Biden admin to spend $1.2 billion to VACUUM sky of carbon dioxide
- This topic has 4 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 9 months, 2 weeks ago by
Vknid.
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 13, 2023 at 6:50 am #304596
I am honestly not certain if this is just a budget for someone to skim off of or if this is a serious attempt.
If it’s a serious attempt this is on par with Bill Gates idea to block the sun. I find something like this only capable of being done by ideolog psychopaths. Anyone who thinks humans have enough of an understanding of how the entire ecosystem works to try something like this insane. How many “well we did not see that coming” products, projects or ideas must humans have failed at for us to be afraid to tinker with a core part of our environment?
Their idea here is actually not to just collect carbon dioxide which might be where the grift on this comes in. It’s also a part of the article I find confusing because it appears to be incorrect. They claim they will collect carbon dioxide and rip the hydrogen from it to also collect hydrogen stores for power plants. Well, carbon dioxide (CO2) is not comprised of hydrogen. So I guess the idea is they pull in air in general and “scrape” co2 and water vapor from it and break the hydrogen of the water vapor h20.
So let’s summarize this idea. We will spend billions to collect carbon dioxide and water vapor from the air, break off the hydrogen from the h20 and create stores of hydrogen to give or sell to power plants. Sounds ok right? Let’s list out some thoughts here bring some information to this statement.
– carbon dioxide is not a man made poison as it naturally occurs in the air at .04%, plants use it like we use oxygen but the the theory goes that because we put co2 into the air and even though it was .04% before is .04% now, this will warm the planet as the heat attempts to radiate back into space but like anything in this arena I find it suspect
– so they will probably clear large areas to make these “plants” wiping out tons of vegetation that would naturally do the same thing
– storing hydrogen sounds very dangerous to me as it is very flammable, ever seen the video of the Hindenburg Zeppelin? Guess what it was filled with. Hydrogen, because as I understand it , while helium was not flammable, it’s half as “light” as hydrogen so it cuts in half the payload a Zeppelin could carry so less bombs.
– Guess who is all behind and wants hydrogen energy production? The WEF, imagine my shock
– it’s an interesting contrast how we excoriate natural elements and choose to tinker with them but no one says very much about plastics, man made chemicals that harm organisms, or some man made medicine we poison ourselves with and also the environment
– I actually think this is really all about hydrogen collection paid for by tax payers and actually not much to do about co2 collection but I find collecting mass amounts of natural components from the air a very dangerous play especially when it is planned and implemented by people whom are overconfident ideologs.
https://thepostmillennial.com/biden-admin-to-spend-1-2-billion-to-vacuum-sky-of-carbon-dioxide
August 13, 2023 at 7:18 am #304598IMO, this is fraud.
Plants and all plant life needs carbon dioxide to live.
They take in carbon dioxide and produces oxygen.
Remove carbon dioxide, and plants die.
If plants die, there is no oxygen.
If there is no oxygen, people and animals die.
NASA has proven when there is a slight increase in the air of carbon dioxide (I think it was near the amazon rain forests), plant life (green) also increased.
This is all to spend money on non-proven technology so some tech companies can make some quick money. And most likely some of the key investors of those companies are those same demented politicians that are pushing for this funding. That is criminal IMO too.
August 13, 2023 at 10:33 am #304605“IMO, this is fraud.”
Agreed 100%. But then again so is everything “green” as I see it. Show me a government backed “green project” and I will show you how it’s a plan to rape the tax payer while not only doing nothing green but probably the very opposite. Ask the all but enslaved rare Earth mineral strip miners in conveniently far away foreign countries (some of whom are reported to be children) how they feel about making something “green”.
“NASA has proven when there is a slight increase in the air of carbon dioxide”
I would be very careful about saying the words “NASA” and “proven” in the same sentence. NASA is often nothing more than a government tool. Those same people would say they have proven that “climate change” exists and is man made. So we cannot trust a source and not trust it at the same time that is foolish and hypocritical.
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/topics/climate-change
Now with that said. I have seen it stated that CO2 is .04% of the air. And that has not changed in recent times. But they claim that even that being the case there is still much more of it around and so it’s still going to warm the planet.
“This is all to spend money on non-proven technology so some tech companies can make some quick money.”
True, but I think the big picture on this is just general wealth redistribution from the tax payers to the political elite while pushing a WEF agenda that will allow them to control the world. That’s all climate change has ever been about. Control.
August 13, 2023 at 11:58 am #304607My understanding of the carbon climate change theory is this:
Carbon is a greenhouse gas, therefore increasing carbon in the atmosphere will trap heat on the planet, eventually causing runaway heating, including heating the oceans, which will melt ice caps, and flood coastlines.
Seems reasonable on paper. One significant problem (of many), however, is that water vapor is a more effective greenhouse gas than carbon. That means carbon increases have no practical effect where water vapor is already present. For atmospheric carbon to have an effect on temperatures, it must be in dry places, like over deserts.
With that in mind, consider the claim of oceanic heating. Oceans are natural sources of water vapor, so for carbon to have an effect, it must first heat up air elsewhere, and then have that air heat the air over oceans.
That’s like putting a pot of water on a stove, turning on an adjacent burner, and waiting for the water to boil. :)
Couple other points:
- Nature is bigger than people. One example is the enormous Tonga eruption of early 2022, that pumped an unbelievable amount of water into the atmosphere (among other things). That alone broke the existing climate change models, and I believe the extreme weather we’ve been seeing is in large part due to that eruption.
- Volcanoes in general are a much more effective way of heating oceans, and I believe what’s actually happening is climate change driven by a systemic increase in vulcanism. Volcanoes on land tend to pump particulates into the atmosphere, which tend to cause cooling, while undersea volcanoes naturally heat the oceans (which is like turning on the burner -under- the pot of water). :)
So, with heating oceans and cooling skies, what happens? Warm water vapor enters a cool atmosphere, and we get a systemic increase in violent weather, with an emphasis on freezing precipitation (including hail). Consider, for instance, all the record snow the world has been experiencing (the age of snowfall is most certainly not past!).
I note that an Ice Age requires a steady source of warm water vapor into a cold atmosphere, otherwise it would simply be a Cold Age, without the continent-spanning Ice.
August 13, 2023 at 12:43 pm #304608“Nature is bigger than people”
Well there is the dirty secret of the entire “climate change” grift. First off, saving the planet is entirely BS fear mongering. The planet does not care about us nor can we really hurt it. It was here for 4 billion years enduring things we probably cannot even wrap our minds around. We have been here for not even a flash of time yet here were are assuming we command the environment. That is entirely preposterous. Clearly, we have an effect on a system we are in but we are not the system. Yes we have a seat on the bus, although it’s not even in the front, but we damn sure are not steering it.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
