big deal, then we would have seen some serious trend in CH4 concentrations just from agriculture.   But that is not
the case.   The biggest source of any CH4 trend over the last few decades has been the melting of permafrost and the expansion
of rice farming from growing consumption of this staple.  

link

It is much better to train your sheeple to sacrifice themselves than do it by force, all this green brainwashing goes around reducing quality of life for the people without them even noticing. The gall of these bastards is simply mind blowing

LMFS wrote:It is much better to train your sheeple to sacrifice themselves than do it by force, all this green brainwashing goes around reducing quality of life for the people without them even noticing. The gall of these bastards is simply mind blowing

That is what happens when one surrenders their thinking to "experts" and "authorities" and "journalists". The first commandment in the Bible should have been
use thine brain and not to use it is a sin. But that would be expecting too much from anything that is centered on herding the sheep.

Really, there is no excuse for being a sheep. If one cares enough to believe something, then one should try enough to confirm whether it is true.
These days there is enough information out there to figure things out. Back in the day you had to go to the library and read books. But ironically
in this day of easy access we have rampant collective idiocy (SJWs, etc.)

The really amusing thing is the anti meat campaigners who think if they win then animals will be saved, but the reality is that most farm animals don't occur naturally in the wild like sheep and cows and chickens so if we stopped looking after them then animals in the wild will just start using them as food and they would have to fend for themselves.

Looking at a battery chicken in a small enclosed place that eats and sleeps and shits all in the same small cage... it looks miserable to us, but it is totally safe from predators and its food is provided to it... add an Xbox and most teenage boys would think they were in heaven.

Most urban dwellers think hunting is something where a group of white men go out with ten guns each and thousands of rounds of ammo and just machinegun the environment destroying everything in their path drinking beer and goofing off.

The reality is that many paths through wild areas were cut by hunters and hikers wanting better access to the more remote areas around the place, and culling herds actually helps them.

In a normal situation an old buck will fight off the younger males to keep a harem of females to himself... even beyond the age where he can service them so to speak.

Most hunters will only take mature stags which means they get to live a long full life in the wild till one day... bang... they get shot.

Most hunting trips you don't shoot anything.

Sometimes you do shoot a lot.

Here in New Zealand we have a lot of introduced animals that don't have any predators except humans so their numbers rapidly get out of control.

Rabbits and possums are two obvious ones but ferrets stoats and weasels are also a problem too and need to be shot when seen because of the threat they pose to our native birds.

Shooting every rabbit or possum or musclid you see is a good thing here... and cheap meat is always a good thing too.

Any shut down of the meat industry would mean the elimination of tens of millions of livestock. They will not be released into
the wild. The video I posted has all the vegan/vegetarian zealots on Youtube desperately trying to "debunk" it. That is like
debunking gravity. Here are the facts that these zealots cannot delete:

1) Two thirds of agricultural land are marginal and not crop worthy. Removing animals from this land will not produce more veggies
and grains for the zealots. The graphs in that video should be the final nail in the coffin if these lying freaks since they scale exactly
as the fraction of the land type. The liars claim that marginal land is regular farmland. I am sure that a lot of these liars have never
even spent much time out of the city and paid any attention to the land types.

2) Counting rain water fall onto an acre of marginal land as water diversion is 1984 level newthink. By this inane thinking all the
water that rains on mountains is a diversion.

3) The vast majority of food waste is not derived from animal husbandry. Given the scale of this food waste (for example there
was a Canadian TV report back in the 1980s that truckloads of vegetables were dumped instead of sold because they had the wrong shape,
which included two headed carrots), bitching about livestock takes the cake for demented agenda-driven BS. So we have
lunatics engaged in twisting of facts to claim that livestock takes up vast amounts of water (which turns out to be rain) but
having nothing to say about the vast waste of nutrients and irrigation water that comes with trashing of plant derived food.

4) The CH4 from cows and other livestock is a total nothing burger. I can't believe how inane this rubbish "issue" is. We have
vast amounts of CH4 from rice paddies, the energy sector and dumps, but "meat is a climate change killer". GTFO.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-14155-5
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-21326-9
https://www.iea.org/reports/methane-tracker-2020

Rice paddies account for 25-36% of global anthropogenic CH4 emissions (in this case taking the value of 30% is reasonable).
Landfills account for about 11%. The energy industry (including natural gas venting from oil wells) accounts for almost
as much as agriculture. Clearly livestock CH4 is lost in this pile.

Vegans/vegetarians claim that humans are like gorillas and are designed to consume plants instead of meat. This is a lie.
Humans are omnivores and we have an active gall bladder (an exclusive meat consumption feature) and our intestine is
not as long as that of a herbivore relative to our size. For anyone with insulin resistance (over 25% of the population)
vegetarianism is poison.

Vegetarian activists gave us the current diet mess during the 1970s when we had all sort of garbage "medical research"
on rabbits invoked to claim that eggs are bad and that saturated fats such as butter and lard are horrible while polyunsaturated
vegetable oils and high starch intake were great. The obesity and Type II diabetes rate in the USA increase dramatically
afterward. It was not some coincidence. Glucose-fructose syrup filler was substituted into processed foods instead of fat.
We got the LDL/HDL cholesterol ratio craze where moronic claims were made that saturated fat intake increase LDL. This
is a lie and it is physically impossible for this to happen. LDL is generated from glucose via triglycerides which become VLDL
and then LDL. Eating those fat free cookies drives up your LDL. Starch drives up your LDL. There is enough information
on this subject out there and it is too much to cover here.

DAN WOOTTON: If Boris thinks Brits are going to pay through the nose for green boilers and electric cars while the Chinese are burning coal like there's no tomorrow he's signing his own death warrant


Just imagine if Boris Johnson's pitch to voters at the last election had included the stark reality of his Net Zero by 2050 agenda.

GREEN PLEDGE 1: 'Er, well, you're going to have to get rid of your gas boiler – but don't worry the replacement heat pump or hydrogen boiler (which probably won't work very well) will only set you back something like £12,000.'

GREEN PLEDGE 2: 'Oh, and if you want a new car, you're going to have to upgrade to an expensive electric model, even though we don't have anywhere near enough places to actually charge the damn thing at the moment.'

GREEN PLEDGE 3: 'And we're doing all of this even though China is going to keep destroying the environment with unrestrained zeal, but let's just not talk about that.'

Ordinary Brits are worried about keeping a roof over their head, feeding their family, being treated by the NHS and getting their children properly educated after a devastating 18 months that has caused brutal economic devastation to many.
And that includes the government books, which haven't been in this bad shape in the modern era.

So where is all this money coming from?

Who will be paying for Net Zero? Is it you and me?And how is it fair that we're having to shoulder this overwhelming toll when other major emitters like Germany, Canada, Australia, the US and – yes – China continue to drag their feet to say the least?

Boris prides himself on having a common touch but his messaging is so out of touch it's like he's the ventriloquist dummy for his campaigning wife Carrie.

In all seriousness, I don't think our predicament is helped by the fact the PM is surrounded every day by privileged eco campaigners who think of little else.

Carrie is employed as a senior adviser to the ocean conservation charity Oceana.

And even Boris' affable dad Stanley has been known to support the lunatic extremist fringe group Extinction Rebellion, which is currently intending to pursue a miserable strategy of never-ending civil disobedience to make life even more difficult for ordinary Brits.
I'm also sick to death of being lectured by privileged leaders who aren't prepared to make the changes they're attempting to enforce on the rest of us.

Cop26 boss Alok Sharma and his gaffe prone spokeswoman Allegra Stratton have both been forced to admit they drive diesel cars, even though they're enforcing all of us to go electric.

And Sharma has been on a whistle-stop tour of the globe, burning up more carbon emissions than other celebrity eco hypocrites like Prince Harry and Leonardo DiCaprio, even though the government has insisted none of us should be flying anywhere for the past 18 months.

It's in this context that Conservative MPs are rightly staging a fightback.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9884589/If-Boris-thinks-Brits-pay-nose-green-boilers-hes-signing-death-warrant.html