If a conspiracy to control us results in us supporting the industries of those trying to control us,

where might it be coming from?

Of course plants need carbon dioxide for photosynthesis so that they can produce, either directly or indirectly through the bodies of other animals, all of the food that we eat. Plants also need carbon dioxide so that they can produce the oxygen that is essential to our existence. So why are some groups advocating the continued chopping down of trees?

The rainforest has been chopped down; well over 50% of what’s gone has been cleared for pasture for farmed animals or to grow soy or corn to feed them, and has lead to a change in the amount of carbon dioxide being absorbed from the atmosphere. The burning of wood and fossil fuels has tipped the balance further so that there’s an unusually high level of carbon dioxide in the air. This burning of wood, oil, gas and coal has also lead to over half a billion people dying each year from the resulting air pollution (many of them in China where we have outsourced our manufacturing). So why do some groups want this to continue?

The increase in carbon dioxide and other gases caused by human activity has led to the global temperatures rising. This means that agriculture will have to adapt to the changes. The traditional wheat growing belts will have to move north. Unfortunately these areas have much less fertile soils. They are also in countries such as Russia; who may very soon be cutting trading ties with the UK due to our giving £billions to arm a proxy war against them.

Increased Co2 may make plants grow faster in greenhouses but that is not a good thing. Studies show that increasing co2 levels leads to decreased amounts of protein, zinc and iron in plants. This is making very important staple crops, such as rice, much less nutritious and may possibly lead to millions being malnourished.

Increasing co2 and warming will also make droughts, dust-bowls and famines much more likely. We are not doing nature nor ourselves a favour by altering the balance of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

I sympathise with political arguments against allowing ourselves to be controlled by the slippery slope of corrupt governments who are themselves invested in or controlled by industry. Though really, considering the urgency of the rising temperatures, plus the many others thins that may tip the balance such as mass species extinction, loss of pollinators and soil fertility, ozone depletion and ocean dead zones, governments are only paying lip service to the environment; by banning short haul flights and also using a few money making taxes and greenwashing schemes here and there.

We (and of course the 1% responsible for 25% of emissions) are being allowed to continue to slash and burn more than ever before. Industry will not allow governments to make any meaningful reductions to its profits.

Whatever the increasingly aggressive and patronising medical freedom movement has become and why it is so anti-environment, so pro-animal agriculture and so pro-oil industry, its ‘scientific’ arguments are cringe worthy.

Campaigning for oil is campaigning for increased centralisation and control by and profits for the elites who own it.

PS.

A beautiful, skeptical look at all the theories of what is causing the Canadian wild fires; from Stew Peter’s flame throwers, aliens, to female firefighters, the amount of carbon now in the atmosphere, why Canada is so hot and dry and whether this will be the biggest fire in human recorded history.

🐒

pS

An answer to some questions;

The 'climategate' emails that Corbett (who often gets the wrong end of the (hockey) stick) refers to alleged fudging of data and conflates two separate issues; mike's trick and hiding the decline in an email by Professor Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia. Mike's trick is simply the ubiquitous technique of using reconstructed temperatures from ice cores and tree rings with actual thermometer measurements on the same graph. The decline referred to is not a decline in temperatures but rather a decline in tree ring thickness which should have correlated with the rise in thermometer temperatures, but which diverged in the 1960s due to local pollution in some areas. It has been publicly discussed since 1995. In 2009 stolen emails were investigated; yet 9 independent studies showed that nothing affected the science.

The 1998 hockey stick of Micheal Mann is not an illusion or a fudge, the first critique was from Steve McIntyre who claimed it contained statistical flaws, but the stick has been reproduced many times. in fact the latest data from 60 institutions around the world strengthens it.

Yes solar and volcanic activity affect temperature. It should be getting colder if we weren't warming it. When solar and volvanoes are taken into account co2 and temperature are tightly correlated. In the last few decades the sun has cooled, yet the temperature has risen. It was predicted that winters and nights should warm faster than summers and days if humans were warming the planet not changes in the sun. This is what has happened.

The vast majority of scientists in the 1970s predicted warming only a small number of papers predicted cooling. This is OK.

Yes we have been warming, and sea levels rising since the last ice age, then it levelled off, https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/climate-change-hasnt-been-debunked?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2

co2 rises after temperature rises (due to changes in orbit) because the warmer sea releases co2 but that doesn't mean that co2 can't cause warming too. In fact the extra co2 caused extra warming in a reinforcing feedback. The lag doesn't disprove warming is caused by co2 but rather reinforces evidence of positive feedback. It is a false dichotomy to have to chose between 2 options both of which are true. Increases temperates increase co2 and increased co2 increases temperatures.

Water vapour is a greenhouse gas but doesn't cause the initial warming it amplifies it because the amount of vapour in the air depends on how warm it is. Yes carbon is a small percentage of the greenhouse gases but that doesn't mean its effect when amplified by water vapour is not large. Water vapour is a big reason the climate is so sensitive to co2 warming. small amounts of things can have big effects eg trace minerals, arsenic and alcohol in the body. And just a few degrees temperature will make a huge difference to humans way of living even if it doesn't kill us straight away.

Jo