Blind Sided, Iurie Rosca (Moldovan), recommended by Dr. Nass. The best explanation of our current war yet. UNRESTRICTED WARFARE: A Holistic Approach to the Great Reset The total assault of the shadow power, which had already been going on for many years, gained a great acceleration in 2020. That was the launch year of a special operation called “the Covid–19 pandemic” which aimed at the mass extermination of the world’s population and genetic modification, as well as impoverishment and subjugation of the survivors.
Dr John - I think the biggest requirement in the climate hysteria debate is actually to discuss the question of 'what range of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are ecologically sound, when considering the whole earth, rather than one measurable phenomenon?'
It's beyond debate that lots of plants are very happy with 1000ppm carbon dioxide, so all this nonsense of it being a poison is claptrap. Obviously for us humans, there will be less efficient release of carbon dioxide from lung capillaries into alveoli, the higher the atmospheric concentration, but I don't think that going from 280 to 500ppm is going to affect humans very much in terms of breathing and respiring.
Plants in general grow faster as we increase carbon dioxide levels from 280ppm toward 500ppm, which actually is a self-regulating phenomenon.
The optimal concentration will no doubt vary depending on the total amount of vegetation on earth requiring atmospheric carbon dioxide to photosynthesise. So, to be brutal, create more deserts if you want the very lowest carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, as it won't sustain as many plants as 400ppm would.
What's also required is a proper discussion of natural 'beat cycles' in climate rhythms - they are many many already identified, from the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation of a couple of years, right through to the Milankovitch cycles of 100,000 and 41,000 years. Trying to make out that natural climate variability has not existed and does not exist is simply anti-scientific lying. We know that Ice Ages and Interglacials were not caused by man and the temperature difference between those two stable states makes 2C seem like chicken s**t. We know that warm periods and Little Ice Ages have occurred naturally during the Holocene and that the beat cycle for that oscillation is in the order of 400-500 years. There's no serious evidence that man causes those oscillations either.
I personally think that 'scientists' in the climate bedwetting space should be renamed 'grifters'. They don't practice science, they are ambulance chasing grant-seekers who scream 'Earthquake! Volcano! Hurricane!' or whatever screeching will get them $5m in funding. Whatever it is that they say, usually it isn't scientific. It's spinning some propaganda for money. You might as well pay advertising agencies to do that.....
Yes, humans should try and understand, as best they can, the holistic nature of earth's climate, it's variability and the mechanisms by which it changes.
What's there is no longer any point doing is frittering away another $50bn on useless GCM computer models that don't add anything relevant to informed policy debate.
Informed debate is good for us, the herd, but the owners have their own data and their own plans, right?
I think that what the public can do is economize on use of necessities, which is a learning process, grow some food, which develops awareness of food realities, be active, be friends/family, helping and sharing, and so on.
Dr John - I think the biggest requirement in the climate hysteria debate is actually to discuss the question of 'what range of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are ecologically sound, when considering the whole earth, rather than one measurable phenomenon?'
It's beyond debate that lots of plants are very happy with 1000ppm carbon dioxide, so all this nonsense of it being a poison is claptrap. Obviously for us humans, there will be less efficient release of carbon dioxide from lung capillaries into alveoli, the higher the atmospheric concentration, but I don't think that going from 280 to 500ppm is going to affect humans very much in terms of breathing and respiring.
Plants in general grow faster as we increase carbon dioxide levels from 280ppm toward 500ppm, which actually is a self-regulating phenomenon.
The optimal concentration will no doubt vary depending on the total amount of vegetation on earth requiring atmospheric carbon dioxide to photosynthesise. So, to be brutal, create more deserts if you want the very lowest carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, as it won't sustain as many plants as 400ppm would.
What's also required is a proper discussion of natural 'beat cycles' in climate rhythms - they are many many already identified, from the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation of a couple of years, right through to the Milankovitch cycles of 100,000 and 41,000 years. Trying to make out that natural climate variability has not existed and does not exist is simply anti-scientific lying. We know that Ice Ages and Interglacials were not caused by man and the temperature difference between those two stable states makes 2C seem like chicken s**t. We know that warm periods and Little Ice Ages have occurred naturally during the Holocene and that the beat cycle for that oscillation is in the order of 400-500 years. There's no serious evidence that man causes those oscillations either.
I personally think that 'scientists' in the climate bedwetting space should be renamed 'grifters'. They don't practice science, they are ambulance chasing grant-seekers who scream 'Earthquake! Volcano! Hurricane!' or whatever screeching will get them $5m in funding. Whatever it is that they say, usually it isn't scientific. It's spinning some propaganda for money. You might as well pay advertising agencies to do that.....
Yes, humans should try and understand, as best they can, the holistic nature of earth's climate, it's variability and the mechanisms by which it changes.
What's there is no longer any point doing is frittering away another $50bn on useless GCM computer models that don't add anything relevant to informed policy debate.
Informed debate is good for us, the herd, but the owners have their own data and their own plans, right?
I think that what the public can do is economize on use of necessities, which is a learning process, grow some food, which develops awareness of food realities, be active, be friends/family, helping and sharing, and so on.
I am interested in the 12,000 year galactic-current-sheet recurring disaster cycle as something people can prepare for to degrees, though it is hard to know just what to do in the context of our total living situations. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2decDcEJqo&list=PLHSoxioQtwZcVcFC85TxEEiirgfXwhfsw
There is a way to improve the health of all mankind as well as our amazing home.
The process includes eliminating greed. And replacing all our hate with brotherly love.
I'm working on it, one me at a time.
:-)