I've discussed this issue with a pilot a while back and he validates what you(Jeff) are saying. He mentioned the weight of the aircraft is precise and if they were adding mechanisms for the purpose of spraying, or any other reason, the pilot would know.
Vivek Ramaswamy wrote about climate change in one of his books, noting that man is partially responsible for increased CO2 levels. But he also explains that there are both positive and negative effects on the environment and the planet.
On a related topic, geo-engineering. This is real? Do we know enough about this? Is there evidentiary information available to validate or dismiss geo-engineering is being executed?
If you look at the data from the last century, it’s clear that the rise in CO2 levels began with the Industrial Revolution and has been steadily increasing ever since. This is a long-term trend driven by human activities, particularly pollution. Yet, some people have somehow convinced themselves that nothing humans do affects the climate. That’s simply delusional thinking and you’d have to ignore all science to believe that.
As for geoengineering, it's being studied as a potential way to reduce solar radiation and remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere—not to somehow increase the Earth's temperature, which wouldn't make any sense at all.
They just passed a bill in Tennessee that bans 'chemtrails.' Guess what? Those trails can still be seen in the skies. Why? Because they were and always have been nothing, but normal contrails left by planes when the temperature in the atmosphere is right.
You mentioned chemtrails killing us and modifying the weather intentionally as one of the proveably false topics. Do you mean there is evidence they don't cause harm to us and that they are not meant to modify the weather, or simply that chemtrails are actually contrails?
It's very difficult for me to see the once blue skies littered with wispy remnants of plane discharge and not think it's causing harm in some way.
The less I have to concern myself with, the better.
I meant that chemtrails are actually normal contrails made up of steam, ice crystals. Not intentionally sprayed chemicals to harm us or modify the weather.
Contrails have existed since the first airplane flew the skies. The same principles exist on the ground in the form of steam during a cold day. It is the exact same principle. Yes, under certain conditions, these contrails can persist and spread out, forming larger cloud formations, known as contrail cirrus. And yes, this may change the Earth's climate over time. Over time, increased cloud cover from contrails may contribute to changes in the Earth's energy balance. However, this is completely different than claiming evil doers are spraying everyone with chemicals intentionally. It is merely the water vapor from jet fuel combustion that condenses into steam and then freezes into ice crystals. Yes, jet fuel does contain things like heavy metals and other byproducts, which may also have an effect. But again, this is entirely different than intent to harm, which is what the theory claims.
Everything chemtrail believers claim to see in chemtrail behavior, is the exact same behavior that takes place in normal contrails—no difference.
I would think that unless you are following each aircraft and testing their output, there is no way to make that statement. As for climate change, there is no proof that carbon is the cause which is what they want us to believe so, as you point out, charlatans can enrich themselves by selling carbon credits, limiting our ability to travel, giving us 15 minute cities, selling us all unreliable, expensive, "green energy". Water vapor is one of the greatest greenhouse gases and we experienced a massive underwater volcano called Hunga Tonga in 2022 that put enough water into the atmosphere to effect the climate for years.
Are you claiming that every commercial airliner flying in the sky on a particular day are all specialized planes using specialized nozzles that intentionally spray chemicals in the air? Commercial (and private) planes are tracked through multiple systems, including radar, which provide real-time data on their flight paths. If these planes were engaging in secret chemical spraying, it would be impossible to hide. And yes, I can make that statement with certainty. To do what you claim, you'd have to have this being done in every plane that crosses the sky, and the pilots would have to be intentionally in on the conspiracy. It's not happening.
You mentioned water vapor, which is indeed a greenhouse gas, but its behavior is different from CO2. Water vapor responds to temperature changes—it amplifies warming caused by other gases but doesn’t drive it. CO2, on the other hand, persists in the atmosphere for a long time and directly drives temperature increases. This occurs from pollutants of all types, most of which are manmade, including deforestation, and industry, and proliferation of fuel-powered vehicles around the world. These have an accumulative effect. Are you really claiming none of these things affects the planet?
Regarding the Hunga Tonga eruption, while it injected a large amount of water vapor into the atmosphere, that doesn't disprove the role of carbon emissions in climate change. The water vapor from the Hunga Tonga eruption will eventually dissipate, and while it may cause some short-term changes in climate (like a temporary boost in atmospheric humidity), it is not a sustained source of warming like the continual release of CO2 from human activities.
The comments about "carbon credits" and "15-minute cities" detract from the actual science of climate change and are distractions rather than meaningful counterpoints. None of it addresses the core issue of climate change, which is real and present.
No I'm not claiming every commercial airline is dispersing chemicals into the atmosphere but I have no doubt that some military aircraft are. It's not hard to hide military operations from the public. The gov't has been playing with weather modification for decades and there are many patents to show this such as US patent 4686605A-"Method and apparatus for altering a region in the earth's atmosphere, ionosphere, and/or magnetosphere" and part of the patent is putting barium into the atmosphere and directing it with energy systems. There are various university programs from schools like Univ. of Chicago and Harvard that have programs in geoengineering and billionaires like Gates and Bezos are investing into this research. Part of the geoengineering is placing chemicals into the atmosphere. There's a company called "Make Sunsets" in California that's already been launching weather balloons filled with sulfur dioxide into the upper atmosphere. All in the mis-guided idea that we need to dim the sun. Gee, what could go wrong?
15 minute cities, EVs, limiting freedom of travel, reducing your access to animal protein are not distractions at all from climate change but rather a direct consequence of insane governmental policies brought about by the very flawed climate change argument. Do humans have an effect on climate? Yes. Do natural events have an effect? Yes. Does solar output change? Yes. An interesting point is that CO2 increase appears to follow temperature change, not the other way around. Also of note is that the warming effect of CO2 diminishes logarithmically as it increases in concentration so it is a diminishing effect as CO2 goes up. Fossil fuels provide everyone with affordable energy that, to date, no other form of energy can provide. It provides the energy for agriculture which allows us to afford food and without which, many would starve and it also provides the warmth to survive in colder temperatures. Many more people have died from cold than from heat. Climate related disasters have dropped 98% over the last century so climate change is not catastrophic. Governmental policies like those of the Biden/Harris administration are catastrophic and have increased the cost of energy significantly(and indirectly the cost of many other things leading to inflation) and made our grid more unreliable. Green energy is unreliable energy and the Biden/Harris "net-zero" polices have come at an enormous cost. We saw Newsom state that they would ban fossil fuel cars by 2030 and 6 days later tell EV owners not to use the grid to charge their cars due to insufficient grid capacity. This movement to net zero will effect the poor the greatest, weaken the nation and make the US a third world country. There is climate change but it is not the great disaster that you make it out to be. Far greater damage to the people will occur if people like Harris adhere to net-zero.
"Governmental policies like those of the Biden/Harris administration are catastrophic and have increased the cost of energy significantly(and indirectly the cost of many other things leading to inflation) and made our grid more unreliable. "
Provide an example. The Keystone Pipeline spill in 2019, shows the real risks of such infrastructure. If a pipeline crosses sensitive areas, such as rivers or wetlands, the damage from a spill could be catastrophic, leading to long-term harm to local wildlife, drinking water, and ecosystems. Doesn't sound too nice to me, and these kinds of spills happen all the time.
-----------------------
"Climate related disasters have dropped 98% over the last century so climate change is not catastrophic."
The number of deaths from climate-related disasters (storms, floods, heatwaves) has indeed dropped, thanks to better warning systems, infrastructure, and medical advances. However, the frequency and intensity of these events, especially heatwaves, have increased. Heat-related deaths are actually rising in many areas due to more frequent and extreme heat events driven by climate change. Also, the frequency or intensity of these events has increased.
-----------------------
"Green energy is unreliable energy "
Green energy's reliability and cost-effectiveness are expected to improve significantly in the future due to several factors. You sound like every other short-sighted person who claims that green energy cannot and will never work, and that we should just continue to rely on fossil fuels until the end of time, as if that is the best mankind can come up with. There are better and more efficient ways man will produce energy in the future. To continue to use toxic and dirty forms of energy is insanity and is not the way forward.
-----------------------
"Fossil fuels provide everyone with affordable energy"
They would, if the energy companies were not greedy corporations that were highly overcharging their customers. Even during times when consumers face high energy prices, fossil fuel companies have reported record profits. Also, this has nothing to do with Biden or Harris. The U.S. government, including the Biden/Harris administration, has limited control over global oil markets. While they can influence domestic policies, they don't directly set prices. Gasoline and energy prices are driven primarily by the global market for crude oil, which is influenced by supply and demand factors beyond any one government’s control.
Fossil fuels may seem affordable, their true cost includes environmental damage, climate change, and public health impacts from pollution and water contamination.
-----------------------
"We saw Newsom state that they would ban fossil fuel cars by 2030 and 6 days later tell EV owners not to use the grid to charge their cars due to insufficient grid capacity. This movement to net zero will effect the poor the greatest, weaken the nation and make the US a third world country. "
Doubtful. That is a highly pessimistic view in light of the fact that the technology by 2030 will have grown remarkably. By that time, technology to charge cars will have emerged and likely be built into the main roads so that a vehicle charges as you drive it. Yes, you have to ease into the change, but if you think they are even capable of changing this overnight, then you are in fantasy land. This has to occur as a slow process over a period of years.
-----------------------
"There is climate change but it is not the great disaster that you make it out to be."
I think it's actually worse than I make it out to be. It is not merely climate warming that is the issue; it's everything else contributing to the cumulative effect of climate change and its impact not only on us as a species but on the entire biosphere. This includes virus outbreaks and increasing illnesses due to these changes, as well as pollutants being released into our atmosphere. Under a Trump administration, these pollutants will be deregulated under Project 2025 and/or Trump's Agenda 47.
-----------------------
"...but I have no doubt that some military aircraft are."
This is not happening. Military aircraft, when and where? I've not seen a military aircraft dispersing chemicals in the air and I've been monitoring the skies daily for the past two decades, including taking pictures of the trails left by planes https://x.com/JeffGreenHealth/status/1843331545102438874.
The claim is that normal commercial airliners are spraying chemicals to control the weather and to control the people. This is false. When the atmosphere temperature is just right, all planes will potentially leave contrails that spread out and combine with other clouds or form larger cirrus cloud coverings. This is normal and is not a 'chemtrail'.
I apologize for not responding sooner. Here is a link referring to the cost of energy under the Biden/Harris administration. https://www.bidenomics.com/energy/ This is just one of many. Solar and Wind energy can never be better than the availability of the sun and wind. It is inherently unreliable no matter how efficient you can make it. You will always need to have some reliable backup whether it's fossil fuel or nuke plants. Even Biden is talking of reactivating decommissioned nuclear plants. Reuters recently reported that offshore windfarms are slowing sinking into the ocean and demand for these expensive windmills is flatlined. The fantasy that we will drive cars powered along the road is just that, fantasy. Most states can barely keep up with filling potholes and there will never be a project where cables are buried along the roadside to power EVs. Never. The cost is prohibitive and it is a very inefficient way to transfer energy-a lot of loss. And what happens when the sun isn't out? Do we just all stop driving? And if anyone is concerned about EMFs and health, creating a situation where you are bombarded with a constant strong EM field as you drive would certainly be cause for alarm.
If you are worried about the environmental impact of oil pipelines, I suggest you take a look at large solar farms. Literally hundreds of acres of solar panels where nothing is allowed to grow. No wildlife in sight. Just sterile expanses of panels. Hardly environmentally friendly. The dirty secret that environmentalists hide their eyes from. Solar farms require clear-cutting large swaths of land where nothing can live except the maintenance crew. Every EV requires lithium batteries that require a LOT of fossil fuels to extract and manufacture and create massive environmental damage to mine. Only about 5% of the old batteries are recovered. Also an expensive process. I'm not a pessimist, but rather a realist. I'm not short-sighted but I can see when I'm being hood-winked. I think there are some good ideas like solar panels on new homes but most "green" projects are massive wastes of money, making a few rich and negatively effecting the energy costs for us all while making the country weaker/energy\ insecure. EVs as they currently are, are a step backwards. We had EVs in the late 1800s. It's nothing new. They were replaced with gasoline cars which were better and still are. The car companies can't sell the EVs even with their large gov't subsidies. No one wants them. That's why Biden is trying to force us to buy them with his policies.
As for CO2 causing climate change, you, of all people should know that all "Science" is now politicized as you have spoken out against vaccines("accepted science"). We saw that quite clearly with Covid and the censoring of information that didn't follow the narrative. We've seen that with how Fauci controlled the funding to any research that didn't adhere to the narrative going way back to HIV/AIDs. We are seeing that now with CO2=climate change. The gov't controls the narrative and the money is directed accordingly. Billions, maybe trillions to be made on this without bringing about any real change other than to remove our freedoms in the name of climate change. As Michael Crichton pointed out, "the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results.....If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus." And with that condensed quote here is the link to one person who shows why the consensus is wrong. Whyclimatechanges.com and another site JustproveCO2.com.
Thank you for your response Jeff.
I've discussed this issue with a pilot a while back and he validates what you(Jeff) are saying. He mentioned the weight of the aircraft is precise and if they were adding mechanisms for the purpose of spraying, or any other reason, the pilot would know.
Vivek Ramaswamy wrote about climate change in one of his books, noting that man is partially responsible for increased CO2 levels. But he also explains that there are both positive and negative effects on the environment and the planet.
On a related topic, geo-engineering. This is real? Do we know enough about this? Is there evidentiary information available to validate or dismiss geo-engineering is being executed?
Thanks again.
If you look at the data from the last century, it’s clear that the rise in CO2 levels began with the Industrial Revolution and has been steadily increasing ever since. This is a long-term trend driven by human activities, particularly pollution. Yet, some people have somehow convinced themselves that nothing humans do affects the climate. That’s simply delusional thinking and you’d have to ignore all science to believe that.
As for geoengineering, it's being studied as a potential way to reduce solar radiation and remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere—not to somehow increase the Earth's temperature, which wouldn't make any sense at all.
They just passed a bill in Tennessee that bans 'chemtrails.' Guess what? Those trails can still be seen in the skies. Why? Because they were and always have been nothing, but normal contrails left by planes when the temperature in the atmosphere is right.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68716894
You mentioned chemtrails killing us and modifying the weather intentionally as one of the proveably false topics. Do you mean there is evidence they don't cause harm to us and that they are not meant to modify the weather, or simply that chemtrails are actually contrails?
It's very difficult for me to see the once blue skies littered with wispy remnants of plane discharge and not think it's causing harm in some way.
The less I have to concern myself with, the better.
Thank you.
I meant that chemtrails are actually normal contrails made up of steam, ice crystals. Not intentionally sprayed chemicals to harm us or modify the weather.
Contrails have existed since the first airplane flew the skies. The same principles exist on the ground in the form of steam during a cold day. It is the exact same principle. Yes, under certain conditions, these contrails can persist and spread out, forming larger cloud formations, known as contrail cirrus. And yes, this may change the Earth's climate over time. Over time, increased cloud cover from contrails may contribute to changes in the Earth's energy balance. However, this is completely different than claiming evil doers are spraying everyone with chemicals intentionally. It is merely the water vapor from jet fuel combustion that condenses into steam and then freezes into ice crystals. Yes, jet fuel does contain things like heavy metals and other byproducts, which may also have an effect. But again, this is entirely different than intent to harm, which is what the theory claims.
Everything chemtrail believers claim to see in chemtrail behavior, is the exact same behavior that takes place in normal contrails—no difference.
I would think that unless you are following each aircraft and testing their output, there is no way to make that statement. As for climate change, there is no proof that carbon is the cause which is what they want us to believe so, as you point out, charlatans can enrich themselves by selling carbon credits, limiting our ability to travel, giving us 15 minute cities, selling us all unreliable, expensive, "green energy". Water vapor is one of the greatest greenhouse gases and we experienced a massive underwater volcano called Hunga Tonga in 2022 that put enough water into the atmosphere to effect the climate for years.
Are you claiming that every commercial airliner flying in the sky on a particular day are all specialized planes using specialized nozzles that intentionally spray chemicals in the air? Commercial (and private) planes are tracked through multiple systems, including radar, which provide real-time data on their flight paths. If these planes were engaging in secret chemical spraying, it would be impossible to hide. And yes, I can make that statement with certainty. To do what you claim, you'd have to have this being done in every plane that crosses the sky, and the pilots would have to be intentionally in on the conspiracy. It's not happening.
You mentioned water vapor, which is indeed a greenhouse gas, but its behavior is different from CO2. Water vapor responds to temperature changes—it amplifies warming caused by other gases but doesn’t drive it. CO2, on the other hand, persists in the atmosphere for a long time and directly drives temperature increases. This occurs from pollutants of all types, most of which are manmade, including deforestation, and industry, and proliferation of fuel-powered vehicles around the world. These have an accumulative effect. Are you really claiming none of these things affects the planet?
Regarding the Hunga Tonga eruption, while it injected a large amount of water vapor into the atmosphere, that doesn't disprove the role of carbon emissions in climate change. The water vapor from the Hunga Tonga eruption will eventually dissipate, and while it may cause some short-term changes in climate (like a temporary boost in atmospheric humidity), it is not a sustained source of warming like the continual release of CO2 from human activities.
The comments about "carbon credits" and "15-minute cities" detract from the actual science of climate change and are distractions rather than meaningful counterpoints. None of it addresses the core issue of climate change, which is real and present.
No I'm not claiming every commercial airline is dispersing chemicals into the atmosphere but I have no doubt that some military aircraft are. It's not hard to hide military operations from the public. The gov't has been playing with weather modification for decades and there are many patents to show this such as US patent 4686605A-"Method and apparatus for altering a region in the earth's atmosphere, ionosphere, and/or magnetosphere" and part of the patent is putting barium into the atmosphere and directing it with energy systems. There are various university programs from schools like Univ. of Chicago and Harvard that have programs in geoengineering and billionaires like Gates and Bezos are investing into this research. Part of the geoengineering is placing chemicals into the atmosphere. There's a company called "Make Sunsets" in California that's already been launching weather balloons filled with sulfur dioxide into the upper atmosphere. All in the mis-guided idea that we need to dim the sun. Gee, what could go wrong?
15 minute cities, EVs, limiting freedom of travel, reducing your access to animal protein are not distractions at all from climate change but rather a direct consequence of insane governmental policies brought about by the very flawed climate change argument. Do humans have an effect on climate? Yes. Do natural events have an effect? Yes. Does solar output change? Yes. An interesting point is that CO2 increase appears to follow temperature change, not the other way around. Also of note is that the warming effect of CO2 diminishes logarithmically as it increases in concentration so it is a diminishing effect as CO2 goes up. Fossil fuels provide everyone with affordable energy that, to date, no other form of energy can provide. It provides the energy for agriculture which allows us to afford food and without which, many would starve and it also provides the warmth to survive in colder temperatures. Many more people have died from cold than from heat. Climate related disasters have dropped 98% over the last century so climate change is not catastrophic. Governmental policies like those of the Biden/Harris administration are catastrophic and have increased the cost of energy significantly(and indirectly the cost of many other things leading to inflation) and made our grid more unreliable. Green energy is unreliable energy and the Biden/Harris "net-zero" polices have come at an enormous cost. We saw Newsom state that they would ban fossil fuel cars by 2030 and 6 days later tell EV owners not to use the grid to charge their cars due to insufficient grid capacity. This movement to net zero will effect the poor the greatest, weaken the nation and make the US a third world country. There is climate change but it is not the great disaster that you make it out to be. Far greater damage to the people will occur if people like Harris adhere to net-zero.
"Governmental policies like those of the Biden/Harris administration are catastrophic and have increased the cost of energy significantly(and indirectly the cost of many other things leading to inflation) and made our grid more unreliable. "
Provide an example. The Keystone Pipeline spill in 2019, shows the real risks of such infrastructure. If a pipeline crosses sensitive areas, such as rivers or wetlands, the damage from a spill could be catastrophic, leading to long-term harm to local wildlife, drinking water, and ecosystems. Doesn't sound too nice to me, and these kinds of spills happen all the time.
-----------------------
"Climate related disasters have dropped 98% over the last century so climate change is not catastrophic."
The number of deaths from climate-related disasters (storms, floods, heatwaves) has indeed dropped, thanks to better warning systems, infrastructure, and medical advances. However, the frequency and intensity of these events, especially heatwaves, have increased. Heat-related deaths are actually rising in many areas due to more frequent and extreme heat events driven by climate change. Also, the frequency or intensity of these events has increased.
-----------------------
"Green energy is unreliable energy "
Green energy's reliability and cost-effectiveness are expected to improve significantly in the future due to several factors. You sound like every other short-sighted person who claims that green energy cannot and will never work, and that we should just continue to rely on fossil fuels until the end of time, as if that is the best mankind can come up with. There are better and more efficient ways man will produce energy in the future. To continue to use toxic and dirty forms of energy is insanity and is not the way forward.
-----------------------
"Fossil fuels provide everyone with affordable energy"
They would, if the energy companies were not greedy corporations that were highly overcharging their customers. Even during times when consumers face high energy prices, fossil fuel companies have reported record profits. Also, this has nothing to do with Biden or Harris. The U.S. government, including the Biden/Harris administration, has limited control over global oil markets. While they can influence domestic policies, they don't directly set prices. Gasoline and energy prices are driven primarily by the global market for crude oil, which is influenced by supply and demand factors beyond any one government’s control.
Fossil fuels may seem affordable, their true cost includes environmental damage, climate change, and public health impacts from pollution and water contamination.
-----------------------
"We saw Newsom state that they would ban fossil fuel cars by 2030 and 6 days later tell EV owners not to use the grid to charge their cars due to insufficient grid capacity. This movement to net zero will effect the poor the greatest, weaken the nation and make the US a third world country. "
Doubtful. That is a highly pessimistic view in light of the fact that the technology by 2030 will have grown remarkably. By that time, technology to charge cars will have emerged and likely be built into the main roads so that a vehicle charges as you drive it. Yes, you have to ease into the change, but if you think they are even capable of changing this overnight, then you are in fantasy land. This has to occur as a slow process over a period of years.
-----------------------
"There is climate change but it is not the great disaster that you make it out to be."
I think it's actually worse than I make it out to be. It is not merely climate warming that is the issue; it's everything else contributing to the cumulative effect of climate change and its impact not only on us as a species but on the entire biosphere. This includes virus outbreaks and increasing illnesses due to these changes, as well as pollutants being released into our atmosphere. Under a Trump administration, these pollutants will be deregulated under Project 2025 and/or Trump's Agenda 47.
-----------------------
"...but I have no doubt that some military aircraft are."
This is not happening. Military aircraft, when and where? I've not seen a military aircraft dispersing chemicals in the air and I've been monitoring the skies daily for the past two decades, including taking pictures of the trails left by planes https://x.com/JeffGreenHealth/status/1843331545102438874.
The claim is that normal commercial airliners are spraying chemicals to control the weather and to control the people. This is false. When the atmosphere temperature is just right, all planes will potentially leave contrails that spread out and combine with other clouds or form larger cirrus cloud coverings. This is normal and is not a 'chemtrail'.
I apologize for not responding sooner. Here is a link referring to the cost of energy under the Biden/Harris administration. https://www.bidenomics.com/energy/ This is just one of many. Solar and Wind energy can never be better than the availability of the sun and wind. It is inherently unreliable no matter how efficient you can make it. You will always need to have some reliable backup whether it's fossil fuel or nuke plants. Even Biden is talking of reactivating decommissioned nuclear plants. Reuters recently reported that offshore windfarms are slowing sinking into the ocean and demand for these expensive windmills is flatlined. The fantasy that we will drive cars powered along the road is just that, fantasy. Most states can barely keep up with filling potholes and there will never be a project where cables are buried along the roadside to power EVs. Never. The cost is prohibitive and it is a very inefficient way to transfer energy-a lot of loss. And what happens when the sun isn't out? Do we just all stop driving? And if anyone is concerned about EMFs and health, creating a situation where you are bombarded with a constant strong EM field as you drive would certainly be cause for alarm.
If you are worried about the environmental impact of oil pipelines, I suggest you take a look at large solar farms. Literally hundreds of acres of solar panels where nothing is allowed to grow. No wildlife in sight. Just sterile expanses of panels. Hardly environmentally friendly. The dirty secret that environmentalists hide their eyes from. Solar farms require clear-cutting large swaths of land where nothing can live except the maintenance crew. Every EV requires lithium batteries that require a LOT of fossil fuels to extract and manufacture and create massive environmental damage to mine. Only about 5% of the old batteries are recovered. Also an expensive process. I'm not a pessimist, but rather a realist. I'm not short-sighted but I can see when I'm being hood-winked. I think there are some good ideas like solar panels on new homes but most "green" projects are massive wastes of money, making a few rich and negatively effecting the energy costs for us all while making the country weaker/energy\ insecure. EVs as they currently are, are a step backwards. We had EVs in the late 1800s. It's nothing new. They were replaced with gasoline cars which were better and still are. The car companies can't sell the EVs even with their large gov't subsidies. No one wants them. That's why Biden is trying to force us to buy them with his policies.
As for CO2 causing climate change, you, of all people should know that all "Science" is now politicized as you have spoken out against vaccines("accepted science"). We saw that quite clearly with Covid and the censoring of information that didn't follow the narrative. We've seen that with how Fauci controlled the funding to any research that didn't adhere to the narrative going way back to HIV/AIDs. We are seeing that now with CO2=climate change. The gov't controls the narrative and the money is directed accordingly. Billions, maybe trillions to be made on this without bringing about any real change other than to remove our freedoms in the name of climate change. As Michael Crichton pointed out, "the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results.....If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus." And with that condensed quote here is the link to one person who shows why the consensus is wrong. Whyclimatechanges.com and another site JustproveCO2.com.
This link is about the "non-existent chemtrails": Substack.com/home/post/p-146139033 Wishing you health and happiness.