Bank documents now show millions of dollars transferred to Biden family members, and the government is intimidating Matt Taibii and Elon Musk for revealing Twitter’s complicity in manufacturing consent and suppressing dissent with it. Meanwhile Trump has been indicted on flimsy-at-best charges. This will only more irrevocably divide the country and inflame distrust in government.
As masses of ordinary people are barely making ends meet paycheck-to-paycheck, the dollar is being internationally rejected, and our financial system continues tilting toward collapse, the administration wants to add $6.9 Trillion of new spending to the $7 Trillion it has already tallied, a new tax harvest of $4.5 Trillion, while Fed has maintained its tightening posture. Quite far from modest and prudent. The anticipation that a financial crisis would see the advent of a new monetary regime based on a CBDC has never been higher. And while vulnerability of the electrical grid to attack, along with the fact that quantum computing is expected to make existing internet security encryption cyphers worthless in severaql years, it looks like governments are moving briskly forward with their plans to instantiate CBDCs.
Now that Russia is prevailing on the battlefields of Ukraine to the point where some western military and political leaders have had to acknowledge that, the US is sending military aircraft to ensure the war will not end. Conservative members of Austria’s parliament walked-out on a Zoom conference with Zelensky, leaving placards in their seats with anti-war quips on them. To say that America and the west is in secular decline and a global power realignment is underway no longer makes one sound like a ‘fringey’ tinfoil hat type. It is an obvious consensus assessment.
But you presumably knew all of this. So instead of continuing with a news roundup, it may be more infomative for me to do a mini-delve into one subject where the mass deception has been most egregious to try to clarify it simply by pointing-out some of the most rudimentary (real) science aspects than anyone could look into themselves. The subject is carbon, specifically the righteous conviction by so many in today’s zeitgeist that carbon is a pollutant if not an outright toxin. However, it is not toxic to the living creatures on earth. If we hold our breaths for too long, the oxygen in our lungs gets used up and replaced by carbon dioxide. This will cause us eventually to pass-out and ultimately to die, but not because of ‘carbon poisoning’. The cause of death in such scenarios (drownings, etc.) is rather oxygen starvation, because we need a regular supply of oxygen to sustain our lives.
In fact the two most important macrocirculatory cycles of any chemical species over the (atmosphere, oceans, biomass & life forms) planet for sustaining life are the water cyles and the carbon cycle. The former is driven by evaporative formation of clouds from ocean water in the tropics where the solar irradiance is most intense, continues with the atmospheric and ocean flows driving by this equatorial heating and polar cooling, and closes the cycles when the rains runoff the continents to become sea water once again. The latter occurs when photosynthetic green plants consume and bind atmospheric carbon (CO2) into their biomass to grow and decay. The grown plants form the basis of the food chain for sea and terrestrial life forms like us. We inhale Oxygen to fire our metabolisms and exhale CO2, which the plants uptake again in a beautiful natural symbiotic balance. The decayed biomass forms over time into deadwood, diamonds, coal, oil, and other burnable ‘fossil fuels’, along with various other substances. Carbon will never be removed nor replaced in this role as fuel source for the energetic processes in our bodies and in other phenomena from forest fires to human air travel.
Ask any medical doctor or other expert in the biosciences: (1) what organic chemistry is and (2) why they had to study it in their undergraduate curricula, and they will tell you that: (1) It is carbon chemisty, and (2) Carbon chemistry governing all life and biochemical processes on the planet. All life on earth is carbon-based; Is it coincidental that Eugenicists and other population-control advocates from latter-Malthusians to the UNFPA also tend to be anti-carbon climate change alarmists ? You are a contributor to existential climate doom because, as long as you remain alive, you intake oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide; “How dare you !”
Carbon founds the backbone structure of the molecules for proteins, carbohydrates, fats (triglycerides, phospholipids, & sterols), ATP, polysaccharides, DNA, and scores of other biochemicals, as it does for refined hydrocarbon fuels and plastics. The reasons why nature selected carbon as the foundational element for life is well illustrated-and-summarized in this video. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.04 molar percent, as it has been throughout the several decades when all this fuss about man-made CO2 driving it higher has existed. Other ‘greenhouse gases’ like methane are implicated in driving up the temperature of our atmosphere, purported posing an existential threat to our climate remaining nominally within the bounds that support life. Biologically, there are only two ways to mitigate this terrifying threat. One is to reduce the number of metabolic creatures on the planet, which some governments have done directly by fiat with cattle and other livestock, and which many have done less-directly with economic deprivation, disease, allowing narcotics epidemics, and now it looks like we will have a superpower war to boot. The other way is to preserve and grow the green plants (rainforest lands, etc.) that intake the CO2 and convert it to O2.
OK, but what about the use of a carbon-based fuels to drive our modern societies and economies, the question that all the controvery is most-about ?; Can they really be replaced by solar and wind energy sources ? The answer is no, the reasons are severalfold, and may be summarized as: (1) The amount of energy available from these sources is grossly insufficient, and unreliable (they do not flow continually). (2) Electrical energy, once generated, must be transferred and stored effectively until the consumer needs it for use when he lives. The density (concentration) of energy from hydrocarbon fuels is substantailly higher than that of electrical batteries. Put simply, the energy available from a 2 cubic foot (15 gallon) tank of gasoline is higher than that available from a charged battery of similar size & weight. Also, one can put a car filled with gas into storage for a year and still have all that energy available for driving, while batteries have a slight tendency to autodischarge over time. The only way to transfer electricity is to ship charged batteries or to transmit it over power lines. Transmission results in the greater loss of final delivered energy, but both means result in more loss than shipping a tanker truck filled with hydrocarbon fuel. (3) Electrical energy transmitted via the power grid is vulnerable to the weakness of our grid today that has produced brownouts, as well as to purposeful attacks on the grid, a growing number of-which we have seen – even without war with Russia. (4) As you have most-likely heard, the process for the extraction and refinement of rare-earth elements like germanium, neodymium, terbium, indium, dysprosium, and praseodymium used in the production of solar panels and wind turbines are far from ‘green’ (environmentally unharmful) and other countries like China own the mining sources for them.
The carbon chains not only allow the formation of complex hydrocarbon fuel molecules; the relatively high energy of the carbon bonds in those molecules means that they lockup/store a high amount of energy, making for fuels with high energy-density. Some of the reasons why nature selected carbon as a foundational element for fueling organic life are the same ones that made it sensible for fueling anthropogenic (man-made) energy-utilization as well. The hypocritical and often-hysterical hyperbole shouted in-favor of eliminating carbon based energy source to reach ‘carbon neutrality’ are clear demagoguery to sensible ears. To jump right into the irreversible-and-catastrophic-global-warming-is-or-is-not-well-underway-now argument is usually a morass. Since there is a horde of ‘scientific’ output that has been generated more in support of this agenda than in support of seekiing truth, presenting “the science” at that level of complexity is almost useless. But it is possible to say “I think its good to start by considering some well-understood fundamentals on the properties of carbon as an energy store/source relative to the current alternatives” and then present these few simple and irrefutable facts. Just dont expect most climate alarmists to listen to them and to take them aboard.
The International Renewable Energy Agency just estimated that funding they say is neccessary for the climate change agenda between now and 2050 will total around $131 Trillion. That comes to an annual average cost or nearly $6 Trillion for each of the next 22 years. The banking crisis so-far has cost about $1 Trillion. Which sounds like the greater crisis to you ?