This is an excerpt from the free ebook (with graphs):
Enslaved but Happy:
dried-squeezed by the Global Government
100% free: write to f.nazar at gmail .com
Carbon Climate Change debunked by simple questions?
Why did the climate witches and warlocks prophesize that the polar bear will go extinct in 2100 considering its population increased from 6,000 - 8,000 in 1973 to 30,000 - 50,000 in 2022, and in 2022 , the Arctic saw an expansion of ice and Antarctica was colder during the 2021 winter than in the past 50 years? 1
Warming by contact (thermodynamics)
In a building with double walls or in a double window, oxygen acts as a thermal insulator. Molecular heat needs molecules in contact to transmit heat... something difficult in a dispersed gas… the more dispersed, the higher you go: people lack oxygen climbing mountains above 3000 meters because it gets more dispersed with height.
Think about bouncing balloons (molecules): the more dispersed, the lesser the chance to bounce against each other and transfer the excess heat, or vice versa, the relative coldness.
The heat makes gas to expand and rise, the more the hotter. That's why hot air balloons go up. Birds, paragliders and gliders hover over these thermal currents going up. The heat does not go down to our surface, it goes up! The cold air, not the hot, is the one that tends to stay below.
If the greenhouse effect would be based on heat transfer by molecular bouncing, it would be measurable in the upper troposphere but it wouldn’t affect earth down below, right?
Warming by infrared light
In 1991, Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines caused the second largest eruption of a volcano in the 20th century: the ashes ejected by Pinatubo caused tons of sulfur dioxide in the stratosphere to act as a kind of mirror for the Sun's rays.
When there is a lot of soot and solid particles in the upper atmosphere, solar radiation meets these aerosols as it enters the atmosphere and is reflected back into space. Solar radiation cannot pass through and reach the Earth's surface, preventing it from generating a high temperature.
Pinatubo's volcanic activity in 1991 led to a 0.5°C drop in global temperature in subsequent years.
This shows that temperature is in proportion to infrared exposure. When infrared radiation touches molecules heat is generated, and when they don’t, it gets colder.
The gaseous state of any element involves dispersed molecules that allow more infrared rays to pass through than solid matter. For this reason, the stove by electrical resistance or the fire, heats you more than the air that surrounds you. The air doesn’t warm up as much as you do, because the air molecules are more dispersed than the ones from you skin or clothes: if you put a screen to stop the infrared light, you stop feeling the heat and the air around you feels colder than when there was no screen.
The same happens with “greenhouse” gas (GHG): it is dispersed and most infrared rays from the sun pass through it. The infrared light touches and heats the denser surface matter (land and sea), which has more concentrated molecules than the gaseous atmosphere.
The infrared heating of the surface does not depend on the relative concentration of GHG in the upper atmosphere, since most infrared rays just pass through GHG dispersed gas. Then, why worry about GHG?
In a real greenhouse, the upper part is hotter by convection and bottom is cooler. On the contrary, in the greenhouse effect theory, the upper part is cooler and the surface is hotter following the temperature profile for the troposphere:
Greenhouse theorists believe the greenhouse roof is the upper part of the troposphere, because it includes 80% of the mass of Earth’s atmosphere and 100% of humidity.
In fact, it’s not a closed-greenhouse theory but a double mirror heat theory, where infrared light bouncing from the earth’s surface would reflect back to earth in the top troposphere like a mirror. Why hasn’t this mirror phenomenon been observed?
Open or closed greenhouse?
The only reason why a greenhouse is heated is because the roof doesn’t allow the hot air to rise higher than the glass and cool down, or the cold to enter the building. That doesn't happen in the atmosphere where there is a temperature/wind cycle that tends to reach equilibrium.
It seems our atmosphere is not the proposed hot closed-greenhouse, but an open greenhouse, with all lateral windows full open to regulate temperature. That’s why atmospheric phenomena pointing to a greenhouse model never last long: fog, heat traps, etc.
“On a global and annual basis, the dynamics of the atmosphere (and the oceans) can be understood as attempting to reduce the large difference of temperature between the poles and the equator by redistributing warm and cold air and water, known as Earth's heat engine.” 2
If the earth troposphere acted as a permanent greenhouse, we’d have steadily rising temperatures, with or without humans. The stability of temperature proves the atmosphere doesn’t act like a closed greenhouse. There is equilibrium between the Sun’s incoming energy and atmospheric heat loss into space. This is corroborated by Venus stable temperatures.
Considering the troposphere is in constant motion and that several key confounding variables affect the alleged greenhouse effect: height, coordinates, sun exposure, albedo, infrared reflectiveness of cloud bottom, heat conversion of the surface (it’s not the same sea, river, lake, forest, desert, etc.), barometric pressure, and timestamp along day/night, seasons, earth translation, years, decades:
What is the greenhouse gas composition/density, including humidity, at each 3D location-time?
What is the atmospheric temperature profile at each coordinate-time?
No data = no science… just an ideology!
Any gas in atmosphere that absorbs and emits radiant energy within the thermal infrared range is qualified to be considered as greenhouse gas.
“Greenhouse gases that occur both naturally and from human activities include water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and ozone (O3). (From industry:) fluorinated gases: chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HCFCs), bromofluorocarbons (halons), perfluorcarbons, PFCs, nitrogen trifluoride, NF3, and sulfur hexafluoride, SF6.” 3
“Indirect Greenhouse Gases
produce direct greenhouse gases through reactions with other chemicals, or through their own chemical transformations;
influence the atmospheric lifetime of other greenhouse gases; and/or
affect absorptive capacity of atmosphere as influencing cloud formation.
Non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOCs), nitrogen oxides (NOx) comprised of nitrogen monoxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO) and sulfur dioxide (SO2).
Sulfur dioxide, resulting from the combustion of fuels and wood, plays its indirect role by contributing to the formation of aerosols (exceptionally small particles of dust, salt or liquid droplets) by coupling with ‘elemental carbon’, affect warming and cooling in the earth’s atmosphere as:
Aerosols scatter the sun’s radiation and send it back to space, help in cooling the atmosphere.
They also affect the climate by increasing clouds’ lifetime and thickness and decreasing water droplet size, while increasing water droplet concentration in the atmosphere, which warms the atmosphere ( water droplets is a GHG).
Now, whether the net effect is of cooling or warming is debatable as there effect is difficult to quantify because they have short atmospheric lifetimes, and their concentrations and compositions that vary regionally, spatially, and temporally, too.” 4
Hope, its clear to you :)
There’s no precise study of atmospheric composition, because it varies constantly above each point on earth and varies with height (lower density), sun exposure (day/night, season, earth position), sources of gas at a certain spot on earth, etc.
For instance this is one model for the troposphere (up to 8-15 km, but varies with coordinates):
Nitrogen (N) 78.0%
Oxygen (O) 21.0%
Argon (Ar) 0.9%
Trace Gases 0.1%:
Water Vapor (H2O) 95.0 % of trace gases 0.095 % of atmosphere
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 3.0 % of trace gases 0.003 % of atmosphere
Neon (Ne) 0.1 % of trace gases 0.001 % of atmosphere5
Other trace gases: helium (He), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), ozone (O3), halogenated gases (CFCs)
“CO2 makes up only about 0.04% of the atmosphere” 6
Note: IPCC is science? Numbers changed completely in 6 years.
Carbon dioxide is up to 0.04% (400 parts per million). Of that low figure, manmade CO2 is only 3% (IPCC 2007): humans produce 3% of 0.04%= 0.001% (10 parts per million!).
Even if we starve half the population or reduce the economic activity by half, we’d only be affecting 5 per million parts of CO2: isn’t it a worthless result at an unconscionable cost?
Methane is in trace amounts (1.7 parts per million) 7 and ruminants account for only 15-20% 8 (0.3 parts per million), or even 30% less, since plants (forests) are responsible for 10-30% of atmospheric methane, weren’t accounted for in those studies (62–236 Tg a−1)” 9:
What difference would it make if the anti-gas movement vanished all ruminants (not just livestock)?
There was no methane increase in the “melting” Arctic and zero increase in a decade10 in spite of a livestock surge of 33%.11 Why do meat-deniers focus on banning cattle and not rice, which accounts for more methane emission? Afraid of making people wake up about those suicidal policies?
Why does GreenPeace block swamp draining, the highest contributor to methane? Afraid of increasing crop production?
Methane “traps 84 times more heat per mass unit than carbon dioxide (CO2) and 105 times the effect when accounting for aerosol interactions.” 12 Even assuming it’s true, and considering it only lasts a decade compared to centuries of CO2, if we multiply 1.7 ppm by 84 more heat trapping, its 143 ppm compared to 400 ppm CO2 (1/3rd). Ruminants account for a CO2 heat equivalence of ca. 17 ppm compared to 10 ppm of human CO2: both figures are insignificant. Why is there an obsession with cattle gases?
The main greenhouse gas is water vapour: 95% (25% in clouds, 75% in air). Humidity depends from the sun.
Why vapour is deliberately removed from greenhouse gas policies?
Would “war-on-water” ring a bell about the suicidal “war-on-carbon”?
Why is water vapour resulting from hydrogen combustion deliberately ignored as a greenhouse gas?
Question: bouncing effect
If the upper atmosphere would get heated, the gas expands while molecules would bounce harder and more often:
a) Some would bounce up, be propelled into space by increased escape velocity, and we’d end up with less upper atmosphere. Why is this atmospheric leak of all gases, especially the ligher ones, not observed?
b) Some would bounce down and being CO2 heavier than air, we’d have less concentration up and more down, at every height level this would repeat. Why is height-related decreasing density of CO2 not observed?
Considering CO2 is heavier than air (nitrogen and oxygen), how does it get to the top troposphere and how does it keep up there, like greenhouse roof without supporting structure?
One answer might be the Ozone model, where global warming Ozone, the heaviest gas, is at 20 km at the lower and quiet tropopause:
Sunlight makes gas molecules stay at different levels through continuous heating and bouncing, but sooner or later gravity prevails, so the heavier molecules tend to concentrate down and disperse up.
Rain brings the heavier molecules down. For example, CO2 combines with H2O in atmosphere to form carbonic acid (H2CO3), which is so much heavier that it falls out of the air at all altitude turning to “acid rain” (pH about 5.9).
NASA: “Carbon monoxide is not one of the gases that is causing global warming.” 13 “When carbon-based fuels, such as coal, wood, and oil, burn incompletely or inefficiently, they produce carbon monoxide. The gas is spread by winds and circulation patterns throughout the lower atmosphere.” 14 Why would CO2, which is heavier than CO, go higher and stay higher?
Clouds: Approximate heights of each level, and the genera occurring in each. 15
3 – 8 km
(10 000 – 25 000 ft)
5 – 13 km
(16 500 – 45 000 ft)
6 –18 km
(20 000 – 60 000 ft)
2 – 4km
(6 500 – 13 000 ft)
2 – 7 km
(6 500 – 23 000 ft)
2 – 8 km
(6 500 – 25 000 ft)
From the Earth’s surface to 2 km
(0 – 6 500ft)
From the Earth’s surface to 2 km
(0 – 6 500ft)
From the Earth’s surface to 2 km
(0 – 6 500ft)
Note: Most clouds are confined within their level with the following few notable exceptions:
(a) Altostratus is usually found in the middle level, but it often extends higher;
(b) Nimbostratus is almost always found in the middle level, but it usually extends into the other two levels;
(c) Cumulus and Cumulonimbus usually have their bases in the low level, but their vertical extent is often so great that their tops may reach into the middle and high levels.
Considering CO2 is almost three times heavier than water. Why would CO2 invisible cloud layers be higher than visible water clouds? (the greenhouse glass roof for water clouds is 18 km)?
Methane (CH4) only weights 16 gr/mol16: but even if the gas goes up, it cools down. How does the molecule transmit the heat in the dispersed tropopause? How could it affect the surface 15 km below (twice the Everest)?
Lessons from Venus
It’s the hottest planet, despite that “thick clouds consisting mainly of sulfur dioxide and sulfuric acid droplets scatter about 90% of the sunlight back into space.” 17
The atmospheric mass is 93 times Earth and the pressure at surface is 92 times Earth. The higher the cooler, because of lower density/pressure and wind (up to 300 km/h).
The atmosphere is a heat-trap but unlike a closed greenhouse, despite a 96% CO2 troposphere, the temperature profile isn’t rising, following the model of an open greenhouse.
100 m/s=360 km/h
“Below 100 km (60 miles) the temperature rises slowly at first and then more rapidly with decreasing altitude, well surpassing the melting point of lead at the surface. By contrast, the wind, which near the top of the middle atmosphere is comparable in speed to the more powerful tropical cyclones on Earth, slows dramatically to a light breeze at the surface.” 18
“On Venus the very high concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causes an extreme greenhouse effect resulting in surface temperatures as high as 450 °C (840 °F).” 19
Low rotation speed: “One day on Venus is equal to 243.16 Earth days. The winds blow in essentially the same direction as the planet’s rotation (with a slight poleward component) at all observed latitudes and at all altitudes to about 100 km. It is only in the atmosphere above 100 km that the winds blow from the day-side to the night-side. ” 20
“The air of Venus is so dense that by mass, the small traces of nitrogen are four times the amount found on Earth, although nitrogen makes up more than three-fourths of the terrestrial atmosphere. This composition causes a runaway greenhouse effect that heats the planet even hotter than the surface of Mercury, although it’s twice the distance from the sun.
Although Venus and Earth are similar in size, someone standing on the ground on Venus would experience air about 90 times heavier than Earth's atmosphere; pressures are similar to diving 3,000 feet beneath the ocean.
Most of the sun's heat fails to make it through the thick atmosphere. As such, the planet not only doesn't experience significant temperature changes over the course of the year, it also keeps things constant from night to day.
Carbon dioxide: 96 %
Nitrogen: 3.5 %
Carbon monoxide, argon, sulfur dioxide, and water vapor: less than 1 %”21
Why is it that the sulfur clouds act as a heat trap and not CO2?
Why is the mean surface temperature so hot if clouds filter 90% of infrared light? (462 °C/863.6 °F)
Lessons from Mars
Venus 500°C temperature is used as a fearmongering model of what Earth will become if CO2 levels rise.
Mars’ thin atmosphere results in a pressure of 1% of Earth (sea level). Like Venus, Mars has a 96% CO2 atmosphere, but the average temperature is -46 °C (51 °F): Why is CO2 not related to a greenhouse effect?
If the main gases hydrogen (H2) and helium and are not greenhouse gases, why do we observe a temperature and cloud profile similar to the greenhouse theory?
1659–2009 Temperature and Carbon Dioxide Emissions in Central England
“If carbon dioxide was the main cause of warming, then there should be a rise in temperature along the carbon dioxide curve, but it doesn’t.” 22
Climate change ideology
There are 2 types of environmentalism: pro and anti-natalism:
Pro-human ecology tries to increase efficiency in the use of scarce resources, while reduce waste and damage, having in sight the intergenerational environmental wealth. It defeats its purpose to achieve a pristine planet at the cost of not having babies to inhabit it.
On the contrary, anti-natal eco-maniacs don’t care at all about maximizing wealth and future generations, just reducing all human activity to the minimum, especially procreation. They see us as parasites of the planet.
Climate change is all about human pest control. Climate change isn’t a contradiction in terms but a redundancy in terms: the very essence of climate is change. They coined the redundancy to hide that there’s no greenhouse global warming.
Climate change doesn’t correlate to human carbon emissions. 23 Atmospheric CO2 correlates with temperature in interglacial periods but the other way round: solar activity is the main driver of temperature, CO2 lags rise in temperature proving rising temperatures result in the release of more CO2 from the oceans. The records show that the temperature first increases due to solar activity and then the seas release CO2 due to the higher temperature. Contrary to what climate fundamentalists say.
There’s certainly anthropogenic climate change, but caused on purpose, through geo-engineering. 24
Some weather changes are caused on purpose (anthropogenic):
Chemtrails (aluminium, graphene, etc.)
Droughts by dissolving clouds with microwaves 25
Also, they promote laws to worsen the climate by banning:
dams (lakes improve raining and temperatures)
foresting in “native” woods
draining swamps, etc.
A suicidal agenda
The co-founder of Greenpeace wrote about the “climate emergency” business:
“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC is not a science organization. It is a political organization composed of the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Program… this ‘majority’ are mainly scientists paid by politicians and bureaucrats, media making headlines, or activists making money.
The IPCC hires scientists to provide them with ‘information’ that supports the ‘climate emergency’ narrative.
Their campaigns against fossil fuels, nuclear energy, CO2, plastic, etc., are misguided and designed to make people think the world will come to an end unless we cripple our civilization and destroy our economy. They are now a negative influence on the future of both the environment and human civilization.”
Many ‘environmental’ leaders are saying that ‘humans are the enemies of the Earth, the enemies of Nature’.”
Heat deaths, climate deaths
CCRA3 Technical report: heat-related deaths in the UK could increase to 7,040 deaths per year by 2050. 26
Yet, a heat-period is suspiciously defined as days when a Level 3 Heat Health Alert is issued or when the mean Central England temperature is greater than only 20°C (68 F). Therefore, if you travel on vacation to a warm place, you are committing suicide like a climate kamikaze.
How did they manage to show more heat than cold deaths?:
Bogus definitions: “if a heat-period lasts three days we would compare deaths on those three days, with three days before and three days after. UKHSA compare the number of deaths during a heat-period to the average of the 14 non-heat-period days before and 14 non-heat-period after the heat-period. there were 5,017 deaths above average in those aged 70 years and over, compared with 1,749 deaths below average in those aged under 70 years.”: 27
Estimated excess mortality (excluding COVID-19 and adjusted for registration delays) for aged 65 years and over in 2022 compared to +/- two-week baseline deaths for each heat-period, England
Defining heat-days as at least 3 days with temperatures over 20°
Reducing the period of analysis to only 2 months in the summer, where non-heat days are also pretty warm but not 3 in a row.
Comparing deaths in a heat period with at least twice a non-heat period (3 to 16 days before and 3 to 16 after).
“the total estimated excess mortality (excluding COVID-19) during heat-periods in those aged 65 years and over was estimated to be 2,803, the highest number in any given year.” This number is ridiculously low compared to other preventable causes of deaths. Why waste so many resources on this?
Climate deaths are the new COVID deaths. As with COVID deaths, they hide the primary cause of deaths to hide the real reasons. Correlation is not causation. Heat-deaths are in fact deaths of 70+ elderly, mainly because some can’t drink enough water or take off clothes by themselves when they are hot.
Unlike tropical countries, in colder countries like the UK, cold-deaths are much higher than heat-deaths, because cold periods are longer and respiratory diseases are more severe in cold weather, being the leading cause of death related to temperature.
This graph shows that something is not right, considering they seem to claim that heat causes diseases which we know have zero relation to higher temperatures (like diabetes, dementia, respiratory, intestinal cancer):
Number of deaths that occurred before, during and after heat-periods for the leading causes of excess death, Jun to Aug 2022 heat-periods, England and Wales
“daily mortality rates remained elevated during less warm temperatures after the heat-periods; the excess mortality during Autumn and Summer 2021 and Spring and Summer 2022 was above the five-year average, even when temperatures were typical for England.”:
What happened in the 2021 vaccine year? Even subtracting COVID deaths, excess death jumped like never before both in heat and non-heat periods. It would be ironic if climate scientists come up with the theory that vaccines were too hot.
Finally, there’s no need to instill fear when heat deaths could be easily prevented:
“The main risks posed by a heatwave are:
not drinking enough water (dehydration)
overheating, which can make symptoms worse for people who already have problems with their heart or breathing
heat exhaustion and heatstroke
“the most vulnerable people are:
older people – especially those over 75 and female
those who live on their own or in a care home
people who have a serious or long-term illness including heart or lung conditions, diabetes, kidney disease, Parkinson's disease or some mental health conditions
people who are on multiple medicines that may make them more likely to be badly affected by hot weather
those who may find it hard to keep cool – babies and the very young, the bed bound, those with drug or alcohol addictions or with Alzheimer's disease
people who spend a lot of time outside or in hot places – those who live in a top-floor flat, the homeless or those whose jobs are outside” 28
Personal carbon allowances (PCAs)
In 2019 Mastercard with Doconomy issued the DO card for a “climate impact cap”. 29 World Economic Forum wrote: “we need to reduce our (individual) carbon footprint… DO monitors and cuts off spending, when we hit our carbon max.” 30
A WEF video by the, “A feast for the future” 31, required to “save the planet”, that each adult reduced consumption per week to:
1 beef burger
2 portions of fish
Before 2050, they plan to ban beef and lamb. 32 It could be much sooner: they are trying in Oregon33 and failed in Switzerland 2022 for a low margin: 2 out of 5 voted to ban factory farming. 34
2021, “A PCA scheme would entail all adults receiving an equal, tradable carbon allowance that reduces over time in line with national targets … encompassing individuals’ carbon emissions…
Allowances were envisioned to be deducted from the personal budget with every payment for transport fuel, home-heating fuels and electricity bills. People in shortage would be able to purchase additional units in the personal carbon market from those with excess to sell.
72 Targets across the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
inclusion of food-related emissions
high-carbon foods, which on average use more land per calorie provided, will be less favoured
transition to lower-carbon living
support the transition to clean energy while reducing emissions
negative impacts on high-carbon sectors
including embedded emissions in goods and services
integrated with land-based carbon sequestration schemes
robust carbon accounting, monitoring, verification and reporting
other lessons that could be drawn (from the pandemic) relate to the public acceptance in some countries of additional surveillance and control in exchange for greater safety.” 35
This will be worse than the Chinese Communist Party “Social Credit System”, where people scores go up with compliance and down with resistance, including who one meets. 36
“The worldview promoted by the green agenda, the health dictatorship, and the globalist oligarchy is devoted to dismantle the remnants of state sovereignty, and the subjugation and colonization of the last strongholds of human identity: the body (now transformed into another commodity) and the family. [It] allows large corporations to penetrate even the most intimate aspects of the human being: sexuality, family and the very body of each individual who will not have the right to exist outside the rules and controls imposed by the dystopian regime born of the Green Agenda and the New Normal.” 37
Net zero emissions means decarbonisation. Decarbonization means depopulation. Life is emissions, targeting emissions is targeting life:
We exhale carbon dioxide.
We eat products that produce emissions.
We flatulate greenhouse gases. 38
We excrement 20% of methane. 39
We emit by burning fuel (even renewable ones) but also by producing and using renewable energy.
In their twisted minds, we are all presumed eco-terrorists just by living (i.e. carbon footprint). The decarb plan is to murder us by gradual economic strangling. The decarbon fanatics won’t stop until we cease to breath. For the eco-maniacs, we are carbon ticking bombs: the best man is a dead one. They want us dead… but they refuse to go first.
In 2013, Rick Heede found that 90 companies were responsible for two-thirds of all industrial carbon dioxide, more than most countries. Nearly all of those companies are owned by the globalist funds like BlackRock, Vanguard, etc.: “Do as I say, not as I do.” Of course, they’ll never stop using private jets or rockets.
We are 20% carbon.40 Life is carbon: just as trees are carbon sinks, so are we (and all the biosphere, including cows), but that argument destroys the carbon lethal ideology. Life is a cycle and that includes carbon. Yet, they refuse to accept the whole picture: what we sink now, it’s going to be released sooner or later. Carbon is life. By destroying the carbon cycle they foster death.
Potential Climate Scenarios41
One proof of their insanity is Carbon Capture tech. 42 They spend millions in techie solutions which has a much lower decarb-return-on-investment than planting trees (or even using the wood to replace carbon-energy-intensive competing materials such as ceramics). The landmark of ideology is that ideas are detached from rational economic analysis.
Globalist UN Secretary General António Guterres disclosed their plans "The bottom line is, by 2030, we must cut global emissions by 45% compared to 2010 levels to get to net zero emissions by 2050. That is how we will keep the hope of 1.5 degrees alive." 43
Under the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) resulting in the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, carbon credits were invented as a result of the fake idea of controlling greenhouse gas emissions (carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide
There’s even an EU Parliamentary commission studying a 100% digital payment system where for every purchase you’ll be deducted from your monthly carbon quota.
Carbon quotas will be lowered year after year to achieve extinction.
Kids are presumed guilty of generating a carbon footprint (the intolerable crime of breathing).
Parents’ quotas will be reduced by their children’s carbon footprint, to extinction levels (breeding crime).
The globalist rich will be able to buy carbon credit from the poor or Government auctions. 44
In their depopulation illogic, the best way to prevent “useless eaters” (as they call us) is by preventing their birth (not preventing their existence, because satanists need the abortion sacrifice to Satan); only the fittest (to their model) will be needed; thus only genetically screened and enhanced test tube babies will be promoted, the rest will be vanished like the 20 million Chinese heihaizi 45. The movie Gattaca came short.
Organs will be graciously exchanged for carbon credit. It will be considered a non-profit transaction although carbon credits will be more than money: power.
Their idea is to increase the cost of living to unbearable pain, so that it will be impossible to raise children.
Religions abused for Climate Action
1986 in Assisi in Italy, all the major conservation and environmental groups met with members of the five major religions.
2009 over 60 faith groups around the world developed long-term Faith Commitments on the environment as part of the Many Heavens One Earth programme initiated by the Alliance of Religions and Conservation.
2012 Second group of commitments launched in Nairobi, Kenya. Money is being poured down to bribe religious groups into the decarb agenda and promotes divesting fossil fuels, through FaithInvest.org, for example, Christian groups. 46
Also, they use the organization called “Global Catholic Climate Movement”, now LaudatoSiMovement.org, behind the “YouTube Originals” documentary TheLetterFilm.org, staging Pope Francis and promoting the lies of carbon global warming increasing the sea levels, being the leading cause for migration and “climate refugees”. 47
Again, the mirror model, not greenhouse: “CO2 mixes well all the way to about 50 kilometers up. The higher the greenhouse gas, the more effective it is at trapping heat from the Earth’s surface.”
Though cattle population increased since then, 40% seems exaggerated: http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/197623/icode/
9 IPCC , Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing. Climate Change 2007 Fourth Assessment Report. Ch.2.
Hirsch T. Plants revealed as methane source. 11 Jan 2006 BBC News. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4604332.stm
Keppler F, Hamilton J, et al. Methane emissions from terrestrial plants under aerobic conditions. 3 Nov 2005 Nature. 439 (7073): 187–191. http://doi.org/10.1038/nature04420
10Dlugokencky EJ, Bruhwiler L, et al Observational constraints on recent increases in the atmospheric CH4 burden, 17 Sep 2009 Geophys. Res. Lett., Volume36, Issue18, L18803, http://doi.org/10.1029/2009GL039780
11Global Meat Production increased from 225 to 300 million tons (2000-2010): https://ourworldindata.org/meat-production#global-meat-production
12 Drew T. Shindell; et al. Improved attribution of climate forcing to emissions. 2009 Science. 326 (5953): 716–718. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1174760
Schmidt, Charles W., A Closer Look at Climate Change Skepticism, 1 Dec 2010, Environmental Health Perspectives Vol. 118, No. 12
24 Nazar, F. Scientific proof of the PLANdemic, from 1910 to the future, 1 Apr 2022, International COVID Summit Paris, France.
Not only Starlink:
Possibly, military satellites NATO and A-TRAIN (690 km in the magnetosphere , maybe to divert energy to the planet.
27Office for National Statistics (ONS), released 7 Month 2022, ONS website, statistical article, Excess mortality during heat-periods: 1 June to 31 August 2022 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/articles/excessmortalityduringheatperiods/englandandwales1juneto31august2022
35 Fuso Nerini, F., Fawcett, T., et al. Personal carbon allowances revisited. 16 Aug 2021 Nature Sustainability 4, 1025–1031 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00756-w
44“It doesn’t matter. Even the policy doesn’t change, as long as you have enough money to buy through, you can always have second or third kid.” https://www.theatlantic.com/china/archive/2013/11/i-was-an-illegal-second-child-in-china/281873/
Few rich parents could “pay the fine and register the birth (thereby lifting the restrictions which characterize the lives of heihaizi.)”
Wow!! How did you ever compile all that information. I read through it all but I can’t say I completely understand it all but based on all your info it would seem this climate crap is all a bunch of crap ! Too bad they have so so many people believing in it and fearing the planet will be gone due to these greenhouse gases and global warming. How do we get all this scientific data and the questions you bring up out to the masses. ESP the young people who have fallen for this hoax hook line and sinker ?