I ran across the graph above in a paper I read over the weekend, PHYSICS DEMONSTRATES THAT INCREASING GREENHOUSE GASES CANNOT CAUSE DANGEROUS WARMING, EXTREME WEATHER, OR ANY HARM, by Richard Lindzen and William Happer. Each man has an impressive CV, and the former is an Emeritus professor at MIT, the latter at Princeton. Of course, none of that means a thing if they are simply advocates who do not follow the scientific method, but in fact the paper is largely an exposition of that method with a complaint that climate scientists long ago abandoned any pretense of using it. They instead resort to “consensus”. In other words Lindzen and Happer assert that climate science is the result of “… opinions of government, consensus, 97% of scientists [long ago proven to be contrived], peer review, or is based on models that do not work, or cherry-picked, fabricated, falsified or omitted contradictory data …”
This paper itself is readable. AI is quick to point out that it is not peer-reviewed, to which i answered that peer review is a controversial subject, usually corrupted, and that Galileo was its first victim. At that point, so unlike AI, it simply went silent on me.
The paper has plenty of other graphic data, and I shy away from using graphs here, as most people have the MEGO reaction (my eyes glaze over). But as I viewed this one (on page 21 of L&H paper), I realized that I might be looking at the meat, the essence of the Climate Change movement: misanthropy, or disdain for people. It answers the question not asked:
Why did the movement decide to use
The answer is right there on that graph, highlighted in brown. The Haber-Bosch process, is used to make ammonia which is then combined with nitrogen to make fertilizer. Natural gas is essential to this process, as it supplies the necessary heat (and not the ingredients). And so, there you have it – if you can connect the dots:
- Climate Change is a misanthropic movement (hatred of humanity).
- The human population walks hand-in-hand with the food supply. The more food, the more people we have. (Malthus was not wrong in predicting our doom, but did not know that nitrogen-based fertilizer was on the horizon.)
- Haber-Bosch began in use in making fertilizer in 1913. Its use took off in the 1950s. Natural gas is an essential part of it.
- Also taking off in the 1950s-60s was human population.
- One caused the other.
The origins of Climate Change are based in eugenics (Bill Gates, his father, his grandfather: Eugenicists). It is a population control movement. There must have been a lot of discussion in the past regarding how to construct a popular movement that would embrace eugenics without knowing it. They settled on “Global Warming” nee “Climate Change.”
But why did they choose to demonize CO2? Their real target was our use of fossil fuels, which has given us warmth, wealth, comfort and … abundant food, as the graph above shows. They could have as easily attacked oil, gas, and coal directly rather than by proxy by use of
I suspect the reason was the same as why a general might order a siege on a castle rather than attacking it directly, since it is perhaps impregnable. They wanted to eliminate use of fossil fuels, and needed a stand-in to represent it. Once they decided that Global Warming would be pitched as a problem, and that fossil fuels had to go, they had to choose among the following greenhouse gases (GHG):
Water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, chlorofluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, and nitrogen trifluoride.
Water vapor and clouds are responsible for as much as 90% of the greenhouse effect that keeps our planet habitable. But for the people charged with reducing our population, it was probably seen as difficult, even impossible, to make a demon out of water. All of the other greenhouse gases account for less than 10% of the GHG effect, and among then, CO2, right now at .042% (.00042) of our atmosphere, the largest. They decided it would became the demon de jure, and in the late 1980s the movement got underway.
Understand, however, that in that capstone atop the pyramid on the back of our dollar bills, it is well understood that CO2 is a harmless fertilizer, immensely beneficial. They know this at the top, but they have control of the universities and what passes for science, news, and entertainment, and of schools at all levels, and so are able to sell anything.
I knew all of this … but it never hit me square in the eyes until I saw the above graph. Yes, they want to eliminate fossil fuels by 2050, so that natural gas will no longer be available for use, so that nitrogen-based fertilizer will be gone, so that the food supply will collapse.
And with it, the planet’s population. That is the end game.
________________
From the Linzden-Happer paper, page 22:
“The recent experience in Sri Lanka which eliminated the use of nitrogen fertilizer is unfortunately another example of Net Zero ideology trumping science. Sri Lankan President Rajapaksa in April 2021 banned “the importation and use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides and ordered the country’s 2 million farmers to go organic.” The result was disastrous. “Its rice production has dropped more than 50%, while domestic rice prices have increased more than 80%.” This is a real-life warning of the worldwide disaster that would result from eliminating fossil fuels.”
