About the Global Warming Agendas

[Raccoon1010]

A Fox news article shows some discussion on the world economic forum about the first amendment problems they saw as far as what they called "dis-information" from media. Take a look:

John Kerry calls the First Amendment a 'major block' to stopping 'disinformation'

"The dislike of and anguish over social media is just growing and growing. It is part of our problem, particularly in democracies, in terms of building consensus around any issue. It's really hard to govern today. The referees we used to have to determine what is a fact and what isn't a fact have kind of been eviscerated, to a certain degree. And people go and self-select where they go for their news, for their information. And then you get into a vicious cycle," Kerry said.

I'm not really sure what real power the "world economic forum" has in the first place. I do see a lot of money being made by the media empire's movie collection regarding "end of the world" super epic movies which quite often support a global warming agenda.

The science:

The problem with petroleum based vehicles is that some emit carbon monoxide which is lighter than air, unlike the carbon dioxide that is heavier than air. I simple doctor visit with my current health problems revealed nothing at all wrong with my oxygen saturation levels on the west coast USA. I did see some pre-catalytic converter pollution in the air and I believe it was coming from overseas and some other country. Now the carbon monoxide will probably raise into the atmosphere and potential trap heat from the sun and not allow it to release back into space. It might create a blanket high enough up to do that. I don't believe carbon dioxide to be a problem that I could effectively blame as a contributor. I do know carbon dioxide is often exchanged in natural processes thru plants and ocean vegetation.

I know some of the slight research I was able to conduct regarding carbon monoxide levels said that it was in decline. A simple look onto a data display website shows a periodic non-rising level of carbon monoxide over the course of about 20 years. Which is located here:

AIRS Global Carbon Monoxide over 20 Years (2002-2022) | AIRS

Also about the proper and responsible use of catalytic converters in countries around the world:

IPA - International Platinum Group Metals Association - By how much do they reduce pollution?

From the website's article:

"By most estimates, catalytic converters fitted inside the exhaust pipe of a gasoline-operated car convert over 90% of hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) from the engine into less harmful carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen and water vapour. Diesel engines, in addition, emit particulates. The use of a particulate filter, in conjunction with a catalyst, can reduce their mass by 90% and reduce the number of ultra-fine particles by 99%."

Which countries do not support the responsible use of a catalytic converter? The odd thing is that when I performed the search I simply could not find a list of countries that do not require the use of catalytic converters. Of course those only operate on automobiles. There are the top polluting countries we all know of.

My biggest concern in this article was the apparent attempt to promote the changes to the constitution. I know state level interpretations often appear to be aligned with socialism and totalitarian directions. I always find myself wonder what countries those people admire outside of the good old fashion United States of America?

I know some people have what is called in science "theories" regarding global warming. And I also am aware that the issues related to that are enormously complex and that is why they are not proven, but instead "theories". Effects range from the sun, to the atmosphere and volcanic, pollution and the like. I know that we are living in an era evolving from industrialization into our current climate and that started around 1876:

industrialization of the united states - Google Search

I will say it again, that over the course of hundreds and even thousands of years and perhaps beyond, the climate will naturally go thru normal change conditions which can arise naturally from forest fires, animal, plant, fish and human emission, volcanic activities as well as new atoms created during solar particle bombardment of the earth. There may be other factors as well.

Thank you for your time. Cheers!

 

[Rockerduck]

Volcano eruptions blow the global warming, aka, climate change theories out. I find it amusing that the mega rich scream the loudest, like they aren't responsible at all, for most of it through the emissions smokestacks we all have seen for all our lives, of the industries they have invested in; and of course, their Jets and yachts don't pollute at all.

 

[Raccoon1010]

Volcano eruptions blow the global warming, aka, climate change theories out. I find it amusing that the mega rich scream the loudest, like they aren't responsible at all, for most of it through the emissions smokestacks we all have seen for all our lives, of the industries they have invested in; and of course, their Jets and yachts don't pollute at all.

Global warming? What is that anyways, I thought we had an ice age that killed the wooly mammoths and froze them in permafrost to later be treasure for someone's finding, fully loaded with prehistoric virii.

I should probably check on the CO2 levels in the earth, which are most likely caused from natural sources. I would think since it's heavier than air it probably sinks into areas and feeds the plant like and plankton appropriately for lush green forests and plenty of algae for the whales to feed on. Lovin' that CO2, said the wildlife of the earth, humans thought they were feeding them the CO2, but they just take credit for everything, probably too much, hmmm, how do you say in English, "delusions of grandeur".

Interestingly enough I did seem to find some information on the issue of CO2 levels that dates back to the beginning of the industrialization era. I'm really not imagining ultra-rapid breathing humans as the outcome for supplying the appropriate oxygen saturation in the blood stream. That seems more like some fairly imaginative "Hollywood production":

At the start of the industrial age that level was about 260 ppm, and they say now it is 420 ppm. So in about a quantity of atmosphere which is about 1,000,000 parts which are atoms or molecules, that is an increase of about 0.026% CO2 to about 0.042%. As far as thermal conduction within that gaseous atmosphere I'm just not sure the overall effect. And like I said, it is heavier than air. And I would tend to believe that it is more likely that the heated CO2 within the atmosphere is raised and lowered by various, sometimes turbulent, convection within the atmosphere. Heat migrates from regions of hot to cold. So there would have to be some form of at the minimum, a convection of rapid air flow and thermal conduction analysis. The convection would rapidly transfer the heat up to space, and the thermal conduction would also escape the atmosphere.

The overall increase in parts per million of CO2 is about 160 parts per million. So I'm not going to even speculate on a theory as to some global warming idea as I feel it would most likely be incorrect like probably everyone else and provide a seeding ground for problems in the world. And that is my assessment.

Specific heat capacity for Oxygen is 0.918 J/g-°C

Specific heat capacity of Carbon Dioxide is 0.84 J/g ⋅ ∘ C

MatWeb - The Online Materials Information Resource

https://homework.study.com/explanat...eat-capacity-of-gaseous-co2-is-0-84-j-gc.html

I'm no expert, but given the specific heat capacities and also the parts per million, things get a little cloudy in the idea that greenhouse gas theory is proof, which clearly is not the case in any scientific area for real professionals.

 

[Raccoon1010]

10 interesting things about air – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

From the article:

"The air in Earth's atmosphere is made up of approximately 78 percent nitrogen and 21 percent oxygen. Air also has small amounts of other gases, too, such as carbon dioxide, neon, and hydrogen."

That's about 99% oxygen and nitrogen composition of atmosphere at sea level.

 

[Jericho]

I'm not really sure what real power the "world economic forum" has in the first place.

Klaus Schwab once boasted about having influence through WEF leaders in multiple governments, and having penetrated cabinets around the world. That's the real source of their power.

My biggest concern in this article was the apparent attempt to promote the changes to the constitution.

That's really what Climate Change is about IMO, it's a Trojan horse for world government.

As for CO2 gas, if it's such a problem, one has to wonder why Mars, with an atmosphere of 95.3% CO2 gas, only reaches a temperature of about 68F (20C) near the equaitor.

 

[Raccoon1010]

Klaus Schwab once boasted about having influence through WEF leaders in multiple governments, and having penetrated cabinets around the world. That's the real source of their power.



That's really what Climate Change is about IMO, it's a Trojan horse for world government.

As for CO2 gas, if it's such a problem, one has to wonder why Mars, with an atmosphere of 95.3% CO2 gas, only reaches a temperature of about 68F (20C) near the equaitor.

Thanks @Jericho! Interesting information.