No wonder they don’t teach math in school otherwise people could figure this out. If they were paying attention. But they’re too busy with the bread and circuses.
I have always questioned the tunnel visioned focus on carbon emissions.
Why of all metrics is that one singled out?
If we really wanted to do something about the environment we can't just focus on a single factor and try to eliminate it and poof magically it'll all get better.
The earth warms and cools without us. The geological record shows this true.
Many factors contribute to this warming and cooling effect.
Of which atmospheric gasses are only one of those factors.
Some I hardly ever hear anyone discuss is the microbiome of the soils and the seas. The role of microorganisms in the gas exchange. And the role of pollutants in the microbiomes. Like antifouling from boats, or nuclear wastewater, microplastics and a whole host of other apparently not as important as cow farts contamination.
No. I don't know him. I haven't read anything on it yet. But I will when people ask me to. I have only watched some videos from Steve Koonin and William Happer, two physicists.
Reid, thank you for the answer. Based on your writings which I am now catching up on, I suspect you will enjoy Heller’s approach to debunking the utter nonsense in the media about the climate. Facts are facts, and Tony uses them well. Once you get to the point of following his material, I boldly suggest a “tin-foil hat” exploration of the remarkable work of Ben Davidson at Suspicious0bservers, focussed on the Sun’s influence on our climate, and on our geological history. Thanks again for your material and your approach. 🙏🏼
You're kidding, right? Of course I meant for you to please correct them *in your substack*, as I'd like to forward the corrected substack to my family member.
Sorry! I have no idea what the parameters are regarding substackers editing their stacks. You'd think that the admin's coders could have made it VERY simple for content creators to edit.
What I ended up doing is copying and pasting your essay into a file and then making the typo corrections myself, and THEN forwarding it to my sister, who falls for all the latest propaganda, whether it be the "safe and effective" jabs or the "climate crisis". No reply from her (which is typical), but being a retired uni professor, I'll most likely be in the "educational mode" until I'm pushing up lilies.
You left out the geo engineering spraying. Everyone does. Thats the cause of global warming. listen to geo engineering watch.org. Its on every week. Look at the filthy sky. The long streaks. Its nano particles of aluminum. And who knows what else
Does Musk ‘believe’ in climate change? He can’t very well not believe as that demolishes his main business. He might have twenty years ago. Now? I doubt it. Although someone said talking someone out of a belief which his livelihood depends on is nearly impossible.
Reid, am confused, might be missing something. Could you please explain?
* If .042% of the air is CO2, then knocking off .002 will be of the 100% atmosphere. Of the 1% part, 93% been made up by Argon while CO2 is 4.2% it would be knocking off .2. How do you get to .00002 of the atmosphere?
* If 3% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is subject to man’s influence, then .0012% of the atmosphere and 1.2% of the 1% part can be influenced by man. Where do your .000012 come from?
* Regarding the perspective: Following my thoughts above the 1.2 per 100,000 would be representing .0012% of the atmosphere, not the 1%.
Many thanks, highly appreciated, as all your very valuable articles.
No wonder they don’t teach math in school otherwise people could figure this out. If they were paying attention. But they’re too busy with the bread and circuses.
I have always questioned the tunnel visioned focus on carbon emissions.
Why of all metrics is that one singled out?
If we really wanted to do something about the environment we can't just focus on a single factor and try to eliminate it and poof magically it'll all get better.
The earth warms and cools without us. The geological record shows this true.
Many factors contribute to this warming and cooling effect.
Of which atmospheric gasses are only one of those factors.
Some I hardly ever hear anyone discuss is the microbiome of the soils and the seas. The role of microorganisms in the gas exchange. And the role of pollutants in the microbiomes. Like antifouling from boats, or nuclear wastewater, microplastics and a whole host of other apparently not as important as cow farts contamination.
Tunnel vision on a problem
And you run away without relief
The solution, unsatisfactory
Forever, drowning, grief.
It is not the farts, it is the burps.
Reid, Nicely done. Clear, concise. More of this!
Reid, do you follow any of Tony Heller’s work on climate fraud? Great summary.
No. I don't know him. I haven't read anything on it yet. But I will when people ask me to. I have only watched some videos from Steve Koonin and William Happer, two physicists.
Reid, thank you for the answer. Based on your writings which I am now catching up on, I suspect you will enjoy Heller’s approach to debunking the utter nonsense in the media about the climate. Facts are facts, and Tony uses them well. Once you get to the point of following his material, I boldly suggest a “tin-foil hat” exploration of the remarkable work of Ben Davidson at Suspicious0bservers, focussed on the Sun’s influence on our climate, and on our geological history. Thanks again for your material and your approach. 🙏🏼
Please correct the typos in these two sentences, as I'd like to forward this on to a family member (who is a retired editor). 8) Thanks!
"Remember there <= are the same people who encouraged grammar school children to get the Covid vaccines ..." and
"No, it has more that <= doubled."
these are the same. and No, it has more than doubled.
You're kidding, right? Of course I meant for you to please correct them *in your substack*, as I'd like to forward the corrected substack to my family member.
I think I'd have to send it out to everyone again if I corrected the two typos. Is that right?
Sorry! I have no idea what the parameters are regarding substackers editing their stacks. You'd think that the admin's coders could have made it VERY simple for content creators to edit.
You're right. There is a way to correct it. Is it too late for me to help you?
What I ended up doing is copying and pasting your essay into a file and then making the typo corrections myself, and THEN forwarding it to my sister, who falls for all the latest propaganda, whether it be the "safe and effective" jabs or the "climate crisis". No reply from her (which is typical), but being a retired uni professor, I'll most likely be in the "educational mode" until I'm pushing up lilies.
Good work Skippy
?
A concise debunking of the narrative. Thank you Sir
You left out the geo engineering spraying. Everyone does. Thats the cause of global warming. listen to geo engineering watch.org. Its on every week. Look at the filthy sky. The long streaks. Its nano particles of aluminum. And who knows what else
Does Musk ‘believe’ in climate change? He can’t very well not believe as that demolishes his main business. He might have twenty years ago. Now? I doubt it. Although someone said talking someone out of a belief which his livelihood depends on is nearly impossible.
Thank you!! Great explanation that anyone can comprehend.
Reid, am confused, might be missing something. Could you please explain?
* If .042% of the air is CO2, then knocking off .002 will be of the 100% atmosphere. Of the 1% part, 93% been made up by Argon while CO2 is 4.2% it would be knocking off .2. How do you get to .00002 of the atmosphere?
* If 3% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is subject to man’s influence, then .0012% of the atmosphere and 1.2% of the 1% part can be influenced by man. Where do your .000012 come from?
* Regarding the perspective: Following my thoughts above the 1.2 per 100,000 would be representing .0012% of the atmosphere, not the 1%.
Many thanks, highly appreciated, as all your very valuable articles.