CO2

Civilization Under Attack From Climate Zealots

Lawrence , , , , , , , , , , , ,

August 22, 2019

Thomas Malthus (1766-1834) was wrong then, and his followers are wrong today. Our planet is not suffering from over over population, but from under development. (courtesy of nyaowritingmy.yy.angel.com)

The progress of mankind, from millions of years ago when human beings became tool designers and makers, and especially since the Neolithic period of the revolution in agriculture, is now under full scale attack. The latest offensive from the extremist wing of the environmentalist’s movement, the Extinction Rebellion-XR, is the resurrection of the discredited ideology of Thomas Malthus, advocating extreme levels of population reduction. By frightening an uninformed population that so-called man-made CO2 will destroy the planet, they hope to convince our advanced civilization to reduce our standard of living, and to stop procreating. In particular, less developed nations are being propagandized to forgo industrialization of their economies and drastically reduce their fertility rates.  As has been the case for decades, Africa and its growing population are in the cross-hairs of this offensive against development and growth. Without the industrialization of the African continent, there will be no possibility that Africa’s projected population of 2.5 billion people will be able to survive. Contrary to the viscous (anti-human) ideology of XR et al, there are no limits to economic growth. Mankind has surmounted every apparent crisis by superseding it with new discoveries that led to utilization of previously undiscovered natural resources, (e.g. oil 150 years ago), and new technologies that transformed our economies by increasing productivity. Human beings with our innate power of creativity are the most precious resource in the universe. Our civilization suffers not from too many people, but not enough thinking people, who should recognize the latest XR movement as scientifically incompetent; a fraud aimed at the progress of the human race.

Below is a provocative article on the subject that is worth reading.

“Frontal Assault on Our Living Standard: Multi-billionaires Are Financing the ‘Climate Protectors’”

“The news is out. According to the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the state of the Earth is catastrophic, but we still have a chance. All we have to do is listen to 16-year-old climate figurehead Greta Thunberg of Sweden, the “Extinction Rebellion,” and Dennis Meadows. Not only do we need to be ashamed to fly; we also need to be ashamed to eat meat, or food generally, to drive cars, travel, heat our homes, and, to get right down to it, we should be ashamed that we exist, because it were better for the climate if we didn’t! And, of course, if you haven’t noticed yet: Snow is black!

“Anyone who thinks the trans-Atlantic establishment and its science and media PR lobbyists have gone crazy, has a point. But the madness has a method: The apocalyptic theses of this so-called Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on the alleged vicious cycle of unsustainable agriculture, global warming, and extreme weather, are supposed to indoctrinate the population into voluntarily giving up consumption, accepting higher taxes to subsidize the steering of financial flows into so-called “green” investments, accepting dictatorial forms of government and—this is now frankly expressed—accepting a massive reduction of the world population.”

 Continue reading

______________________________________________________

News Update: {Washington Post} Compelled To Admit Mass Killers Are Ecofascists

The {Washington Post} newspaper, which dominates the capital area, commented in a front-page article, August 18, on the environmentalist ideology of the mass killers in Christchurch, New Zealand, and El Paso, Texas. The article, “Two Mass Killings a World Apart Share a Common Theme: ‘Ecofascism'” by Joel Achenback is excerpted below.

“Before the slaughter of dozens of people in Christchurch, New Zealand, and El Paso this year, the accused gunmen took pains to explain their fury, including their hatred of immigrants. The statements that authorities think the men posted online share another obsession: overpopulation and environmental degradation.

“The alleged Christchurch shooter, who is charged with targeting Muslims and killing 51 people in March, declared himself an “eco-fascist” and railed about immigrants’ birthrates. The statement linked to the El Paso shooter, who is charged with killing 22 people in a shopping area this month, bemoans water pollution, plastic waste and an American consumer culture that is “creating a massive burden for future generations.”

“The two mass shootings appear to be extreme examples of ecofascism — what Hampshire College professor emerita Betsy Hartmann calls “the greening of hate.”

“Ecofascism has deep roots. There is a strong element of it in the Nazi emphasis on “blood and soil,” and the fatherland, and the need for a living space purified of alien and undesirable elements.

“Meanwhile, leaders of mainstream environmental groups are quick to acknowledge that their movement has an imperfect history when it comes to race, immigration and inclusiveness. Some early conservationists embraced the eugenics movement that saw “social Darwinism” as a way of improving the human race by limiting the birthrates of people considered inferior.

Read: Two Mass Murders a World Apart Share a Common Theme: ‘Ecofascism’

There Are No Limitations to Mankind’s Growth: “It’s In Humanity’s DNA to Move Outwards for A Better Life

Lawrence , , , , , , , , , , , ,

July 26, 2019

As we continue to celebrate the 50th anniversary of man landing on the Moon, we should reflect on how our optimistic science driven culture led by President John Kennedy has shrunk over the last five decades. It has the reached the absurd level, where CO2, a building block of life, is now alleged to be a pollutant. Let us hope that over the next 50 years mankind will demonstrate  its “extraterrestrial imperative,” by industrializing the Moon and colonizing Mars. This mission will also provide us with the science and technologies to eliminate poverty, hunger, and disease across out planet.

The great space visionary, Krafft Ehricke, summarized his philosophy of astronautics in three laws (1957), to which I subscribe.

First Law. Nobody and nothing under the natural laws of this universe impose any limitations on man except man himself.

Second Law. Not only the Earth, but the entire Solar System, and as much of the universe as he can reach under the laws of nature, are man’s rightful field of activity.

Third Law. By expanding through the universe, man fulfills his destiny as an element of life, endowed with the power of reason and the wisdom of the moral law within himself.

Jack Schmitt collecting Moon rocks in 1972
Jack Schmitt collecting Moon rocks in 1972 (courtesy Getty)

Astronaut Schmitt: It’s In Humanity’s DNA to Move Outwards for A Better Life

“Humanity has always moved outwards over the last two or three million years to find resources and really to better their existence, and I think space is a part of that,” he said.

“It’s probably in our DNA, it’s probably an evolutionary thing, in order to survive, you can’t stay in one place forever, whether you’re a family, or a tribe, or an entire civilization.

“Moon and Mars settlement is extremely important for the dispersal of the human species throughout the solar system and possibly beyond.”

“You can get there and learn how to do things that are going to be important for enabling Mars exploration. But the generation that was part of Apollo is passing very quickly. Another generation are going to have to learn.”(Former Senator and Apollo 17 astronaut Harrison Schmitt told London’s {Telegraph}, published July 21).

Harrison Jack Schmitt taking samples from a boulder which never saw sunlight
Schmitt taking samples from a boulder which never saw sunlight (courtesy NASA)

“I think 50 years from now, at the 100th anniversary of Apollo, there will be settlements on the Moon, people living there permanently,  producing the resources of the Moon,” he predicted.

“Not only that will assist a Mars mission but Helium 3 that is an ideal fuel for electric power generation because it creates no radioactive waste and demands for electrical power are not going to decrease, civilization depends on it, and this is one of the major potential and long-term sources

Not surprisingly, with his optimistic scientific mindset, Schmitt has been outspoken against the fraud of man-made climate change, unimpressed by the resulting flack fired at him by the green ideologues. He joined William Happer in founding the CO2 Coalition, and serves on its board of experts. In a 2016 {Wall Street Journal} op-ed co-authored with Rodney Nichols titled “The Phony War Against CO2,” Schmitt wrote that it is “both unscientific and immoral” to treat beneficial carbon dioxide gas as a hazardous pollutant.

Read: Mining the Moon Could Help Save Humanity

 

 

Is “Climate Change” Scientifically True or Just Culturally Popular?

Lawrence , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I am posting a provocative article that challenges our society’s accepted cultural beliefs about climate change. Admittedly more analysis and discussion is required, but let me convey a few concepts that should provide food for thought.

The current hysteria about that the planet is facing impending doom is strongly reminiscent of the old discredited Malthusian theory that too many couples having too many children would over run the capacity of our planet to produce food. We now have over 7 billion people, and we know that our planet can feed billions more, if we properly developed its potential. In the 20th century, Malthus’ unscientific babbling was further extended by the Club of Rome and World Wildlife Fund to assert that the our planet had limited-fixed resources that could only maintain a fixed number of human beings. Of course, none of this is true, nor was it ever scientifically proven, but it became part of the popular culture. I am now approaching 68 years of age, and know how this propaganda spread from the late 1960s on. I was there and organized against it!

Tragically, our culture today has accepted the new mantra of climate change, without a healthy scientific debate and analysis. For example CO2 is not deadly, it is one of the building blocks of life. If you look at weather events over time, a century or more, you will find that there is not an increase in hurricanes, and tornadoes. If you go back hundreds of thousands of years you’ll find several ice ages and warming periods.

Also, why assume the planet has one fixed condition? Tens of millions of years ago there was no Sahara desert; it was caused by the Africa plate banging into southern Europe. Since then, the Sahara becomes moist and dry following a 22,000-25,000 year cycle based on the wobble of the earth’s axis.

If we study our planet and universe over long periods of time, we will discover all kinds on patterns and anomalies. However, they all indicate a self developing universe. Mankind is not an antagonist to our planet and its environment, but rather, a co-contributor to its growth and development, which is not finite.

The principles of our physical universe are coherent with the principle of creativity that all human being posses. This leads to another discussion for a future time.

A special note to my African friends. Beware of propaganda that tells Africans they should have less children and forego industrialization, because it will destroy the planet.

Our planet is about 4.6 billion years old. Separate continents began to form approximately 200 million years ago-(mya). Early stages of mankind emerged only 3-4 mya. Homo sapiens sapiens emerged only a few hundred thousand years ago. Our universe is constantly developing and changing.

The complete article follows the excerpts below:

“The question is not whether, but to what extent human-caused changes in the atmosphere drive climate variations, and whether such changes are good or bad. Meaningful statistics (but ones that do not exist) would include responses to the following questions:

• What would be the impact of doubling atmospheric CO2?
• To what extent does water vapor cause a feedback effect?
• To what extent must we take into account the solar magnetic field’s effect on the creation of clouds via cosmic radiation?
• What is the certainty range on these predictions?
• How well have climate models of the last two decades fared at predicting the global climate during the past 5 to 10 years?
• Will the specific, foreseen changes in climate be beneficial or harmful, or a mixture of the two?

“The climate of the Earth, as it exists in the solar system, is much more complex than a foolishly simple, yes-no question about “believing in” or “denying” climate change.

“How can any such changes be determined? An individual cannot possibly notice that the climate is changing through their personal experience, which is necessarily limited in location and time. And it is absolutely ludicrous to claim that anyone could know, through their personal experience of weather, the cause of any such changes.

“Science is not fashion. It is not decided by taking a poll or by seeing what is most popular…

“A cultural paradigm shift occurred in the 1960s and 1970s, transforming the understanding of the relation of human beings to nature, and transforming the meaning of “progressive” from supporting progress to preventing it!

“From this paradigm shift arise the unstated assumptions that underlie the emotional responses that many people have to these issues. One such assumption is a definition of “natural,” which excludes human activity, implicitly creating a goal—humans should simply not exist. This goes along with the shift from global warming (a specific change that could cause problems) to climate change, taking the assumption that any change to the climate would be bad, simply by virtue of its being change. Is this really true?…”

Continue reading article