Keep them coming Jeff g! Nutrition and anything relative to the age of deception is fantastic. You’ve struck a nerve but must now dig in. History will judge us for which direction we choose to go, for there is no magic bullet solution. Just arrows to the sun!! Looking forward to your next post.
Most people as far as I can tell are not denying the ghastly problem of pollution in all its varieties. What the right wingers (as you call them) are griping about is that it is being used as an excuse to turn the world upside down socially, politically, culturally, without any regard for the massive suffering it will cause - suffering even worse than what is caused by pollution itself.
All problems in this world have more than one possible solution. All of them need to be considered where pollution is concerned. PS. I wouldn't even dare to list them here.
It was the Republican Trump Administration that repealed over 100 environmental regulations, resulting in the full list of policies being dismantled. Throughout a span of four years, significant climate-related measures were rolled back, and additional rules regarding clean air, water, wildlife, and toxic chemicals were also relaxed.
The right's fearmongering serves not to assist us, but rather to maintain the status quo of polluting practices that have persisted for decades without change. Embracing necessary transformations will inevitably encounter resistance and fearmongering from that particular side, but it remains imperative to push forward with those changes.
Fully agree. Top down “solutions”, coming from ppl (many unelected) who fly around the world in private jets to climate summits, where they make plans that will impoverish and even kill us (starting with the poorest of the poor), all while staying in luxurious hotels and dining on the finest waygu beef…then jetting back to one of their multiple estates (beachfront)! All the while WE are being told to cut out meat (eat ze bugs), stop driving/flying so much, make various sacrifices…sorry, I’m not buying what they’re selling.
I see the hypocrisy you are trying to illustrate, but claiming that all of these people are attempting to kill us doesn't absolve the fact that pollution must be gradually slowed and reduced. People do a fine job of killing themselves without any assistance from the people you mentioned. You both completely missed the point of what I wrote in my article.
I didn't miss any point. You seem to be blaming everything on the "far right", when both "teams" are the same behind closed doors. Stop making this a political thing - it's the oligarchs against us peasants. And the ppl I mentioned are the ones killing us with toxins in our food, air, water, more injections and other pharma products being forced on us, all the while gaslighting/brainwashing everyone.
It appears to me that you did not even read my article, as I clearly stated the following:
"These terms have been employed by political leaders across the ideological spectrum, often with opposing views. On the right, there are those who outright deny the existence of climate change, dismissing it as a "hoax." Conversely, the left perceives climate change as an existential threat, incorporating it into broader, more radical agendas. This dichotomy has led to a lack of belief in climate change among right-wing individuals, partly due to a lack of trust in the left. However, the truth remains independent of political affiliations and stands on its own, regardless of personal agreement."
You did miss the point, because my article has little to do with politics but everything to do with dismissing real issues due to political biases that are completely unrelated to the reality of the situation. It is undoubtedly the far-right and their neo-conservative inclinations that have resulted in the disregard for environmental safeguards in favor of greed and profit. They, more than any other group, are responsible for propagating the false notion that pollution and climate change are not a threat or is not real, and this is precisely what I emphasized in my article.
I read every word of it. You very obviously emphasized the "far right", barely touching on the other "side". You are merely stating your opinion that it is the "far right" that is to blame. I'm saying that behind closed doors, there's no difference, hence blaming it on one "side", as you are clearly doing, is an obvious bias.
I emphasized the far right because they are primarily responsible for promoting a free-wheeling attitude towards regulations that limit pollution levels and for denying any changes in climate. You seem to think I am only referring to a particular political party. Rather, I am mainly addressing individuals in the population who adhere to political ideologies, particularly those on the far right who deny climate change.
And to claim there is absolutely no difference between the two parties, especially when it comes to climate, is not accurate whatsoever.
"It is undoubtedly the far-right and their neo-conservative inclinations that have resulted in the disregard for environmental safeguards in favor of greed and profit."
The far-right can not possibly be accurately described as having 'neo-conservative inclinations'. Neocons are just reinvented, slightly smoothed-over trotskyites, although in better suits. They are internationalist communists - they grew out of Trotsky's ideology and were transferred to Amerikwa and the western world in general.
Disregard for our natural environment is distributed amongst all political types. I was shocked to read an article by Lew Rockwell, below, where he does try to make some good points about "environmentalism" as a self-serving fad, but otherwise, what a horrible excuse for a human. I would not **** on him if he were on fire.
Rockwell calls himself a libertarian and a self-professed anarcho-capitalist, but he's not what people tend to think of as "far right". There's all kinds of political stripes out there, Jeff. Like Christian sects.
Once again, there seems to be a misunderstanding of what I conveyed in my article. I focused on the political ideologies that emerge among individuals aligned with a specific party, particularly the far-right faction within the Republican party. My intention was not to discuss political parties themselves directly, but rather the individuals who hold misguided beliefs propagated by a specific party. Such a phenomenon is not as prominent on the left, where outright climate denial is not as prevalent among those identifying as Democrats.
To provide further clarity from my previous message, I would like to clarify that some neo-cons do fall within the far-right category, but they also occupy a crossover point between right and left ideologies. In my perspective, both the far-right and the far-left lean towards communism. Neo-cons, however, occupy a middle ground or crossover point, yet they tend to be radical warmongers and profit-seekers who strive for global government power. Consequently, the lines become blurred because examples of neo-cons can be found across the entire political spectrum, making it challenging to discern their true identities. Additionally, there are Democrats who blur the line between Democrat and Republican, and vice versa. Many of these individuals are political plants, whom I would refer to as neo-cons.
While I completely agree with your stance on pollution, I find it difficult to accept that our exhalation of carbon dioxide (which all plant life requires to thrive) is responsible for this pollution.
Hi Gwyneth, I did not mention the exhalation of carbon dioxide in my article, nor was it mentioned in the video. The point I intended to convey, which I clearly express, is that pollution is a significant threat to life on Earth. It can lead to environmental changes that have negative effects on life. As I mentioned in my article, there are many people who ignore these threats due to being influenced by their respective political ideologies, rather than objectively observing the matter.
Since you brought up the topic of carbon dioxide, I will address it accordingly. To attribute significant blame to human exhalation is a propagandized talking point aimed at broadly dismissing the threat of climate change. Exhalation of carbon dioxide is natural and essential for living organisms, including humans, and has little effect overall on our atmosphere. However, the problems arise when there is excessive accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, mostly caused by human activities like burning fossil fuels and deforestation.
Human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil, and natural gas in power plants, industries, and transportation, are the main cause of increased carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere. Deforestation releases stored carbon dioxide when trees are cleared or burned. Industrial processes, such as cement production and chemical manufacturing, also emit carbon dioxide. Changes in land use, like converting forests to agriculture or urban areas, further contribute to rising carbon dioxide levels. Overall, these human activities significantly raise carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere.
It is both foolish and ignorant for anyone to assert that the harmful practices I listed have no impact on our planet or that they do not negatively affect our climate in any way.
Tilling dead and dying soil is also a major contributor to atmospheric CO2. But, contrary to the climate hysteria advocates' claims, CO2 is not a significant driver of global temperature changes; it's more an effect since as the temperature increases, more CO2 is released from oceans. What is missing from their models are the much more significant effects of solar activity and cosmic rays. Their models can't accurately predict the past let alone the future. They have repeatedly underestimated the cooling effect of aerosols, and they have continued to neglect the effects of the full spectrum of solar energy on our planet.
Ben Davidson has been doing good work making accessible the science of space weather to the general public while exposing the flaws in the pervading hysteria-inducing narratives. Like you, he makes clear the necessity to reduce pollution for the obvious reasons, but as we know, CO2 is not pollution.
Thanks for your comment. The problem with this is that solar activity has a limited impact on recent warming. Changes in solar output over the past few decades are relatively small and cannot account for the magnitude and rapidity of global temperature rise observed during the same period. Similarly, the same is true for those who argue that phenomena like volcanic activity are just as detrimental as any manmade causes, which is far from true.
For example, the emissions from volcanic eruptions are relatively short-lived, and their influence on global temperatures dissipates within a few years. In contrast, greenhouse gas emissions from human activities, such as carbon dioxide (CO2), persist in the atmosphere for centuries and continue to accumulate, causing a long-term warming effect.
Furthermore, this is merely one aspect of the issue. Another significant factor is the pervasive chemical pollution of our atmosphere, which occurs independent of CO2 emissions.
Many climate change deniers often point out that current temperatures have been reached in the past. While this statement is true, it fails to consider the duration and persistence of those temperatures. Deniers tend to focus on short-term fluctuations without acknowledging the long-term trend of sustained high temperatures over many years, and then falsely use this to claim climate change does not exist.
The global electric circuit is a complex system that I cannot summarize here, but it's worth studying if you doubt the significance of solar activity on both short-term and long-term climate.
I am not (nor is Davidson) arguing that climate change doesn't exist, but that it is continuous and not anthropogenic for the most part.
I also question the validity of the 'global temperature' as this is not a trivial thing to measure accurately, especially over long periods. Cities tend to be significantly warmer than their surroundings, for example. Global temperature measurements come from a variety of sources, each with their own confounding variables, and we know how easy it is to misrepresent information with statistics.
Nevertheless, there does appear to be an upward trend in global temperature, but there is no decisive evidence pointing to its cause. There is evidence of recent climate changes in other planets in our solar system as well, pointing to larger-scale causes than human activity.
Volcanic activity has an overall cooling effect on the planet, as do many aerosols. I am not denying the existence of the greenhouse effect, but its impact on the overall climate is drastically overstated in the climate alarmist narrative.
Davidson also talks about galactic-scale modulation that impacts solar output and drives the larger cycles, but it would be better to explore his work on this than to read my vague summary of it.
You mentioned that many aspects of climate change are being overinflated, and that may be true when it comes to more radical ideologues. But isn't it also possible that the reverse is true? That many people are underestimating the threat due to vast scientific ignorance? Additionally, are oil companies paying large sums of money to spread disinformation about the harmful effects of their practices on our well-being? The evidence for this is overwhelming.
Do you think that if no measures were taken, such as the ones shown in the video in this article, unchecked pollution would not affect global temperatures?—If it were allowed to increase unfettered. To clarify further, allowing unchecked pollution not only harms life on Earth but also intensifies unbalanced climate change, regardless of external factors like short-lived fluctuations in solar activity.
Davidson claims that solar activity is to blame for any global warming. Yet, a 2016 study in 'Environmental Research Letters' concluded that the contribution of solar activity cannot have contributed more than 10% to the global warming seen in the twentieth century.
NASA states:
“Since 1750, the warming driven by greenhouse gases coming from the human burning of fossil fuels is over 50 times greater than the slight extra warming coming from the Sun itself over that same time interval.”
Yes, of course it is possible the reverse is also true. We do not know what exactly constitutes the threats we will face in the future, let alone the true causes of the threats we face today. Yes, oil companies engage in swaying public opinion in their favor, as all such large, powerful entities do (though that does not necessarily mean it's all disinformation). This makes it tempting to stand in opposition to their position, but as you know, the truth tends to rest somewhere in the middle.
Earth has a mechanism for reversing rising temperatures, as demonstrated in Heinrich and Dansgaard-Oeschger events. It is thought that the mechanism involves the cooling and salinity of ocean currents when enough polar ice melts. Regardless, there are plenty of more immediate reasons to take care of our environment and cease pollution regardless of the questionable impact on climate.
There are many studies that make similar conclusions to the one you mentioned, but none of them are based on the latest climate models, or if they are, they exclude the solar and particle forcing data that would invalidate such conclusions.
Regarding "short-lived fluctuations in solar activity," I'd recommend studying the numerous effects of solar activity and cosmic rays on the human body, especially in the context of Earth's weakening magnetic field. Superflares and micronovae also fit that description, and they have the potential to drastically and suddenly alter our way of life, so I see little point in comparing this to pollution.
I also contend that "fossil fuels" is a misnomer designed to convey scarcity, based on an unproven theory that has more plausible rivals which receive little public attention. You may be interested in these theories of the abiotic origins of oil.
Though I briefly mentioned in my latest comment the weakening of the geomagnetic field, I forgot to put it in the context of an answer to this comment. It is not simply the changes in solar output that accounts for recent warming, but the 'excursion' of Earth's magnetic field. As the field weakens (which has been accelerating over decades), more solar energy enters the global electric circuit. While up-to-date data on the strength and rate of weakening of the field is not available to the general public (and I question why this is the case), we know we have gone from losing 10% per century to 10% per decade, and we do have data on the locations of the poles (and thus how quickly they're moving). This is perhaps the biggest factor in the recent climate changes we've been seeing.
This graph shows that solar irradiance and earth temperature have gone in opposite directions. We would see an upward trend of solar activity along with temperature if solar activity were to blame.
Scientists have determined that the sun is not the primary cause of our current warming. The rapid and significant rate of Earth surface warming, coupled with the cooling of the stratosphere, contradicts the idea of solar influence on climate change. The weakening of Earth's magnetic field on climate change is not considered significant. Further, it would take thousands of years further for the poles to flip, which has occurred multiple times in Earth's history.
Based on scientific measurements and observations, the weakening of Earth's magnetic field is estimated to be occurring at an average rate of about 5% per century, which is relatively gradual—not 10% per decade.
Graphs also show that there is a gradual upwards trend in Earth temperature at the beginning of the industrial revolution, leading up to current day. Imbalances in Earth temperature leads to hotter summers and colder winters. Man is finding out that his actions here on this Earth do have consequences.
TSI does not include X-rays (nor infrared, nor longer wavelengths). Davidson argues that TSI is egregiously under-inclusive, because TSI drops during solar storms as the energy normally output as UV is transformed to X-ray.
Furthermore, only the top-down thermal coupling is considered in most solar forcing models, neglecting total vertical column modulation (electromagnetic coupling) and other forms of thermal coupling.
I believe I misquoted the magnetic field loss percentages as "10%" when as you said it is 5%, but the 'per century' rate is outdated. As I said, up-to-date information on the rate of loss is not available, but according to the latest available data, it has increased to 5% per decade (https://www.livescience.com/46694-magnetic-field-weakens.html)
Most if not all the points in the fact-check article from which you likely acquired this chart have been addressed by Davidson in his 'infomentaries' and text books. Rather than regurgitate more of his arguments, I will leave it to you to dig into his material and grapple with the discrepancies between the alleged consensus of mainstream climate science and the 'big picture' painted by the data. You may find this presentation a good introduction to his views: https://youtu.be/NYoOcaqCzxo?si=Hk6lhrQQofsMSuoj
I am not disputing the fact that man's actions have consequences, nor that those consequences are catching up to us. I am disputing the claim that human activity is the primary driver of climate change, and by extension, the idea that forfeiting more power to a world government can save us from impending doom. I believe there is a major global catastrophe in our near future, but that it's survivable, and that it's a consequence of natural cycles. Nevertheless, we can agree that continuing to pollute our biosphere is insane.
I hope you are leaning towards support for nuclear energy. Because there is no other viable alternative to hydrocarbon fuels. (the idea that gas, oil and coal come from fossils is doubtful.}
You ask, "what is humanity's breaking point? Cold! In geological time, earth is at the end of a 12,000 warming cycle and getting colder. Ice ages last about 100,000 years.
Pollution has roots in government. Private property owners have the incentive to sue polluters. The environmental movement took away those rights. Regulators are commonly bought off by the polluters.
Whenever you find yourself thinking government is the solution, it' s time to do some serious reflection. If you dig deep enough, you'll find it's the problem. If you want to see some bad pollution, look at China where citizens have no property rights.
Thanks for your comments, Raymond, and for subscribing.
I believe nuclear energy is the way forward for the future. Although probably not a popular opinion here on Substack, I also believe that electric vehicles are the way forward as well, especially as they evolve and become more efficient overall—I do not believe gas is the best man can do.
When it comes to pollution, I agree that the government plays a role, but only in terms of allowing or restricting companies from exploiting weak regulations. I strongly believe that government is necessary, and without it, we would have anarchy. I stand by the importance of intellectual individuals in maintaining the Republic. Without elected representatives, our country would descend into lawlessness. However, I don't support excessive government control that suppresses freedom.
Environmental regulations, especially, are necessary to set limits on profit-driven companies whose sole objective is money. When money becomes the priority, greed takes over, and profit outweighs life.
China, as a communist government, primarily controls manufacturing. Unfortunately, they disregard the safety and health of their people, allowing the worst possible pollution to maximize production and profit, which harms not only them but the entire planet. Regulations would hinder their manufacturing capabilities and financial gains. Consequently, many parts of China are in a dire state, with residents living under a thick cloud of toxic smog.
If pollution is as bad in the US as you say it is, then it follows that the US government is as culpable as the Chinese government for similar reasons. Again, the root cause centers around private property rights where property owners have the right to sue for damages to their property. Governments the world over do not have interests that support private property rights. Government officials are not altruist servants interested in serving the public good. They are susceptible to corruption, particular when the are not held responsible for the harms they inflict on the public. That's why regulations never live up to their billing.
Are you suggesting that if a company causes harm to your property, you have the right to file a lawsuit against them? I agree with that notion. However, what about situations where the damage extends beyond your property and affects the land, air, water, and wildlife in the surrounding environment? It only seems logical that there should be federal regulations in place to safeguard the environment.
While you mentioned the government's responsibility, I would argue that it is the companies responsible for the pollution who should be held accountable, as they are the ones directly causing the problem. Without proper regulations, these profit-driven companies would have unrestricted freedom to pollute the land, water, and air without facing any legal consequences.
If the government can be vulnerable to corruption, it is undoubtedly true that such companies can also be susceptible to corruption, and perhaps even more so. And many of the people that run those companies occupy high ranks within government, so their corruption is far-reaching. I do not blame government directly for that.
"It only seems logical that there should be federal regulations in place to safeguard the environment."
Not when federal officials can be so easily bought off. Oftentimes, governments support despoliation of unowned resources when it serves political interests. Private citizens don't suddenly transform into guardian angels when they cross the line into officialdom.
"I do not blame government directly for that."
We are living under what is accurately called a fascist government, an alignment of government and corporate interests. One has the power, the other has the money; they protect each other. The general public is defenseless. Corporate power has a long history of empowerment nourished by federal regulations and court cases.
When the public looks at all these problems superficially, they blame capitalism and demand socialist reform. They don't see the elephant behind the curtain.
Most of the ones I know on the right think global warming is a scam because the powers that be use it as a tool to control, to make money and maintain power. The unaccountable bureaucracy in place is out of control and answers to no one but make illegall laws. The layers of bullshit to go through is as high as Mount Everest to straighten it out. Layers and layers of BS. At the bottom if they would just have done nothing, yes some people would have problems and some may have died. But as unintended consequences from all the BS levels more have died, more have been enslaved and more have lost freedoms under the guise of the greater good for the greater number BS concept. BS everywhere! Trump gets rid of some of the endless regulations and the people get more freedom, but some folks do not like it or probably do not understand. It is a subtle principle to get! Mankind has trouble with suffering to maintain freedom. Instead let’s not suffer but become more enslaved. Most people choose security over freedom. That’s what happened in the covid debacle! We are a weak country because of it, and tend to think we are a good target now for our enemies.
I have a different perspective. The challenge in comprehending world government lies in the various ways in which influential individuals within it can lead us astray from discovering the actual truth. The primary focus of a world government is not centered around environmental preservation or safeguarding our well-being; instead, it revolves around expanding its dominion and control over resources such as land, water, and air. Notably, certain major oil companies and corporations are closely associated with this global governance structure, wielding immense influence over the media by investing billions in propaganda efforts. Moreover, they strategically position their representatives in high-ranking government positions.
An underlying current reveals genuine concerns among people regarding the environment and the detrimental health effects associated with unregulated pollution caused by human activities. Those who hold contrary beliefs are manipulated and misled by the very individuals they trust to provide them with accurate information.
During his term, Trump rolled back several regulations that aimed to protect our environment and subsequently impact our health. However, the Biden administration later reinstated many of these regulations.
Below are a few examples of regulations that were overturned by Trump but later reinstated under the Biden administration.
Clean Power Plan
Methane Emissions
Vehicle Emission Standards
Water Pollution Protections
Chemical Safety Regulations
Approving of the Keystone XL pipeline
One reason this was a bad idea is because the proposed route of the pipeline crossed several important water bodies in multiple states, including rivers and aquifers. Concerns were raised about the potential for spills and leaks that could contaminate these water sources for many years to come, which are crucial for local ecosystems, drinking water supplies, and agricultural activities.
I can remember the huge ordeal this caused on media outlets like Fox News.
What’s this BS coming down the pipeline at us? The invisible enemy that last forevermore. What a convenient formula to fill in when need be. Is this predictive programming?
Viruses such as MERS exclusively affect individuals with severe toxicity, leading to respiratory manifestations. The occurrence of viral outbreaks can be anticipated, a topic I have been extensively discussing. My argument is that 'COVID-19' was both predicted and manipulated, although it initially emerged as a naturally existing virus. Viral strains undergo frequent genetic alterations, as was observed with the identification of the initial SARS-CoV-2. Essentially, 'new' viruses can be unearthed at any given moment and exploited to substantiate various agendas.
Context is everything, and my article and comments clearly state that I am referring to manmade industrial pollution. Why be pedantic when the context has already been made abundantly clear?
Let us not be narrow, and discuss, as well, the effects of manmade industrial pollution VS the supposed cures being promoted. The latter does increase the former.
Keep them coming Jeff g! Nutrition and anything relative to the age of deception is fantastic. You’ve struck a nerve but must now dig in. History will judge us for which direction we choose to go, for there is no magic bullet solution. Just arrows to the sun!! Looking forward to your next post.
Thank you for your support!
Thank you Jeff g.
Most people as far as I can tell are not denying the ghastly problem of pollution in all its varieties. What the right wingers (as you call them) are griping about is that it is being used as an excuse to turn the world upside down socially, politically, culturally, without any regard for the massive suffering it will cause - suffering even worse than what is caused by pollution itself.
All problems in this world have more than one possible solution. All of them need to be considered where pollution is concerned. PS. I wouldn't even dare to list them here.
It was the Republican Trump Administration that repealed over 100 environmental regulations, resulting in the full list of policies being dismantled. Throughout a span of four years, significant climate-related measures were rolled back, and additional rules regarding clean air, water, wildlife, and toxic chemicals were also relaxed.
The right's fearmongering serves not to assist us, but rather to maintain the status quo of polluting practices that have persisted for decades without change. Embracing necessary transformations will inevitably encounter resistance and fearmongering from that particular side, but it remains imperative to push forward with those changes.
Fully agree. Top down “solutions”, coming from ppl (many unelected) who fly around the world in private jets to climate summits, where they make plans that will impoverish and even kill us (starting with the poorest of the poor), all while staying in luxurious hotels and dining on the finest waygu beef…then jetting back to one of their multiple estates (beachfront)! All the while WE are being told to cut out meat (eat ze bugs), stop driving/flying so much, make various sacrifices…sorry, I’m not buying what they’re selling.
I see the hypocrisy you are trying to illustrate, but claiming that all of these people are attempting to kill us doesn't absolve the fact that pollution must be gradually slowed and reduced. People do a fine job of killing themselves without any assistance from the people you mentioned. You both completely missed the point of what I wrote in my article.
I didn't miss any point. You seem to be blaming everything on the "far right", when both "teams" are the same behind closed doors. Stop making this a political thing - it's the oligarchs against us peasants. And the ppl I mentioned are the ones killing us with toxins in our food, air, water, more injections and other pharma products being forced on us, all the while gaslighting/brainwashing everyone.
It appears to me that you did not even read my article, as I clearly stated the following:
"These terms have been employed by political leaders across the ideological spectrum, often with opposing views. On the right, there are those who outright deny the existence of climate change, dismissing it as a "hoax." Conversely, the left perceives climate change as an existential threat, incorporating it into broader, more radical agendas. This dichotomy has led to a lack of belief in climate change among right-wing individuals, partly due to a lack of trust in the left. However, the truth remains independent of political affiliations and stands on its own, regardless of personal agreement."
You did miss the point, because my article has little to do with politics but everything to do with dismissing real issues due to political biases that are completely unrelated to the reality of the situation. It is undoubtedly the far-right and their neo-conservative inclinations that have resulted in the disregard for environmental safeguards in favor of greed and profit. They, more than any other group, are responsible for propagating the false notion that pollution and climate change are not a threat or is not real, and this is precisely what I emphasized in my article.
I read every word of it. You very obviously emphasized the "far right", barely touching on the other "side". You are merely stating your opinion that it is the "far right" that is to blame. I'm saying that behind closed doors, there's no difference, hence blaming it on one "side", as you are clearly doing, is an obvious bias.
I emphasized the far right because they are primarily responsible for promoting a free-wheeling attitude towards regulations that limit pollution levels and for denying any changes in climate. You seem to think I am only referring to a particular political party. Rather, I am mainly addressing individuals in the population who adhere to political ideologies, particularly those on the far right who deny climate change.
And to claim there is absolutely no difference between the two parties, especially when it comes to climate, is not accurate whatsoever.
"It is undoubtedly the far-right and their neo-conservative inclinations that have resulted in the disregard for environmental safeguards in favor of greed and profit."
The far-right can not possibly be accurately described as having 'neo-conservative inclinations'. Neocons are just reinvented, slightly smoothed-over trotskyites, although in better suits. They are internationalist communists - they grew out of Trotsky's ideology and were transferred to Amerikwa and the western world in general.
Disregard for our natural environment is distributed amongst all political types. I was shocked to read an article by Lew Rockwell, below, where he does try to make some good points about "environmentalism" as a self-serving fad, but otherwise, what a horrible excuse for a human. I would not **** on him if he were on fire.
Rockwell calls himself a libertarian and a self-professed anarcho-capitalist, but he's not what people tend to think of as "far right". There's all kinds of political stripes out there, Jeff. Like Christian sects.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/lew-rockwell/my-vice-hating-the-environment/
Once again, there seems to be a misunderstanding of what I conveyed in my article. I focused on the political ideologies that emerge among individuals aligned with a specific party, particularly the far-right faction within the Republican party. My intention was not to discuss political parties themselves directly, but rather the individuals who hold misguided beliefs propagated by a specific party. Such a phenomenon is not as prominent on the left, where outright climate denial is not as prevalent among those identifying as Democrats.
To provide further clarity from my previous message, I would like to clarify that some neo-cons do fall within the far-right category, but they also occupy a crossover point between right and left ideologies. In my perspective, both the far-right and the far-left lean towards communism. Neo-cons, however, occupy a middle ground or crossover point, yet they tend to be radical warmongers and profit-seekers who strive for global government power. Consequently, the lines become blurred because examples of neo-cons can be found across the entire political spectrum, making it challenging to discern their true identities. Additionally, there are Democrats who blur the line between Democrat and Republican, and vice versa. Many of these individuals are political plants, whom I would refer to as neo-cons.
I hope this explanation clarifies my stance.
While I completely agree with your stance on pollution, I find it difficult to accept that our exhalation of carbon dioxide (which all plant life requires to thrive) is responsible for this pollution.
Hi Gwyneth, I did not mention the exhalation of carbon dioxide in my article, nor was it mentioned in the video. The point I intended to convey, which I clearly express, is that pollution is a significant threat to life on Earth. It can lead to environmental changes that have negative effects on life. As I mentioned in my article, there are many people who ignore these threats due to being influenced by their respective political ideologies, rather than objectively observing the matter.
Since you brought up the topic of carbon dioxide, I will address it accordingly. To attribute significant blame to human exhalation is a propagandized talking point aimed at broadly dismissing the threat of climate change. Exhalation of carbon dioxide is natural and essential for living organisms, including humans, and has little effect overall on our atmosphere. However, the problems arise when there is excessive accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, mostly caused by human activities like burning fossil fuels and deforestation.
Human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil, and natural gas in power plants, industries, and transportation, are the main cause of increased carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere. Deforestation releases stored carbon dioxide when trees are cleared or burned. Industrial processes, such as cement production and chemical manufacturing, also emit carbon dioxide. Changes in land use, like converting forests to agriculture or urban areas, further contribute to rising carbon dioxide levels. Overall, these human activities significantly raise carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere.
It is both foolish and ignorant for anyone to assert that the harmful practices I listed have no impact on our planet or that they do not negatively affect our climate in any way.
Tilling dead and dying soil is also a major contributor to atmospheric CO2. But, contrary to the climate hysteria advocates' claims, CO2 is not a significant driver of global temperature changes; it's more an effect since as the temperature increases, more CO2 is released from oceans. What is missing from their models are the much more significant effects of solar activity and cosmic rays. Their models can't accurately predict the past let alone the future. They have repeatedly underestimated the cooling effect of aerosols, and they have continued to neglect the effects of the full spectrum of solar energy on our planet.
Ben Davidson has been doing good work making accessible the science of space weather to the general public while exposing the flaws in the pervading hysteria-inducing narratives. Like you, he makes clear the necessity to reduce pollution for the obvious reasons, but as we know, CO2 is not pollution.
Thanks for your comment. The problem with this is that solar activity has a limited impact on recent warming. Changes in solar output over the past few decades are relatively small and cannot account for the magnitude and rapidity of global temperature rise observed during the same period. Similarly, the same is true for those who argue that phenomena like volcanic activity are just as detrimental as any manmade causes, which is far from true.
For example, the emissions from volcanic eruptions are relatively short-lived, and their influence on global temperatures dissipates within a few years. In contrast, greenhouse gas emissions from human activities, such as carbon dioxide (CO2), persist in the atmosphere for centuries and continue to accumulate, causing a long-term warming effect.
Furthermore, this is merely one aspect of the issue. Another significant factor is the pervasive chemical pollution of our atmosphere, which occurs independent of CO2 emissions.
Many climate change deniers often point out that current temperatures have been reached in the past. While this statement is true, it fails to consider the duration and persistence of those temperatures. Deniers tend to focus on short-term fluctuations without acknowledging the long-term trend of sustained high temperatures over many years, and then falsely use this to claim climate change does not exist.
The global electric circuit is a complex system that I cannot summarize here, but it's worth studying if you doubt the significance of solar activity on both short-term and long-term climate.
I am not (nor is Davidson) arguing that climate change doesn't exist, but that it is continuous and not anthropogenic for the most part.
I also question the validity of the 'global temperature' as this is not a trivial thing to measure accurately, especially over long periods. Cities tend to be significantly warmer than their surroundings, for example. Global temperature measurements come from a variety of sources, each with their own confounding variables, and we know how easy it is to misrepresent information with statistics.
Nevertheless, there does appear to be an upward trend in global temperature, but there is no decisive evidence pointing to its cause. There is evidence of recent climate changes in other planets in our solar system as well, pointing to larger-scale causes than human activity.
Volcanic activity has an overall cooling effect on the planet, as do many aerosols. I am not denying the existence of the greenhouse effect, but its impact on the overall climate is drastically overstated in the climate alarmist narrative.
Davidson also talks about galactic-scale modulation that impacts solar output and drives the larger cycles, but it would be better to explore his work on this than to read my vague summary of it.
You mentioned that many aspects of climate change are being overinflated, and that may be true when it comes to more radical ideologues. But isn't it also possible that the reverse is true? That many people are underestimating the threat due to vast scientific ignorance? Additionally, are oil companies paying large sums of money to spread disinformation about the harmful effects of their practices on our well-being? The evidence for this is overwhelming.
Do you think that if no measures were taken, such as the ones shown in the video in this article, unchecked pollution would not affect global temperatures?—If it were allowed to increase unfettered. To clarify further, allowing unchecked pollution not only harms life on Earth but also intensifies unbalanced climate change, regardless of external factors like short-lived fluctuations in solar activity.
Davidson claims that solar activity is to blame for any global warming. Yet, a 2016 study in 'Environmental Research Letters' concluded that the contribution of solar activity cannot have contributed more than 10% to the global warming seen in the twentieth century.
NASA states:
“Since 1750, the warming driven by greenhouse gases coming from the human burning of fossil fuels is over 50 times greater than the slight extra warming coming from the Sun itself over that same time interval.”
Yes, of course it is possible the reverse is also true. We do not know what exactly constitutes the threats we will face in the future, let alone the true causes of the threats we face today. Yes, oil companies engage in swaying public opinion in their favor, as all such large, powerful entities do (though that does not necessarily mean it's all disinformation). This makes it tempting to stand in opposition to their position, but as you know, the truth tends to rest somewhere in the middle.
Earth has a mechanism for reversing rising temperatures, as demonstrated in Heinrich and Dansgaard-Oeschger events. It is thought that the mechanism involves the cooling and salinity of ocean currents when enough polar ice melts. Regardless, there are plenty of more immediate reasons to take care of our environment and cease pollution regardless of the questionable impact on climate.
There are many studies that make similar conclusions to the one you mentioned, but none of them are based on the latest climate models, or if they are, they exclude the solar and particle forcing data that would invalidate such conclusions.
Regarding "short-lived fluctuations in solar activity," I'd recommend studying the numerous effects of solar activity and cosmic rays on the human body, especially in the context of Earth's weakening magnetic field. Superflares and micronovae also fit that description, and they have the potential to drastically and suddenly alter our way of life, so I see little point in comparing this to pollution.
I also contend that "fossil fuels" is a misnomer designed to convey scarcity, based on an unproven theory that has more plausible rivals which receive little public attention. You may be interested in these theories of the abiotic origins of oil.
Though I briefly mentioned in my latest comment the weakening of the geomagnetic field, I forgot to put it in the context of an answer to this comment. It is not simply the changes in solar output that accounts for recent warming, but the 'excursion' of Earth's magnetic field. As the field weakens (which has been accelerating over decades), more solar energy enters the global electric circuit. While up-to-date data on the strength and rate of weakening of the field is not available to the general public (and I question why this is the case), we know we have gone from losing 10% per century to 10% per decade, and we do have data on the locations of the poles (and thus how quickly they're moving). This is perhaps the biggest factor in the recent climate changes we've been seeing.
https://climatefeedback.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/temperature_vs_solar_activity_2021.png
This graph shows that solar irradiance and earth temperature have gone in opposite directions. We would see an upward trend of solar activity along with temperature if solar activity were to blame.
Scientists have determined that the sun is not the primary cause of our current warming. The rapid and significant rate of Earth surface warming, coupled with the cooling of the stratosphere, contradicts the idea of solar influence on climate change. The weakening of Earth's magnetic field on climate change is not considered significant. Further, it would take thousands of years further for the poles to flip, which has occurred multiple times in Earth's history.
Based on scientific measurements and observations, the weakening of Earth's magnetic field is estimated to be occurring at an average rate of about 5% per century, which is relatively gradual—not 10% per decade.
Graphs also show that there is a gradual upwards trend in Earth temperature at the beginning of the industrial revolution, leading up to current day. Imbalances in Earth temperature leads to hotter summers and colder winters. Man is finding out that his actions here on this Earth do have consequences.
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/ImageCropToolT4/imageTool/uploaded-images/proxyimg--tojpeg_1575027516550_x2.jpg
TSI does not include X-rays (nor infrared, nor longer wavelengths). Davidson argues that TSI is egregiously under-inclusive, because TSI drops during solar storms as the energy normally output as UV is transformed to X-ray.
Furthermore, only the top-down thermal coupling is considered in most solar forcing models, neglecting total vertical column modulation (electromagnetic coupling) and other forms of thermal coupling.
I believe I misquoted the magnetic field loss percentages as "10%" when as you said it is 5%, but the 'per century' rate is outdated. As I said, up-to-date information on the rate of loss is not available, but according to the latest available data, it has increased to 5% per decade (https://www.livescience.com/46694-magnetic-field-weakens.html)
Most if not all the points in the fact-check article from which you likely acquired this chart have been addressed by Davidson in his 'infomentaries' and text books. Rather than regurgitate more of his arguments, I will leave it to you to dig into his material and grapple with the discrepancies between the alleged consensus of mainstream climate science and the 'big picture' painted by the data. You may find this presentation a good introduction to his views: https://youtu.be/NYoOcaqCzxo?si=Hk6lhrQQofsMSuoj
I am not disputing the fact that man's actions have consequences, nor that those consequences are catching up to us. I am disputing the claim that human activity is the primary driver of climate change, and by extension, the idea that forfeiting more power to a world government can save us from impending doom. I believe there is a major global catastrophe in our near future, but that it's survivable, and that it's a consequence of natural cycles. Nevertheless, we can agree that continuing to pollute our biosphere is insane.
THIS...completely ludicrous.
I hope you are leaning towards support for nuclear energy. Because there is no other viable alternative to hydrocarbon fuels. (the idea that gas, oil and coal come from fossils is doubtful.}
You ask, "what is humanity's breaking point? Cold! In geological time, earth is at the end of a 12,000 warming cycle and getting colder. Ice ages last about 100,000 years.
Pollution has roots in government. Private property owners have the incentive to sue polluters. The environmental movement took away those rights. Regulators are commonly bought off by the polluters.
Whenever you find yourself thinking government is the solution, it' s time to do some serious reflection. If you dig deep enough, you'll find it's the problem. If you want to see some bad pollution, look at China where citizens have no property rights.
Thanks for your comments, Raymond, and for subscribing.
I believe nuclear energy is the way forward for the future. Although probably not a popular opinion here on Substack, I also believe that electric vehicles are the way forward as well, especially as they evolve and become more efficient overall—I do not believe gas is the best man can do.
When it comes to pollution, I agree that the government plays a role, but only in terms of allowing or restricting companies from exploiting weak regulations. I strongly believe that government is necessary, and without it, we would have anarchy. I stand by the importance of intellectual individuals in maintaining the Republic. Without elected representatives, our country would descend into lawlessness. However, I don't support excessive government control that suppresses freedom.
Environmental regulations, especially, are necessary to set limits on profit-driven companies whose sole objective is money. When money becomes the priority, greed takes over, and profit outweighs life.
China, as a communist government, primarily controls manufacturing. Unfortunately, they disregard the safety and health of their people, allowing the worst possible pollution to maximize production and profit, which harms not only them but the entire planet. Regulations would hinder their manufacturing capabilities and financial gains. Consequently, many parts of China are in a dire state, with residents living under a thick cloud of toxic smog.
If pollution is as bad in the US as you say it is, then it follows that the US government is as culpable as the Chinese government for similar reasons. Again, the root cause centers around private property rights where property owners have the right to sue for damages to their property. Governments the world over do not have interests that support private property rights. Government officials are not altruist servants interested in serving the public good. They are susceptible to corruption, particular when the are not held responsible for the harms they inflict on the public. That's why regulations never live up to their billing.
Are you suggesting that if a company causes harm to your property, you have the right to file a lawsuit against them? I agree with that notion. However, what about situations where the damage extends beyond your property and affects the land, air, water, and wildlife in the surrounding environment? It only seems logical that there should be federal regulations in place to safeguard the environment.
While you mentioned the government's responsibility, I would argue that it is the companies responsible for the pollution who should be held accountable, as they are the ones directly causing the problem. Without proper regulations, these profit-driven companies would have unrestricted freedom to pollute the land, water, and air without facing any legal consequences.
If the government can be vulnerable to corruption, it is undoubtedly true that such companies can also be susceptible to corruption, and perhaps even more so. And many of the people that run those companies occupy high ranks within government, so their corruption is far-reaching. I do not blame government directly for that.
"It only seems logical that there should be federal regulations in place to safeguard the environment."
Not when federal officials can be so easily bought off. Oftentimes, governments support despoliation of unowned resources when it serves political interests. Private citizens don't suddenly transform into guardian angels when they cross the line into officialdom.
"I do not blame government directly for that."
We are living under what is accurately called a fascist government, an alignment of government and corporate interests. One has the power, the other has the money; they protect each other. The general public is defenseless. Corporate power has a long history of empowerment nourished by federal regulations and court cases.
When the public looks at all these problems superficially, they blame capitalism and demand socialist reform. They don't see the elephant behind the curtain.
Most of the ones I know on the right think global warming is a scam because the powers that be use it as a tool to control, to make money and maintain power. The unaccountable bureaucracy in place is out of control and answers to no one but make illegall laws. The layers of bullshit to go through is as high as Mount Everest to straighten it out. Layers and layers of BS. At the bottom if they would just have done nothing, yes some people would have problems and some may have died. But as unintended consequences from all the BS levels more have died, more have been enslaved and more have lost freedoms under the guise of the greater good for the greater number BS concept. BS everywhere! Trump gets rid of some of the endless regulations and the people get more freedom, but some folks do not like it or probably do not understand. It is a subtle principle to get! Mankind has trouble with suffering to maintain freedom. Instead let’s not suffer but become more enslaved. Most people choose security over freedom. That’s what happened in the covid debacle! We are a weak country because of it, and tend to think we are a good target now for our enemies.
I have a different perspective. The challenge in comprehending world government lies in the various ways in which influential individuals within it can lead us astray from discovering the actual truth. The primary focus of a world government is not centered around environmental preservation or safeguarding our well-being; instead, it revolves around expanding its dominion and control over resources such as land, water, and air. Notably, certain major oil companies and corporations are closely associated with this global governance structure, wielding immense influence over the media by investing billions in propaganda efforts. Moreover, they strategically position their representatives in high-ranking government positions.
An underlying current reveals genuine concerns among people regarding the environment and the detrimental health effects associated with unregulated pollution caused by human activities. Those who hold contrary beliefs are manipulated and misled by the very individuals they trust to provide them with accurate information.
During his term, Trump rolled back several regulations that aimed to protect our environment and subsequently impact our health. However, the Biden administration later reinstated many of these regulations.
Below are a few examples of regulations that were overturned by Trump but later reinstated under the Biden administration.
Clean Power Plan
Methane Emissions
Vehicle Emission Standards
Water Pollution Protections
Chemical Safety Regulations
Approving of the Keystone XL pipeline
One reason this was a bad idea is because the proposed route of the pipeline crossed several important water bodies in multiple states, including rivers and aquifers. Concerns were raised about the potential for spills and leaks that could contaminate these water sources for many years to come, which are crucial for local ecosystems, drinking water supplies, and agricultural activities.
I can remember the huge ordeal this caused on media outlets like Fox News.
https://apple.news/Acthf4p8CRk22Louy6-ECag
What’s this BS coming down the pipeline at us? The invisible enemy that last forevermore. What a convenient formula to fill in when need be. Is this predictive programming?
Viruses such as MERS exclusively affect individuals with severe toxicity, leading to respiratory manifestations. The occurrence of viral outbreaks can be anticipated, a topic I have been extensively discussing. My argument is that 'COVID-19' was both predicted and manipulated, although it initially emerged as a naturally existing virus. Viral strains undergo frequent genetic alterations, as was observed with the identification of the initial SARS-CoV-2. Essentially, 'new' viruses can be unearthed at any given moment and exploited to substantiate various agendas.
"Pollution" is too broad a term. There are so many forms.
Context is everything, and my article and comments clearly state that I am referring to manmade industrial pollution. Why be pedantic when the context has already been made abundantly clear?
Let us not be narrow, and discuss, as well, the effects of manmade industrial pollution VS the supposed cures being promoted. The latter does increase the former.