My google searches haven't been effective. I know some people have wanted to redefine CO2 to pollution and regulate it for years but who in the US decided they had the authority to regulate carbon and when? Was it a head of the EPA?

A scientist who has spent his entire life studying global warming at Harvard said that C02 is the gas of life and through his 30 years of studying climate change has found that the sun is mostly responsible for the change in temperatures.

Of course with those crazy ideas he was made to look like a crazy person who is entirely funded by the petroleum industry because the people funding Harvards research didn’t like his findings.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: 1s1k,

quote:

Originally posted by ridewv:
My google searches haven't been effective. I know some people have wanted to redefine CO2 to pollution and regulate it for years but who in the US decided they had the authority to regulate carbon and when? Was it a head of the EPA?

The Obama administration convinced an administrative law judge at the EPA that CO2 was a pollutant and should be regulated. As we all (should) know, the Clean Air Act did not designate CO2 as a pollutant and Congress has not amended it.

This was a nonsensical decision because CO2 is non-reactive and doesn't cause the problems that real pollutants do (smog, acid rain, etc.). Only the tenuous claim that it causes AGW justifies anything, and then it's still NOT a pollutant because even much higher concentrations than we have today would not cause any increased reactivity or harm anyone. It would actually improve plant growth too.

When this decision was made, I knew it would lead to what we are seeing now - using CO2 reduction to justify any crackpot gov't power grab. Every time a politician pushes EV and denigrates oil, you know they are getting paid by the EV side, or by Globalists that want to destroy the U.S.

This has to be taken to the Supreme Court so they can set it aside and require Congress to legislate. There is hope but we have to act before the democrats try to pack the court.

Unfortunately, "environmentalism" propaganda is pervasive in public schools and most kids in the past couple decades have been indoctrinated into the belief system. It is now a core belief - something they so believed and accepted so completely, that they cannot change, without changing their entire identity.

Thank you Lefty, someone at the EPA under Obama is what I recalled but wasn't 100% sure.

Whoever it was they sat down and thought, "We have to come up with a gas that man produces a lot of, and make it a huge problem for the environment."

Just little reminder that in spite of all the hype about what we are supposed to be doing to the planet, let's not overlook that the entire human race could be dumped in the Grand Canyon and a casual explorer from another planet could womble past with noticing a thing.

It's a hoax.
Depopulation is the agenda.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
It's a hoax.
Depopulation is the agenda.

I wish they would focus on depopulation rather than CO2 because that's a real problem. Unfortunately there's no money to be made trying to limit population.

quote:

Unfortunately there's no money to be made trying to limit population.

Oh sure there is. The WEF, the UN, Big Pharma, etc. are all taking billions of dollars while attempting to depopulate the planet. Make no mistake, they don't want to just limit population growth. They want to reduce global population from about 8 billion people to under 1 billion people.

If you follow the money that climate activist groups have been given going back to the 70’s you’ll find the USSR has been a major contributor, if not outright creator of this hoax.

The US population (as well as Europe, China, Japan, and most of the world) is not a problem, it's dropping naturally. Well other than the millions of illegals we're letting in the US. So that wouldn't be the focus.

quote:

The US population (as well as Europe, China, Japan, and most of the world) is not a problem, it's dropping naturally.

It would be fine if the population were to level off and drop naturally by people choosing to have fewer children.
But that's not what the globalist communists are doing. They want a dramatic reduction of humans. They want us dead.

quote:

Originally posted by BMR:
If you follow the money that climate activist groups have been given going back to the 70’s you’ll find the USSR has been a major contributor, if not outright creator of this hoax.

I think this is when greenies started getting traction. Yeah, there were horrible things going on, Cleveland's burning river, strip mining, but the poster child was LA's smog in the 60's. It was as bad as what we see coming out of China today, with the added bonus of affecting our beautiful people in a media center. Eco "science" from doomsaying authors got the ball rolling.

quote:

Originally posted by Ripley:

quote:

Originally posted by BMR:
If you follow the money that climate activist groups have been given going back to the 70’s you’ll find the USSR has been a major contributor, if not outright creator of this hoax.

I think this is when greenies started getting traction. Yeah, there were horrible things going on, Cleveland's burning river, strip mining, but the poster child was LA's smog in the 60's. It was as bad as what we see coming out of China today, with the added bonus of affecting our beautiful people in a media center. Eco "science" from doomsaying authors got the ball rolling.

Controls on ACTUAL pollution - NOx, Sulfur, Ozone, unburned HC, have largely fixed the problems that caused the EPA to be created. But they cannot claim "success", they have to keep looking for more and more things to regulate and control. I remember Global Cooling and worries about new ice ages, and then in the late 80's Global Warming became the thing. Greenies are like watermelons. Green on the outside but RED on the inside.

quote:

Originally posted by Ripley:

quote:

Originally posted by BMR:
If you follow the money that climate activist groups have been given going back to the 70’s you’ll find the USSR has been a major contributor, if not outright creator of this hoax.

.... but the poster child was LA's smog in the 60's. It was as bad as what we see coming out of China today, with the added bonus of affecting our beautiful people in a media center. Eco "science" from doomsaying authors got the ball rolling.

Carbon monoxide was the buzzword.
Movies and shows from the 70's & 80's would depict LA as a either a beach n'sun fun zone full of health nuts & the wealthy or, a stifling, haze-blanketed heat-scape full of irritated people. Only after it would rain, could you see a clear skyline without any haze otherwise, a day at Griffith Observatory or, Getty Center and you couldn't see the surrounding areas.
The oil crises in '73 & '79, along with the visible pollution ushered in a number of laws mandating the mitigation of air particulates and carbon monoxide being vented into the air, and leaded gasoline was banned. Air quality and clarity has certainly improved over the last 30-years however, as with most causes, the die-hards and succeeding generation are looking for their next 'revolution', the hole in the ozone layer was the next fight.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

The US population (as well as Europe, China, Japan, and most of the world) is not a problem, it's dropping naturally.

It would be fine if the population were to level off and drop naturally by people choosing to have fewer children.
But that's not what the globalist communists are doing. They want a dramatic reduction of humans. They want us dead.

Good heavens no one thinks that. Simply provide education and birth control/contraceptives to the regions where high fertility rates are: much of the Middle East and South and Central Americas, and the continent of Africa. The cost of doing this would be minimal and it would slow migration from those overpopulated regions to the regions that aren't.

^^^ ridewv: Your approach is completely rational.
Some of these people are psychopaths and not rational.

quote:

Good heavens no one thinks that.

Some of them not only think it, but say it on camera.

Has anyone seen the actual CO2 numbers?
This has been done in federal govt. inquiries with the “experts”, asking other, “green energy type” govt. employees what are the numbers and the projecting disaster numbers. They had no clue.

CO2 has been for decades(?) if not longer as .04% of the atmosphere. The “projected” increase will go to .05%. I believe they (the real scientists) project that it may increase global temperature by 1 or 2*. Throughout the history of the world this temperature has varied. We came out of the Dark Ages into the Renaissance, in part, due to a warming trend. Less severe winters, more warmth, more productive farms = more food & more people.

The funny thing is that all of these "scientists" conveniently ignore what they learned in their microbiology courses — that oxygen killed of nearly all life on earth around 2 billion years ago... when practically all organisms required CO2 for life, and oxygen was an extremely toxic waste product produced en masse by cyanobacteria.

quote:

Has anyone seen the actual CO2 numbers?

Fixation on CO2 Ignores Real Driver of Temperature, Experts Say

UN claims that human-caused CO2 emissions are imperiling the planet are ‘totally garbage,’ says scientist. ‘CO2 doesn’t cause a change in temperature.’

Each year from 2023 to 2030, climate change sustainable development goals will cost every person in economies such as the United States $2,026, the U.N. Conference on Trade and Development estimates. In lower-income economies, the per-person annual cost ranges from $332 to $1,864.

In total, the global price tag comes to about $5.5 trillion per year.
Separately, a report from the left-aligned nonprofit Climate Policy Initiative found that in 2021 and 2022, the world’s taxpayers spent $1.3 trillion each year on climate-related projects.

It also found that the “annual climate finance needed” from 2031 to 2050 is more than $10 trillion each year.
“Anyone who willfully denies the impact of climate change is condemning the American people to a very dangerous future,” President Joe Biden said on Nov. 14, 2023, while announcing $6 billion in new investments through the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).

“The impacts we’re seeing are only going to get worse, more frequent, more ferocious, and more costly.”

At its signing in August 2022, President Biden said the IRA “invests $369 billion to take the most aggressive action ever—ever, ever, ever—in confronting the climate crisis and strengthening our economic—our energy security.”
A report from Goldman Sachs put the dollar amount much higher, stating, “Critical funding for this next energy revolution is expected to come from the IRA, which will provide an estimated $1.2 trillion of incentives by 2032.”


Trillions Spent on ‘Climate Change’ Based on Faulty Temperature Data, Climate Experts Say

The trillions of dollars being poured into new initiatives stem from the goals set by the United Nations’ Paris Agreement’s legally binding international treaty to “substantially reduce global greenhouse gas emissions” in the hope of maintaining a temperature of no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

But any decrease in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions won’t have an effect for hundreds to thousands of years—even under the most restrictive circumstances, according to some experts.
“If emissions of CO2 stopped altogether, it would take many thousands of years for atmospheric CO2 to return to ‘pre-industrial’ levels,” the Royal Society states in a report on its website. The organization describes itself as a “fellowship of many of the world’s most eminent scientists.”

“Surface temperatures would stay elevated for at least a thousand years, implying a long-term commitment to a warmer planet due to past and current emissions,” the report states. “The current CO2-induced warming of Earth is therefore essentially irreversible on human timescales.”
A frequently asked questions page on NASA’s website holds the same position.
image-5590465
Steam and exhaust rise from a power plant on a cold winter day in Oberhausen, Germany, on Jan. 6, 2017. (Lukas Schulze/Getty Images)

“If we stopped emitting greenhouse gases today, the rise in global temperatures would begin to flatten within a few years. Temperatures would then plateau but remain well-elevated for many, many centuries,” NASA states.

And, other scientists say, that’s because CO2 isn’t the culprit in the first place.
“CO2 does not cause global warming. Global warming causes more CO2,” said Edwin Berry, a theoretical physicist and certified consulting meteorologist. He called Royal Society’s position on CO2 “pure junk science.”
Ian Clark, emeritus professor for the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Ottawa, agreed that if all greenhouse gas emissions ceased today, the Earth would continue warming—but not because of CO2.
He said that contrary to popular opinion, temperature doesn’t follow CO2—instead, CO2 follows temperature, which, itself, is due to solar activity.

Temperature and CO2
One of Mr. Clark’s primary areas of research is paleoclimatology (the study of climate conditions using indirect records such as tree ring data, ice cores, and other proxy records), and in particular, Arctic paleohydrogeology, which is the study of the Earth’s water throughout history.

“During the ice ages, we had great temperature variations, and this has to do with, not straight-up solar activity, but the amount of solar activity that is hitting the Earth at certain important latitudes, all caused by celestial events,” Mr. Clark said.
advertisement

“The Earth, in our solar system, is moving around and being jostled. And we have different orbiting patterns that affect solar input, and that creates ice ages and interglacial periods—which we’re in now. And CO2 tracks that. So we'll see enormous temperature changes, going from ice ages to interglacials, and CO2 gets very low during ice ages and very high during interglacials.

“And that gives the appearance that CO2 is driving the climate, but it’s actually following. It lags by about 800 years.”

Mr. Clark said that during ice ages, and particularly the past 10,000 years, scientists have a fairly good idea of the temperature, thanks to proxy records. He said those records show that the Medieval Warm Period was likely much warmer than today, and agriculture and civilization flourished.

But the Little Ice Age followed that from the 1400s to 1800s. “And that’s when we had difficulty with agriculture,” Mr. Clark said.

“The Thames froze over. We have all sorts of recollections about how cold, and some would say miserable, it was back then. But then it started warming up again. So, about every 1,000 years or so, we seem to have these fluctuations. This is due to solar activity, and that’s where we see the importance of the sun, which is the ultimate source of energy beyond geothermal and nuclear energy. Solar drives climate.”
image-5590522
Another peer-reviewed study, by scientist William Jackson, examined the relationship between CO2 levels and temperature over the past 425 million years.

Mr. Jackson is a distinguished research and emeritus professor for the department of chemistry at UC–Davis who specializes in understanding the role that molecules such as CO2, nitrogen, and carbon monoxide play in planetary atmospheres.

His paper, published in 2017, found that “changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration did not cause temperature change in the ancient climate.”
Similarly, a group of researchers whose report was published in Nature found that when looking at carbon isotope compositions at the million-year scale, long-term atmospheric carbon dioxide was unrelated to temperature, and even showed an inverse trend, especially after major events such as volcanic eruptions.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/...er&src_cmp=ZeroHedge

This message has been edited. Last edited by: chellim1,