117 Comments

and it should also be noted that the vast majority of the CO2 in the atmosphere, which is a tiny amount to begin with, is naturally occurring (I've seen reports that 95-97% is naturally occurring) which the climatistas can't do much about, and what could theoretically be removed is not even a rounding error as far as the composition of the atmosphere is concerned - it defies all common sense to believe that removing that miniscule amount of CO2 could have any effect on the weather or the climate

Expand full comment

The focus on CO2 emissions has been beaten to death for nearly two decades, whilst *massive* investment in weather control operations remains hidden behind the curtain. Alleged CO2 emissions - yields the excuse of carbon trading options. Bond and Trust issuers love the business. The majority of readers here have never looked under the curtain, and never will. See the section: The World of Geoengineering: A Half-Century of Earth System Experimentation >>> https://climateviewer.com/2013/10/06/geoengineering-programs-weather-modification-experiments/

It ain't rocket science...

Expand full comment

Yes it has been but leftists still have it in their heads that even a minuscule amount of CO2 from fossil fuels produces a climate that is uninhabitable- totally absurd but that is why many believe that climate alarm is a religion to those people - wrt geo engineering it means that like the CIA, FBI,NIH, CDC, the DOD is out of control and needs to be reigned in - Dr Mercola has written that the chemicals are all cancer causing heavy metals - saw that NH has passed a ban on this nonsense & hopefully other states will follow

Expand full comment

Hello william howard. Many persons in the medical fields have come forward over the years, including Russell Blaylock, M.D. Partial List of published Abstracts: https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/Russell-L-Blaylock-58885645

All the alphabet agencies you mention are simply Corporate racketeering operations. They ALL need to be driven off the planet... .. . You may like this article from the Weston Price Foundation. Kinda says it all. > The Obscure Origins Of Modern-Day Climate Change Hysteria >>> DECEMBER 8, 2023 >>> JAMES KIRKPATRICK

https://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/the-obscure-origins-of-modern-day-climate-change-hysteria/#gsc.tab=0

Expand full comment

Since you obviously like and respect Dr. Mercola as do I it’s funny that you don’t mention that he recognizes the reality of the climate crisis and is attempting to do his part to address CO2. But I guess that’s a bit inconvenient for your fact free diatribe

https://www.gulfshorebusiness.com/climate-change-prompts-cape-corals-mercola-to-stress-biodynamic-farming/

Expand full comment

Fact free? Really - the subject was geo engineering & I’m prwtt Sure I relayed Dr Mercola’s views

Expand full comment

"a tiny amount..." yep, vanishingly small!!!

"The so-called greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and ozone—comprise 0.04 percent (400 parts per MILLION) of the earth’s atmosphere."

Are you implying that at such "tiny" percentage of GGs couldn't possibly have a significant effect?

Lace your drinking water with 0.04 percent cyanide and see how long you live.

Or allow your kids to drink water from Flint at 0.04% (400ppm) lead content and see how smart they don't become. (prescribed upper limit is 50 parts per BILLION)

Or perhaps you are ok with 0.04 percent glyphosate in your food,; or 0.04 percent nicotinoid pesticides in the flowers of crops that require pollinators?

Or, here's a better one: CFCs, the gases such a freon that caused havoc with the ozone layer and were subsequently banned, were present in the atmosphere at a few hundred parts per TRILLION, as compared with CO2 levels at parts per million.

So, Don't belittle 0.04% - it can be a killer. 0.0000004% can be a killer.

Now let us not allow our distrust and outright disgust for the goons that are promoting the Climate-Industrial Complex to sway our judgment about climate change.

https://peterwebster.substack.com/p/appeal-to-detestability

And if one such goon should say something ridicuilous like "the more CO2 the better!", a careful search can usually find that his funding, in one way or another, comes from BigOil or other BigIndustry that profits from fossil fuel use.

We have just learned the hard way, over a period of three years, that it is not wise to trust medical experts who are funded by BigPharma.

Now, are we to trust climate experts who are funded by BigOil and other over-consumption-oriented, growth forever corporations?

If the following SS articles don't change your mind, I would have to say it is unchangeable (note: you have to actually read them to get the effect):

https://peterwebster.substack.com/p/its-been-twenty-years

https://peterwebster.substack.com/p/wind-up-the-spring

https://jonathancook.substack.com/p/why-action-on-the-climate-crisis

https://truthout.org/articles/is-a-livable-future-still-possible-chomsky-and-pollin-discuss-the-ipcc-report/

If you can't change your mind... you can't change anything.

Expand full comment

and how much of that .04% is naturally occurring? right didn't think you knew - scientists peg it around 95-97% and there's not much that you leftist can do about that unless you want to stop breathing. So the amount than could be removed wouldn't have any effect on the atmosphere - so if there is no change in the composition of the atmosphere how exactly is the climate being affected. Comparing CO2, which is necessary for life to cyanide is just about the dumbest thing I have ever heard

Expand full comment

Peter Webster

KOSMOS

"a miniscule amount..." yep, vanishingly small!!!

CFCs, the gases such a freon that caused havoc with the ozone layer and were subsequently banned, were present in the atmosphere at a few hundred parts per TRILLION, as compared with CO2 levels at parts per million.

So, Don't belittle 0.04% - it can be a killer. 0.0000004% can be a killer.

And "naturally occurring" vs. fossil fuel produced is irrelevant: both natural and ffp CO2 molecules do exactly the same thing wherever they are. Read Hansen. Or maybe you don't read books? That is the perfect pathway to ignorance on any matter that is more complicated than simple addition and subtraction..

Expand full comment

nice try but no sale - as I said trying to equate CO2 which is required for all life on the planet with a pollutant or a poison is just about the dumbest think I have ever hears - and yes the % that is naturally occurring is important because there isn't anything that can be done about that - which means that the amount that can be removes is infinitesimal and it certainly defies all common sense to believe that removing a tiny, barely measurable amount of CO2 from the atmosphere, which couldn't possibly affect the weather or the climate, will create climate nirvana is beyond stupid -

Expand full comment

The industrial climate complex, a.k.a. how millionaires become billionaires!

Expand full comment

Funded through the tax revenues taken from citizens who, so far, have been unable to stop the

metastasized blob we call government.

All these public-private partnerships, NGOs, academic research, the IPCC, ad nauseum are all funded by money taken from those who know it's all BS, and want it to stop, and yet they have no recourse to tame their runaway governments.

Expand full comment

And here's a nifty guide the Climate-Industrial Complex put together for us to see how they work. Actually, they really made this for themselves to see how their small roles fit into the Complex. Or, as they call it, the Weather Enterprise. Behavioral Science is propaganda intended to compel changes in beliefs and behaviors. Useful to make climate, trans, masks, etc absurdities accepted as truth. It's a big, big, big man-caused climate change "enterprise." Which is another word for "racket" that makes millionaires into billionaires:

Integrating Social and Behavioral Sciences Within the Weather Enterprise

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2018.

https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/24865/chapter/1

https://doi.org/10.17226/24865

Front Matter (You've gotta check out the names of some of these Boards and Committees that contributed!)

Summary

Ch 1 Introduction

Ch 2 The Motivation for Integrating Social and Behavioral Sciences Within the Weather Enterprise

Ch 3 Assessing the Current State of Social and Behavioral Sciences Within the Weather Enterprise

Ch 4 Social and Behavioral Sciences for Road Weather Concerns

Ch 5 Research Needs for Improving the Nation’s Weather Readiness and Advancing Fundamental Social and Behavioral Science Knowledge

Ch 6 A Framework to Sustainably Support and Effectively Use Social and Behavioral Science Research in the Weather Enterprise

Ch 7 Summary of Key Findings and Recommendations

Appendix A Examples of Funding for Social and Behavioral Science Activities by NOAA, NSF, DHS1

Appendix B Lessons from SBS Integration into the “Public Health Enterprise”

Appendix C People Who Provided Input to the Committee

Appendix D Committee B

I've seen no better single resource to putting together their operational plan and strategies in one place than this book. For those who wish to do a very deep dive. A 182-page exercise describing the imposition of stupidity masquerading as intelligence and enlightened thought on an unwitting nation. A racket, an enterprise, the Complex. Nicely laid out for the curious.

Expand full comment

In 1975 I was possibly one of the first Scientist in America to declare that not only do long term temperature models not work, they can't work. There is an article I published on American Thinker if you want more details, but basically small errors in the beginning create huge errors in the end (temperature forecasts error ranges of plus or minus a hundreds degrees). To get around that now, they cheat. While there are many learned comments herein on the failed science of temperature modeling (it isn't climate), in all my years fighting this imaginary boogie man, I haven't found that very effective. One thing I have found useful is to ask the question what is the daily and yearly temperature range for where you live? Daily temperature ranges in temperate ranges may vary by 20 - 30 degrees, possible more. Mine today is 30 degrees. Annual temperatures have a range of 70, 80, 100? degrees. Also year over year temperatures can vary by many degrees. Since 1.5 to 2 degrees have become temperature forecast gospels, how can plants and animals withstand 100 degree temperature changes in a year, or 30 degrees per day or year over year multi-degree temperatures changes but some how are going to get taken out by 2 degrees in a hundred years? Everybody knows temperatures change all the time and life goes on. They just need to be reminded of it.

Expand full comment

Great point. It’s a model. Their modeling premises suck. On that topic, this one is excellent!

https://youtu.be/bj5YhqWv8Zg?si=_YX2AuqxeX6Z1jf7

Expand full comment

Modeling = GiGo (Garbage data in; Garbage projection out)

Expand full comment

Vic Hughes - yes! Thank you for this comment. People have been indoctrinated to label any type of weather to ‘climate change’. It’s a little cold, or a little hot, or dry, or wet, or any type of storm…they always say, “It’s climate change!” I respond, “No, it’s called weather patterns.” It’s such a total farce.

Expand full comment

So sad that people are convinced of all the nonsense. I talked to a friend of mine recently who thought that it was perfectly OK to decide not to have children because of climate change. She herself made this decision many years ago and now she is old and alone.

Expand full comment

I think this may be a way of weeding out the stupid gene pools.

Expand full comment

sweet

Expand full comment

Good chuckle on this one! Should see all of the corporate tax credits being funneled into these activities that would not occur otherwise! And it is not small billions involved!

Expand full comment

Which makes me wonder why John Leake and Dr. McCullough seem so enamored of RFK Jr., who subscribes wholeheartedly to the idea of man-made global warming.

Expand full comment

I don’t know if that’s true of current position. We need to ask RFK Jr, inform him, have him do a new interviewi or dialogue on this topic. He definitely believes oil industry pollutes and causes damage (no doubt) but modern civilization and human advancement wouldn’t have been possible without

Oil . The two issues need to be separated and distinguished. There’s nothing clean or innocent about the production of solar panels, the rare minerals required and damage…both to humans and the earth resulting therefrom.

This is a very good documentary on the topic that aired Aug 2023, and provides significant additional detail. Highly recommend.

http://aclimateconversation.com

Expand full comment

Hello LW: Good comment. No one *seems* aware of the industrial filth our specie produces every single day. Our pursuits of electronic toys and gadgets, are destroying the very environments we rely on for food production. Solar panel manufacturing processes are loaded with lethal and non-biodegradable materials which end up in rivers, oceans, and industrial landfills. Let's keep manufacturing and consuming *billions* of Lithium Ion batteries every month, because we're ignorant lazy slobs.

Then turn around and blame it all on "big business". What complete tosh...

Expand full comment

Very interesting. I had heard of that, but never knew much about it. Kind of scary.

Expand full comment

I wondered that too.

Expand full comment

It's always amazing to me the mental gymnastics that allows a person to worry about cow farts but not toxic batteries and solar panels, to bleat about saving the bees but not say anything for the tonnes of bees taken out by wind flails. Let alone the bats and birds. Oh but you've probably killed loads of birds with your car. A sparrow and a protected apex predator are the same thing of course. They need somewhere to put their misanthropy, just like the 'somewhere else' they put their pollution (did you really think China produces these things cleanly?), and evil people who can't accept that the ice caps melting this time is our fault are it.

Expand full comment

Why are people protesting all over Europe and they have been for a long time? Because they are getting financially squeezed for this bogus crap of climate change! And so many people STILL believe this lie! The entire concept is ridiculous and people fell for it hook line and sinker!! It's so scary how many sheeple we have in America!

Expand full comment

Climate is too complex and its can not be humans.

Earths orbit is ovel not round

Earths axis wobbles

Earth magnetic field moves

Sun spots and the 7 and 14 years cycle.

CO2 is mostly water vaper generated

CO2 is the gas of life, makes things green an grow.

All Mammals breath out Co2, you want zero co2 you will need to kill all humans and animals and chop down every tree as co2 is given out at night by plats.

In short its utter stupidity and moronic thinking.

Expand full comment

Yep, they’re working that genocide.

Expand full comment

Oxygen, not CO2, is produced by plants.

Expand full comment

actually in the day time plants produce oxygen, but at night they produce carbon dioxide.

see below:

Plants give off carbon dioxide when burned. In fact, the natural respiration of plants pulls carbon dioxide out of the air1. Carbon dioxide is not released during photosynthesis, but small amounts of that gas are emitted both day and night as a by-product of cellular respiration2. Plants release varying amounts of carbon dioxide at night depending on their size, age, and metabolic activity3. When plants burn their sugars for food, CO2 is produced as a waste product, just like the CO2 that we exhale is a waste product from the food we burn for energy4. During daylight hours, plants take in carbon dioxide and release oxygen through photosynthesis, and at night only about half that carbon is then released through respiration5.

Please go do your own research if you think I made the above up. I took it from the AI definition.

Peace

Expand full comment

Analysis of ice cores going back thousands of years demonstrate that CO2 increases follow increases in land and ocean temperatures.

Expand full comment

Yes Mann read the chart backwards and created an entire industry based on a false premise.

Expand full comment

And won a fraudulent $1 million dollar defamation settlement when he was called out for his lies.

Expand full comment

Yes a Money Making Racket!!! Wake Up💗🎶💓

Expand full comment

I think that the ulterior goal of the climate-industrial complex goes far beyond getting investment for renewables. Those investments are just a honeypot along the journey. Eventually, the climate industrial complex has been set in motion to reduce and control indivuduals' consumption and movement, whilst indirectly taxing them through 'carbon credits'. I hint to aspects of this

here:

https://open.substack.com/pub/wildhorsewisdom/p/big-banks-net-zero-pledge?r=31a4ti&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

and here:

https://open.substack.com/pub/wildhorsewisdom/p/carbon-delicacies?r=31a4ti&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true

Expand full comment

All you smelly Walmart people are ruining my view, you too Target.

Expand full comment
Feb 14·edited Feb 14

The leftist Queensland Government here in Australia yesterday introduced legislation to lock in a new emissions reduction target of 75% below 2005 levels by 2035, with the Premier saying, "if the World is serious about reducing emissions then Queensland has to play its part." Considering the minuscule amount of emissions produced by our State compared to China's massive contribution, farting in a cyclone comes to mind. And since one of the major industries here in Queensland is mining and exporting coal, which provides a large proportion of the State's revenue via royalties, it will be interesting to see how the Government fudges the figures to achieve this pointless target.

Expand full comment

It's the white man's new burden.

Expand full comment

Another brain fart from Giggles Miles.

Expand full comment

The warmest scam was devised by Maurice Strong while he was head of the UN Environment Program. The UN’s carbon trading scheme transferred billions of dollars from Western taxpayers to Chinese plutocrats who had built coal plants for this very purpose. When Maurice Strong’s scam was exposed, he decamped to Beijing. The computerized projections purporting to show climate doom were recycled to support covid doom — by the same outfit, Imperial College, London.

Expand full comment

Three little words come to mind:

https://youtu.be/gvirBAE_ITk

Expand full comment

How Dare You!

Expand full comment

LOL

Expand full comment

Toxic Geoengineering is THE ONLY issue. THAT has Earth in the Venus syndrome even as we write.

Redirect your energies to this issue. Nothing else will matter if it isn't addressed. NOTHING

Expand full comment

Thanks Dennis for being another that can differentiate between the CO2 climate change hoax and the real cause of most of what's going wrong with the Earth - GEOENGINEERING. It shouldn't be so difficult to gain allies since it's blatant in the skies and information about geoengineering is readily available. Unfortunately, most that saw thru the CC hoax early are stuck there, continuing to fight that non-important battle. Anyone interested in more information can find Michigan Sky Watchers on Facebook.

Expand full comment

After writing my first reply I did a scan of all replies for "geoengineering". Results: you mentioned it, I obviously mentioned it. No one else. And reading through the posts, they all seem to have valid information of the topic at hand, they are informed and intelligent. Unfortunately, your statement "Nothing else will matter if it isn't addressed" is correct. Also unfortunately, if people don't wake up and change the argument from 'global warming' to 'geoengineering', nothing else will matter sooner than most think.

Expand full comment
Feb 15·edited Feb 15

While none of it is pretty, the time factor is what rang my bell. According to Dane we are on track to experience a 70% wild life die off by, wait for it...2027.

Correction/update : I misspoke. What he said is while some animals will survive, there will be NO functional wildlife populations by 2027 at the rate of die(kill)off we seeing right now.

Expand full comment

Hello Dennis K McGee: No one wants to address the geoengineering elephant in the elevator. They'd rather continue flying around in jumbo jets and driving SUV's the size of school busses. Human's are environmental slobs, period. Filthy geo-engineered skies clearly display our true agenda. Dane Wigington is not the only voice in protest of geoengineering activities. Hundreds of web pages have come and gone in the 20+ years I've been aware of this mass stupidity. No one cares. They stare at their cell phones whilst choking on the effluent of ignorance and bliss...

Expand full comment

Recent post on that issue:

file:///var/mobile/Library/SMS/Attachments/64/04/6407FF5B-9CE5-4B72-AF28-5AB8820C2A99/IMG_3875.HEIC

Expand full comment

On the phone with a buddy this am:

m: hey what's up?

h: beautiful day

m: yep, the bastards cookin us in Feb.

h: oh god

m: no not God. Thats the problem

I wish the link you sent was operable here. It'd take me a week to try to type that anywhere.

Expand full comment

The damage being done to planet Earth via climate engineering is scary as it gets. Go to : https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/

This organization has done more research on this subject than anyone else I can find. I frequently see evidence of the atmospheric spraying taking place in our sky above. This really chaps my rear!

Expand full comment

Yes. Thank you for your awareness. Most persons commenting on this page, obviously couldn't care less. They love their jumbo jets and alleged freedom...

Expand full comment