Interpretation of data on Carbon Dioxide

On this blog, I’ve written a Dutch post ( https://ludwigvanel.wordpress.com/2018/06/04/180604-interpretatie-van-grafieken-ipcc-data/ ) about my interpretation of these data: http://www.ipcc-data.org/observ/ddc_co2.html (English), the graphics seem to indicate that before, during and after the Kyoto treaty, CO2 kept rising increasingly sharp. Keep in mind that (apart from perhaps Liechtenstein and Bhutan), all governments aee totalitatlrian, meaning that they busybody the total collection of aspects of the life of all citizens. So, at the very least the people could have expected a reduction in the speed of CO2 increase. Didn’t happen.
Meaning either one of these:

  1. Humanity has no discernible impact on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, so none of the economic terror committed by politicians can be justified.
  2. Politicians have made every effort to maximize CO2-levels, ie by means of increasing traffic jams (example: Dutch politicians for the last over half a century), or by sending expeditionary armies all over the globe (example:#4thReich). Modern wars are fought using tanks, planes, ships, etc that emit enormous amounts of CO2 (not counting Echelon, the computers of which need water cooling, that’s how much energy they burn, just to listen in on Merckel’s phone calls – Merckel was an ally of Obama! And Obama was one of Gore’s high preachers, and responsible for 7 wars in 8 years. Both had a Nobel prize for peace). Politicians are committing climate terrorism.

Either way, the economic terror is unjustifiable (as an aside, neither is the military).

Advertisements

Is Tesla a cult?

I responded this in the comments section of this video https://youtu.be/k6GeHnMwl1c :

[Name removed] That means the hysteria used to force people into similarly harmful (but much more expensive) EVs is entirely misplaced; causes environmental & economic & psychological harm.
A much better idea to continue using cheap internal combustion engines, to produce more wealth, so that people will be able to afford to switch to EVs when the time comes. Renewability is no argument: there is so much oil in the ground: banning current geberations from using it, will keep it there, for even further future generations to not use it, because even further future generations will have to leave it there for ad infinitum.
Oil is probably not even a fossil fuel, but the product of bacterial processes.
[Name removed] will you please stop ridiculing yourself with the worn paranoid slander of “big oil is afraid people will stop using oil, is behind ads like this” because first of all, the electrical cables (insulation) and modern plastic car chassis, are MADE OF oil, so people will continue to buy oil.
And even then: big oil wil eventually reinvent itself as big hydro, big windpower, big solar, big whatever it is your conspiracist mind wishes to accuse of being big and mean.
I’ve written about this earlier:
https://ludwigvanel.wordpress.com/2017/11/25/sigh-conspiracists-drive-me-nuts-an-elaborate-treatise-on-big-oil/

About ships switching to nuclear power:

[Name removed] What a soothing solution: having potential 3mile island disasters floating all over the world’s oceans, and ships never sink, do they? #Greenpeace became famous for their protests against #nuclear #waste #dumping in the ocean, Medoubts they ought to support, the posible sinking of nuclear pre-waste fuels.

Why are hybrid cars bad for the environment?

You can’t add lots of weight to a vehicle, ie make the engine perform more work (pulling in motion the batteries, or braking them to a stop), and expect it to consume less energy.
The only reason hybrid cars SEEM more frugal, is because they lose less energy on the typical state-operated road (with lots of stoplights, traffic jams, and similar obstructions) well, actually, they lose the same amout of energyas regular cars, but they are able to recoup some of that energy. Newton teaches us, that that is no energy gain (otherwise hybrids would be perpetal motion machines). So in order to reduce CO2 output, the state needs to do something itself, make the sacrifice of repealling the decades old policy of causing traffic problems. Or it must cease to exist, what everyone who truly cares for the climate (and believes that there’s a manmade climate crisis going on) has no other option but to wish for.

Schoolbus

For the sake of protecting the climate, the government should encourage homeschooling.

Running a schoolbus (or children making their own way, whether

  • on foot,
  • on pushbike,
  • by car
  • Or motorbike/moped)

to: a big building that’s heated throughout including the halls / empty classrooms is a horrible waste of energy

and causes vast amounts of CO2 to be emitted.

Let’s see where the priorities lie:

  1. Protecting climate, or
  2. influencing the children.

Leaking pipelines

This is such a powerful case against capitalism! The corrupted leadership of a tiny “shithole” nation sells oil rights to a western oil company, the firm does a few back of the envelope calculations and concludes that fixing the leaks is costlier than letting the people suffer health-problems, A few bribes still didn’t sway the calculation the other way.
If anything, this is the best argument for capitalism, for all encompassing private ownership (democratic ownership) of everything. To avoid the trap of the magical authority of the state. If the oil company wants to bribe people, it’ll have to bribe a whole lot of them, thus skewing the calculation for the better as regards the environment.
There are many more parties that can defend their interests, eithet individually, or they can form a united front against the oil company. They can then defend the people’s interests (thrir own) which a government of course will not do: they’re nore interested in “the national interest,” or “the greater good,” or the glory of the nation (which is the political monstrosity, excluding the people).

Brief aan de NAM

Vanwege de problemen met aardgaswinning in Groningen, heb ik deze brief gestuurd naar de NAM.nl:

Gelieve de getroffenen in Groningen een afdoende schadevergoeding/afkoopsom te bieden, anders voel ik mij (als Noord Hollander zijnde) verplicht om mijn gas van elders te betrekken, danwel geheel van gas af te stappen. Ik zal een soortgelijk sentiment ook aan mijn gasleverancier duidelijk maken.

Hoogachtend,

Ik heb een soortgelijk bericht op de Facebookpagina van NUON gezet. Want als burger kun je het niet maken om je aan je verantwoordelijkheid te onttrekken. Nu maar hopen dat goed voorbeeld, goed doet volgen! Je kunt niet wachten tot de Haagse junta het werk voor jou doet; onderneem zelf actie. Van de politiek hief je nooit iets te verwaxlchten (behalve dan: onzinnige beperkingen, lastenverhogingen en gekonkel)
Mocht geen enkele gasleverancier bereid zijn om aan mijn wensen te voldoen, moet ik maar mijn eigen maatschappij oprichten. Is een beetje veel gevraagd, maar als puntje bij paaltje komt moet ik laten blijken hoezeer ik achter mijn bezwaar sta.… (en als de grote verontwaardigden bereid zouden zijn, om de daad bij het woord te voegen, dan heb je grote kans dat het niet zover hoeft te komen omdat er genoeg druk ontstaat, dat een gasleverancier de optie biedt).