Nostr Web Client

Climate change

I'm going to tell you some uncomfortable truths.

- The only reason for climate change is to tax you.

- The climate on earth has never been constant, there are times when we could not even see today's mammals living because of the excessive amount of oxygen in the atmosphere.

- CO2 is not bad, CO2 is fixed in the structure of plants, the more CO2 the more vegetation, satellite images show an increase in forest mass in the last 50 years.

- What is really bad about the burning of fossil fuels is obviously not the CO2, it is the carcinogenic substances that are produced in its combustion, obviously these effects do not worry the politicians because they do not care about your health or the environment, they only care about your taxes.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Sikto 2y ago

Tax is one reason, but I think it will be used as a reason to restrict mobility. Geographic mobility is a source of both strength and wealth.

Leeds Bitcoin Network 2y ago

Hyperinflation induced empire collapse historically regressed the entire civilisation to an earlier era of prosperity/quality of life. Practice makes perfect so if you can use technology to confine that regression to certain sectors of the society why wouldn't you? Even better if you can convince a decent amount of society to adopt hardship voluntarily so you definitely won't have to.

Beiner 2y ago

💯💯💯💯trying to wake ppl around me because I tell them exactly the same thing.. its all about capital

Rimbaud 2y ago

CH4 - released from old, old, dead forests in old ices holds heat well. - Feedback. -- Chemistry argues 'climate change' is very likely more than a tax.

Account deleted 2y ago

The CO2 debate was hijacked by so many people in so many directions… as if the purpose was to make it as muddy as possible, so people get lost and just accept the “accepted narrative”.

My beef is not with CO2 and climate as I do not know… my beef is with heavy metals in the air I breathe and the food I eat.

Cyph3rp9nk 2y ago

Exactly, I totally agree with you.

The big problem today is called cancer, produced as you rightly say by heavy metals in the environment, pesticides, plastics, etc.

Curious that the cases of toxic substances that produce cancer are always covered up in the media, curious also that the WHO says that red meat is carcinogenic, when the incidence of cancer in vegetarians is much higher than in people who have a much more varied diet due among other things by the massive intake of pesticides.

Account deleted 2y ago

Controlling the narrative is key. Direct the outrage somewhere else…

Waldgänger 2y ago

Also, cancer is very profitable for big pharma, and it’s going to be more profitable in the future:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/apr/07/cancer-and-heart-disease-vaccines-ready-by-end-of-the-decade

It’s not in their interests to promote prevention and removing the causes.

🐢 2y ago

Your beef will soon be with the micro plastics in children.

Account deleted 2y ago

My beef probably already has micro plastic in it…

🐢 2y ago

Most likely. No one wants to talk about hard issues, just profitable ones.

Account deleted 2y ago

Or if the issue results in less profit… attention has to be diverted elsewhere.

🐢 2y ago

There’s a whole host of factors that get lumped into the term climate change. Pollution certainly impacts the earth. Pollution comes in many forms, trash, methane, carbon soot, micro plastics.

The focus on carbon dioxide is certainly a straw man. The lack of focus on pollution as a whole is a wealth and power grab by those at the top.

The arguments between climate change activists and anti-activists are a red herring.

Gary ₿usey 2y ago

Well said

Maxim 2y ago

The most common mistake of a human brain is mixing up correlation with causation. The first signs of a climate change were detected in the 60s. Later, the correlation with the CO2 emissions was shown. The causality relationship between the two is still a matter of debate among scientists.

The problem with causality from a physicist point of view is that it’s extremely hard to prove for complex systems. For a simple pendulum, an external perturbation is enough to show the casualty between gravity and the oscillation frequency. But how would you do it for a planet-scale process?

Politicians are like Pavlov‘s dogs, they absorb simple concepts that were brought to them by the loudest minority without proof and then amplify them without questioning. In a way, it’s not surprising. But should make you 🚨. Stuff repeated 1000 times, doesn’t automatically become true. DYOR.

Gary ₿usey 2y ago

Well said

mike 2y ago

Commercial greenhouse growers pump in CO2 up to 0.1% 1,000ppm to increase growth.

Economics aside, the ideal would be 0.2%

530 million years ago, when life began, CO2 was 2%

At 150 ppm 0.015% all plant life would cease and ultimately all life would end.

a source familiar with the matter 2y ago

The weather is fine