Suppose for a moment that you are a politician, and thanks to advancing insight, you come to the realization that the policy you are implementing is a lie and a fraud. Will you opt for a different policy, or, out of convenience, will you continue to choose the easiest way out: carry on with the same policy, deceiving the people you serve?

The devil called CO2

For many who get their information from the media, CO2 is a deadly devil that threatens the “survival of the earth”. The earth is overheating, and CO2 is the cause. There must be an energy transition to renewables, because solar and wind are ‘free’ whilst nuclear and fossil fuels are out of the question. The western world foresees “Net Zero” by 2050. Meanwhile, the average citizen sees their energy bills continually rising due to the exorbitant investment needed for sun and wind and due to the extra CO2 taxes on fossil fuel. This is exacerbated by the energy shortage, which is the result of bans and the lack of co-operation from banks in tapping new fossil resources, under pressure from the United Nations. The protagonists claim to “follow science”. Let’s take a closer look at this one.

The nature of science

Religion and science are two different ways of finding truth. The pursuit of science is the search for truth. As the knowledge is built up, however, one notices that new unknowns keep appearing. Scientists can therefore not guarantee that the statements that are correct under current knowledge are also correct in the future. For example, the absolute speed of light in femto-lasers has been replaced by the “group speed” and doubts have also recently arisen about the “Big Bang ” theory due to the images provided by the new James Webb telescope.

On that timeline, there are scientists who are more advanced than others and a field of tension has arisen with regard to the question of who supports the highest level of truth. Dialogue among scientists is therefore essential and offers the best guarantee for optimal further development.

Polarization

Unfortunately, this is certainly no longer the case for climate science. We are dealing with a polarization that is being advanced by media and politicians. This is extremely harmful to future scientific development and to the energy supply. The polarization focuses on abandoning reality testing. Remember, “to measure is to know” is the basis of all science, which is now in sharp contrast to the non-validated modeling supported by the IPCC. A disastrous future for the Western world beckons on the horizon and hopefully the developing countries will not adopt this green technology. Correlation has been allowed to take precedence over causality and that is fake science.

Correlation and Causality

Correlation is a statistical concept that indicates what factors may be related, but as such is insufficient as proof of a certain claim. The latter must be provided by causality and science is essential here. An example. There is a correlation between doctor visits and deaths, everyone would agree. To conclude from this that doctors are the cause of deaths is not correct because there is no causal relationship. We need causation, just as a judge insists on causation to convict someone.

CO2 and life

Is there a causal link between CO2, global warming and the disasters that would result?

To start with: CO2 is not a pollutant but, on the contrary, is essential for the survival of humanity. The combination of sunlight, CO2 and water results in photosynthesis. As a result, with more CO2 plant growth is stimulated, and our energy sources are created to be able to live. No CO2 means no food and therefore death. CO2 is essential for life on earth and is therefore not a polluter.

Numbers

Currently, 150 ppm (parts per million) is stated as the minimum for life on Earth. Measurement data over millions of years show that the earth can handle CO2 very well, in fact maybe even too good for the requirements of the survival of life on earth. Millions of years ago, 7,000 ppm of CO2 (0.7%) was no exception. During the last ice age, about 15,000 years ago, it had been reduced to about 170-180 ppm, close to the 150 ppm lower limit.

How come?

The sea surface covers 70% of the earth’s surface and is therefore the dominant intermediate link. On the one hand, gases and therefore also CO2 can dissolve well in water. In physics this phenomenon is known to be linked to Henry’s law for low concentrations. On the other hand, chemical processes take place in the water, resulting in reactions with, for example, dissolved lime, which is then deposited as limestone. Coral is also an example. As a result, CO2 disappears from the air and is stored in rock which causes the concentrations in the air to fall. The question is therefore: will CO2 fall below 150 ppm during the next ice age in 70,000 years or will we make it to another ice age?

Anthropogenic increase?

The increase in CO2 in the air is therefore in a way essential for the longer survival of life on earth. The anthropogenic CO2 increase is therefore not really a problem. It may even be welcome from that point of view. The plans for the very expensive CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage) that the EU even subsidizes are therefore completely pointless and are a waste of time and money.

The current concentration of about 420 ppm (0.04%) is not only the result of the biological processes on earth and of the anthropogenic 4% due to the burning of fossils, but mainly due to the emissions from seawater according to Henry’s law. This is as a result of the increasing seawater temperature. Accordingly, the solubility of the water decreases and the seas contribute to the rising CO2 concentration in the air. This explains the low CO2 concentration in the air during the last ice age – when the water was colder.

No toxic substance

Also note that people and plants still function well at 6000 ppm CO2 (0.6%) concentrations such as those maintained in closed spaces like submarines, satellites and vegetable greenhouses. CO2 is not a poison even at those concentrations. Tests with rabbits have been done at 65% CO2 and the rabbits did not die, as long as there was enough oxygen. Satellite observations show increasing greening of the earth and resistance by plants to drought conditions increases with increasing CO2. Our food production is increasing and more secure.

Greenhouse gas and urgency

But what about global warming due to the increase in CO2 as a greenhouse gas? Greenhouse gases have thermal properties similar to those of other gases, with the additional property that they can absorb heat energy with a specific vibrational frequency (which then appears as a vibration of the gas molecule) and emit it again a short time later in an arbitrary direction. We call this radiation emission. This is only effective for the earth if it is no longer absorbed by other CO2 molecules. This takes place in the upper air layer TOA (Top of Atmosphere).

An increase in CO2 causes a saturation phenomenon whereby the emission potential decreases with increasing concentrations according to a logarithmic law called saturation. The current concentration of 420 ppm therefore contributes much less to global warming in contrast to the low concentrations at the end of the ice age. Ad Huijser calculated that by 2100 CO2 concentration would only reach 625 ppm:

https://www.climategate.nl/2022/09/pfff-gelukkig-nog-maar-about-06-graden-c-te-gaan/)

provided the current state is continued, and Esschenbach gives a figure of 610-620 ppm (0.06%) but that is a situation that is difficult to achieve due to the accompanying air pollution. This lets him put forward a more realistic figure of 540 ppm. This includes the increase in methane and the consequences of the population pressure of 10 billion people. That would give an extra temperature rise of 0.6°C. This is a worst case scenario that brings us close to the goal of Paris and all of this without intervention. There is no climate urgency.

There’s more to it

The temperature of the earth is determined by several factors, both positive and negative. For example, cloud coverage has decreased by 2% since WWII. That would entail a temperature increase of 1°C (the same as allocated to CO2) and yet the temperature increase was not the sum of both. It is therefore impossible to demonstrate where the current measured rise in temperature comes from. My own measurements show that even the assumption that CO2 is the main cause of the current warming may in fact be wrong:

https://breadonthewater.co.za/2021/11/25/an-inconvenient-truth/

If CO2 (and methane) is the devil incarnate, then there is at least more going on.

The “ Green Energy ” high-voltage grids will continue to grow explosively to reach the “net zero” target by 2050. These networks operate under very high voltage. To control the size of the switching and transmission stations (and windmills) sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) is used as an electrically insulating medium.

This is the worst greenhouse gas on Earth ! It is 22,800 times stronger than CO2 and with an atmospheric lifetime of 3,200 years, 50 to 100 times more than CO2, it is up to almost a quarter of a million times stronger than CO2!

The BBC  https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49567197   writes that already in 2017 the leakage of this greenhouse gas was the equivalent of 1.3 million cars on the road. At that time, solar and wind did not even provide 2% of the total energy consumption. For a “net zero” this means equivalent emissions of more than 65 million cars by 2050. Is it any wonder that the legislator is thinking of banning this gas?

Models are not science: striking mistakes

Climate models have now become the scientific reference for the media and IPCC. But the reality as it appears in observation and measurements is hereby ignored. Models are now becoming the standard and that is a negation of science. Models are used in science to analyze effects. Models are currently impossible to comprehend reality, because the factors affecting weather are far too complex. Yet these are now incorrectly presented by the IPCC as reality. Nothing could be further from the truth because even the assumptions of these models are in conflict with the laws of physics and thermodynamics.

For example, the models assume CO2 as the cause and the temperature change as a consequence. But that is contrary to Henry’s law mentioned above and, moreover, the CO2 concentrations are too low to have any effect. The greenhouse gas water vapor is introduced as an amplifying factor for CO2 in the models. Water vapor is about 100 times more present. But water vapor is not regarded as a greenhouse gas in itself. The result of all this is that the models predict exaggerated future values for temperature. Gavin Schmidt, a NASA director and modeling veteran, called the models “overheated.” It turned out that the models contradicted reality. The models are in fact unreliable. The measurements show periods of constant temperature for more than 5 years – rather than a sustained increase according to the models. This was initially ignored by modelers. Then they called it a pause or a hiatus. This is how they wanted to take the contradiction out of their models. Too bad for them, but those gaps are repeating. For example, in 2016 the last El Ninjo (warm) peak belonging to ENSO ( El Niño Southern Oscillation ) showed a rather declining temperature and this for 6 years. Very exceptionally there were even 3 (cold) la Ninja’s in a row that upset the rain pattern in the Northern Hemisphere. The IPCC models, however, predicted a warm El Ninjo.

There is more. The actual measurements deviate significantly from the predicted temperatures. The deviations even increase up to five times and more with increasing CO2 input. This leads to the conclusion that the CO2 input in the models is counterproductive. Not so surprising because the models use CO2 as the driving force, and this goes against the laws of physics.

And the “disasters”?

Weather and climate are lumped together here and in the media. Actual recordings over 100 years show no connection whatsoever: forest fires, heat waves, floods, etc. are of all ages and times.

However, there are two other important elements that we should not forget.

First, the number of people in the world is increasing exponentially. People prefer to live in “dangerous areas”, because these areas offer them the greatest life opportunities (food, water, transport, energy…). Calamities can therefore affect more people. At the same time, people are taking more risks (e.g. avoiding expense on making levies, etc.). Rising insurance payouts are therefore not proof of rising calamities.

Second: the media. They have become lightning fast and they span the entire earth. But their message is one-sided and supports a culture of fear. Here’s the most recent example: At the end of August 2022, there was a heat wave in Europe- the “highest in the last 40 years”. A few weeks later, in mid-September, some countries were experiencing the coldest period in the northern hemisphere, also for 40 years: e.g. Finland -7.5 °C. It is very quiet in MSM about this because it does not fit into their narrative.

So, do not panic!

Earth’s most reliable temperature measurement is the UAH (University of Alabama Huntsville ) satellite measurement.

https://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/  

The highest temperature was for the El Niño year 2016. After that, the temperature seems to be declining. This is consistent with Arctic ice increase and the current Atlantic hurricane season has had its slowest start in 30 years. The UAH chart shows a measured trend of +0,13°C/decade and is in stark contrast to the IPCC forecasts with extremes reaching 6.5°C in 2100.

There is no climate emergency. 

Do you know, that over 1,100 scientists and scholars agree that there is NO climate emergency – The Rio Times (riotimesonline.com)

Please take the time to read the above article. Neither a political or scientific “consensus” nor legislation can overturn the laws of nature, despite all the climate protests.

Conclusion:

Don’t believe the model builders who see disasters coming on all of us due to the increase in CO2. CO2 is not the devil incarnate. Bad science is. But don’t make a mistake. Bad science was also in play when Verwoerd did his studies in nazi Germany. Look at what chaos that bad science (the devil) caused in the world.

 ……do not believe everything you hear……..

This folktale was recorded by the Brothers Grimm. In the German city of Hamelin there was a rat infestation in 1284. The city council hired a Pied Piper who lured the animals with a flute and then drowned them in the river Weser. The story does not end there, but the rest is not so important here.  The point is that rats always competed with humans for scarce food, especially in the Middle Ages. That is why it was important to keep their numbers low.  My story here is about mis-leadership……

Every theory is based on assumptions. My assumption is that people are not that different from each other. To understand our behavior, we only must just look at history. We see a succession of elites (nobility, princes, landlords, army heads) that profited from the population. They did this by simple taxation and the sale of permits. For example, anno 1600 Queen Elisabeth 1 of England had about 700 patents outstanding. Everything that was for sale at that time was manufactured under a patent. Literally everything was taxed. In York, which I visited recently as a tourist, people used to be taxed on the number of windows in their homes. The inhabitants obviously responded to this by closing some of their windows with bricks. Apparently, this is where the phrase ‘daylight robbery’ came from…

A multitude of words exist to indicate the differences in power: landowners were nobles, the rest of the population were slaves, serfs, lackeys, tenants, farm workers. Let us call them ‘servants’.  The unequal relationships between the nobility and the servants were actually due to the scarcity of energy and raw materials. A single human being could not provide enough energy for a pleasant life. Only a few could therefore lead a life of luxury, at the expense of many others. In the Loire Valley stands the beautiful château Chambord, built in the early 1500s. 2500 servants lived around it. The king stayed here for a few weeks every year, for his vacation…..

The immense social inequality in those days was legitimized by the Roman Catholic Church. They did not take a clear stand against poverty and in most cases conveniently avoided the discussion about it.

Due to primitive technology, scarcity of raw materials and energy was of all times. Land was the only source of energy. To gain more power meant to acquire more energy and for that land had to be conquered. The pursuit of power is considered a primary human urge. However, I think it is secondary to the fear of lack and the fear for being robbed by ‘colleagues’.

Throughout almost all of history, predictions were made that the prevailing lifestyle would not be sustainable. The Romans, who always needed more metals, already complained about this. More wood or peat was always cut, more coal was mined, and more oil and gas pumped up than nature could replenish. Elites wished to maintain their luxury amid scarcity, which necessitated an underclass. Most of the population literally had to be kept “under”, their consumption limited. Low wages were advantageous.

But from 1700 onwards, a major change took place in Europe. Fossil fuels, made possible by better mining, suddenly provided enough energy for everyone. This decoupled land and energy and thus put an end to an important source of income for the nobility, including the cultivation of feed for animals and horses. Machines took over the heavy lifting. The ‘servants’ could now send their children to school.

Incidentally, the end of the coal and later the end of oil supply was continuously predicted. Thomas Malthus (1766 – 1834) calculated that linearly increasing agricultural production would have to give way to the exponentially increasing population and in 1968 Paul Ehrlich published ‘The Population Bomb’. The fact that nothing has come of these doomsday scenarios strangely does not detract from the popularity of the writers. Something similar also applies to the first ‘Report to the Club of Rome’ (‘Limits to growth’, 1972). It is still being touted despite its low predictive value. It reminds us of all those religious sects that climb a mountain in anticipation of the end of time, only to descend again after a few days because they apparently had made a mistake with the date….

However, the fear of scarcity runs deep and the fact that human ingenuity has so far always brought salvation, few wish to remember. During the life of myself and that of my parents, an unparalleled improvement in prosperity has taken place. As a result, a broad class of highly educated and well-to-do has emerged. How will such a group behave? Look at the behavior of the former nobility. The fear of loss and scarcity always translates into limiting other people’s prosperity. In academic circles, the consumer society is denounced. There must be a large new tax on flying. That will teach them! A new underclass is desirable. But how to create it?

Fossil fuels allowed the servants to escape poverty. Satisfactory replacement does not yet exist. An attack on fossil technology is therefore primarily an attack on the freedom and prosperity of the middle- and lower-income classes. That prosperity is provided by industry. Shell & others supply cheap fuel, so we can do something more fun than using our muscle power. One tractor replaces 2000 farm workers, the population of a large school community

With the secularization of societies, God was brought to earth. Nature was canonized. Nature organizations were thus thrown into the lap of the moral compass. Ecologists are now the modern church fathers. Their messages are encyclicals, above criticism. Unfortunately, they are bad soul shepherds. Because instead of love, hope and trust, the green church only spreads fear. Their “Mother Earth” idea is false.  Gas purity is as false as racial purity.  No one will call the stones of his house or the iron of his bicycle “mother”. All of life that exists exploits the earth. There is no choice in this. But putting the spade in your mother now evokes a deep sense of guilt in some. But the earth is not our mother; it is our nest and supplier of building materials. We must carry out the exploitation properly, but with the right technology that is possible. Poverty eradication should be the number one priority. That is what God (Jesus) really wants. But instead, we see an attack on industrial production. High UN representatives declared that the threat of a derailed climate finally offers the opportunity to end capitalism and industrial production. This amounts to striving for a totalitarian society with central planning like the old Soviet Union USSR.

Energy is freedom. It is not for nothing that having a car is the symbol of Western freedom. But the elites cannot exist without an underclass. You create such an underclass by throttling their energy. Windmills, solar panels and biomass (wood) combustion are suddenly rational choices, because they can never provide enough energy for everyone. In addition, huge investments are needed to make their unreliable yield usable. A ruined landscape is apparently not important. Nuclear energy, which may be enough energy for everyone to generate, is demonized. It is now 2022 and not 1284. New pied pipers have appeared. Now no flute playing but sirens of fear for ‘climate change’ and ‘changes in nature.  Not on the way to drowning or great drought but clearly on course to dramatic loss of prosperity. We must make these sacrifices to mother earth “for the future of our children.” Think carefully about that: for the children of the messenger or also yours? I’m not so sure about the latter. Let us be careful not to fall into the selfish amoral behavior of the old nobility and anti-Christian tyrants. There is enough room in this world for everyone. With the right technology, there is also enough energy for everyone. Human ingenuity has prevented all doomsday scenarios so far. Do not become a pied piper and be careful not to be labeled as a rat.

Postscript for discussion

My own work over the last 10 years has shown me that we are dealing with a giga HOAX when it comes to ‘the climate emergency’. It is a fairy tale, a feast of the elites, an entertainment of the media but above all the greatest scientific error ever, e.g.

Global Warming: How and Where? | Bread on the water

During the previous four interglacials it was warmer or as warm as it is now.  In Cape Town I can show you that in earlier times the water was 30 meters higher than now.  However, it is not only about the carbon dioxide hunt. There’s a lot more to it than that.

Ownership means power. Big owners have a lot of power, small owners a little and the dispossessed have none. Whoever owns nothing has to rent everything. That costs multiples. The WEF is a club of large owners and their vassals. Unlike their violent aristocratic distant predecessors, they exercise their power by controlling mass communication. ‘Mind Control’. We, the servants, are the end users of finite raw materials, which they themselves think they need; so we are harmful. We must disappear. Their most formidable opponents are the small owners. They save themselves and can resist. That is why farmers, fishermen, other small self-employed people, such as shopkeepers, must disappear. Even homeowners are not dependent enough on large owners, the big money. So, they must be eliminated. It’s not about climate, CO2, nitrogen, pandemics, nature or whatever. One-child coercion failed; condoms and birth control pills do not catch on sufficiently. Increased mortality, due to lack of energy, war, poverty, hunger and cold is more effective. In a nutshell, this is the trajectory in which we are steered.

It implies a paradox. Abolishing property affects not only those in power, but also smallholders, the backbone of the counterforce. Lenin and Stalin saw that well. They created a fresh violent elite and eliminated independent farmers and citizens. The WEF clique does so in a way that makes those affected believe that they are doing well. Taxes on basic necessities and small-scale property and, above all, money creation to fund worthless “charities” meet less resistance than anyone evicting you from your home. And the result is the same. Believe me, or don’t believe me. It’s just me. But a simple calculation will show you what is happening. It is frightening. The rich are getting richer, and the rest is getting poorer. No discussion possible:

https://breadonthewater.co.za/2022/02/10/so-who-is-speaking-for-the-people/

  De Rattenvanger van Hamelen:

…..geloof niet alles…..

Dit volksverhaal werd opgetekend door de gebroeders Grimm. In de Duitse stad Hamelen heerste anno 1284 een rattenplaag. Het bestuur van de stad huurde een rattenvanger in die de dieren lokte met een fluit en ze vervolgens in de rivier de Wezer liet verdrinken. Het verhaal is hiermee niet afgelopen, maar de rest is hier niet zo van belang. Waar het om gaat: ratten concurreerden altijd met de mens om het schaarse voedsel, zeker in de Middeleeuwen. Daarom was het zaak hun aantallen laag te houden. Het gaat in mijn verhaal om de mis-leiding……

Elke theorie berust wel op aannames. Mijn aanname is dat mensen in de kern niet zo erg veel van elkaar verschillen. Om ons gedrag te begrijpen hoeven we dus de geschiedenis maar te bekijken. Dan zien we een aaneenschakeling van elites (adel, vorsten, landheren, leger hoofden) die de bevolking uitzuigden. Dat deden dezen met heffingen (belasting) en de verkoop van vergunningen. Anno 1600 had bv. koningin Elisabeth 1 van Engeland zo’n 700 patenten uitstaan. Alles wat in die tijd te koop was werd onder een patent gefabriceerd. Op letterlijk alles werd belasting geheven. In York, waar ik onlangs als tourist was, werden de mensen heel vroeger belast op de hoeveelheid vensters in hun huis. Het publiek reageerde daarop om dan maar een aantal vensters dicht te metselen. Dat kun je daar dus echt zien. Daar kwam de uitdrukking ‘daylight robbery’ vandaan…

Een veelvoud aan woorden bestaat om de verschillen in macht aan te duiden: landeigenaren waren edelen, de rest van de bevolking waren slaven, lijfeigenen, horigen, lakeien, pachters, landarbeiders, bedienden (laten we ze de pieten noemen). Die ongelijke machtsverhoudingen waren eigenlijk het gevolg van schaarste aan energie en grondstoffen. Een enkel mens kon op deze breedtegraad niet genoeg energie leveren voor een aangenaam leven. Slechts enkelen konden daarom een luxe leven leiden, ten koste van vele anderen. In de Loire vallei staat het prachtige kasteel Chambord, gebouwd begin 1500. Er omheen woonden destijds 2500 horigen en bediendes. De koning verbleef hier jaarlijks een weekje, voor zijn vakantie…..(foto ver onderaan)

De grote maatschappelijk ongelijkheid in die dagen werd gelegitimeerd door de RK kerk. Zij deden geen uitspraak over de armoede en onttrekten zich meestal gerieflijk aan de discussie.

Door primitieve technologie was schaarste aan grondstoffen en energie van alle tijden. Land was de enige energiebron. Meer macht verwerven was dus eigenlijk meer energie verwerven en daarvoor moest land worden veroverd. Het streven naar macht wordt wel beschouwd als een primaire menselijke drang. Ik denk echter dat het ondergeschikt is aan de angst voor gebrek en ook angst voor de rovende medemens.

De hele geschiedenis door is voorspeld dat de heersende levensstijl niet duurzaam kon zijn. De Romeinen die vooral metalen nodig hadden, klaagden hier al over. Altijd werd meer hout gekapt, meer turf gestoken, meer kolen gedolven of olie en gas opgepompt dan wat de natuur kon aanvullen. Elites wensten te midden van schaarste hun luxe te behouden wat een onderklasse noodzakelijk maakte. Het overgrote deel van de bevolking moest er letterlijk “onder” worden gehouden, hun consumptie beperkt. De lage lonen waren ook voordelig.

Maar vanaf 1700 vond er in Europa een grote verandering plaats. Fossiele brandstoffen, mogelijk geworden door betere mijnbouw, zorgden opeens voor genoeg energie voor iedereen. Zij ontkoppelden land en energie en maakten daarmee een einde aan een belangrijke inkomstenbron van de adel o.a. het verbouwen van voer voor dieren en paarden. Machines namen het zware werk over. De ‘pieten’  konden nu hun kinderen naar school sturen.

Overigens werd doorlopend het einde voorspeld van de kolen-, en later de olievoorraad. Thomas Malthus (1766 – 1834) becijferde dat een lineair toenemende landbouwproductie het wel zou moeten afleggen tegen de exponentieel toenemende bevolking en in 1968 publiceerde Paul Ehrlich ‘The Population Bomb‘. Dat van deze doemscenario’s niets is uitgekomen doet vreemd genoeg niets af aan de populariteit van de schrijvers. Iets dergelijks geldt ook voor het eerste ‘Rapport aan de Club van Rome’ (‘Grenzen aan de groei’, 1972). Het wordt nog steeds aangeprezen ondanks de geringe voorspellende waarde. Het is net als al die sektes die, in afwachting van het einde der tijden, ergens een berg beklimmen om na enkele dagen weer af te dalen omdat men zich blijkbaar toch in de datum had vergist….

De angst voor gebrek zit er diep in, en dat het menselijk vernuft tot nu toe steeds redding bracht, wensen weinigen zich te herinneren. Tijdens het leven van mijzelf en dat van mijn ouders heeft zich een weergaloze welvaartsverbetering voltrokken. Daardoor is een brede klasse ontstaan van hoogopgeleiden en welgestelden. Hoe gaat zo’n groep zich gedragen? Bekijk daarvoor het gedrag van de vroegere adel. De vrees voor verlies en schaarste vertaalt zich steeds weer in het beperken van andermans welvaart. In academische kringen wordt de consumptiemaatschappij verketterd. Er moet een nieuwe belasting op het vliegen komen. Dat zal ze leren! Een nieuwe onderklasse is gewenst. Maar hoe die te creëren?

Fossiele brandstoffen maakten dat de pieten zich aan armoede konden ontworstelen. Vervanging bestaat nog steeds niet. Een aanval op fossiele technologie is dus vooral een aanval op de vrijheid en welvaart van de midden- en lagere inkomensklassen. Die welvaart wordt geleverd door de industrie. Unilever fabriceert het hele assortiment van Kruidvat. Shell levert goedkope brandstof, waardoor wij iets leukers kunnen doen dan onze spierkracht inzetten. Eén tractor vervangt 2000 landarbeiders, de populatie van een grote scholengemeenschap

Met de ontkerkelijking werd God naar de aarde verplaatst. De natuur werd heilig verklaard. Natuurorganisaties werden zo het morele kompas in de schoot geworpen. Zij zijn de moderne kerkvaders. Hun boodschappen zijn encyclieken, boven kritiek verheven. Helaas zijn het slechte zielenherders. Want in plaats van liefde, hoop en vertrouwen verspreidt de groene kerk slechts angst. Hun “Moeder Aarde” idee is vals. Gas zuiverheid is net zo vals als ras zuiverheid. Niemand zal de stenen van zijn huis of het ijzer van zijn fiets “moeder” noemen. Al het wereld leven exploiteert de aarde, daarin is geen keuze mogelijk. Toch, de spade in je moeder zetten roept bij sommige mensen een diep schuldgevoel op. Maar….de aarde is onze moeder niet. Het is ons nest en leverancier van bouwmaterialen. Die exploitatie moeten we wel netjes uitvoeren maar met de juiste technologie is dat mogelijk. Armoedebestrijding dient prioriteit nummer één te zijn. Maar in plaats daarvan zien we een aanval op de industriële productie. Hoge VN vertegenwoordigers verklaarden dat de dreiging van een ontspoord klimaat uiteindelijk de kans biedt een einde te maken aan kapitalisme en industriële productie. Dat komt eigenlijk weer neer op het streven naar een totalitaire samenleving met centrale planning zoals de oude Soviet Unie USSR.

Energie is vrijheid. Niet voor niets is de auto het symbool van de westerse vrijheid. Elites bestaan niet zonder onderklasse. Zo’n onderklasse schep je eenvoudig door het afknijpen van hun energie. Windmolens, zonnepanelen en stook van biomassa (hout) zijn dan opeens wel rationele keuzes, want daarmee is nooit voldoende energie te leveren voor iedereen. Bovendien zijn enorme investeringen nodig om hun onbetrouwbare opbrengst inzetbaar te maken. Een verpest landschap is kennelijk niet meer van belang.

Kernenergie, waarmee wel misschien genoeg energie voor iedereen is op te wekken, wordt gedemoniseerd. Het is nu 2022 en niet 1284. Nieuwe rattenvangers zijn verschenen. Nu geen fluitspel maar sirenes van angst voor kimaatverandering en veranderingen in de natuur. Niet op weg naar een verdrinkingsdood of grote droogte maar naar dramatisch welvaartsverlies. Wij moeten deze offers aan moeder aarde brengen ‘voor de toekomst van onze kinderen’. Denk daar goed over na: voor de kinderen van de boodschapper of ook die van u? Van dat laatste ben ik niet zo zeker. Laten wij oppassen niet te vervallen in het egoïstische amorele gedrag van de oude vorsten en anti-christelijke tirannen. Er is op deze wereld genoeg plaats voor iedereen. Met de juiste technologie is er ook genoeg energie voor iedereen. Het menselijk vernuft heeft alle doemscenario’s tot nu toe weten te voorkomen. Wees geen rattenvanger en pas op niet zelf tot rat te worden bestempeld.

Naschrift 1 (ter discussie)

Het stikstof probleem bestaat helemaal niet. Het stikstof monster is slechts een gecreëerd Nederlands politiek probleem en heeft weinig met natuur zelf uit te staan. ‘Het gaat slecht met de natuur in Nederland’ is namelijk een halve waarheid tot een hele leugen.

Gemeten in 2020 is er 20% meer wilde en schrale natuur in Nederland sinds 1970, dit proces wordt aangeduid als ‘natuurbouw’ of als het ’teruggeven’ van grond aan de natuur. Ook de biodiversiteit in die gebieden nam toe en niet af.

Sinds 1970 kwamen er nieuwe natuurgebieden in de Oostvaardersplassen (voor hoefdieren), Lepelaarplassen, Lauwersmeer, Markerwadden, bredere Maas en Rijn uiterwaarden en uitstroomgebieden, Hedwigepolder. Het ‘Groene Hart’ in Nederland kreeg beschermingsstatus. Brabant kreeg sinds 2015 10.000 ha nieuwe natuur en komt totaal op 100.000 ha natuur. Tussen 1990 en 2012 is er in de provincie Utrecht al meer dan 5.000 hectare landbouwgrond omgevormd tot natuurterreinen.

Nederlandse nationale parken hebben er in 2018 ruim drieduizend hectare nieuw ingerichte natuurgebieden bij gekregen en ook de betere kwaliteit van de natuurgebieden was zichtbaar.

Naschrift 2 (ter discussie)

Mijn eigen werk over de laatste 10 jaar hebben mij laten zien dat we hebben te maken met een giga HOAX als het gaat om klimaatnoodtoestand. Het is een sprookje, een spelletje van de elites, een vermakelijkheid van de media maar bovenal de grootste wetenschappelijk dwaling ooit.

Tijdens de vorige vier interglacialen was het warmer of net zo warm als nu. In Kaapstad kan ik je laten zien dat het water in vroegere tijden 30 meter hoger stond als nu. Het gaat echter niet alleen om de koolzuurgas jacht. Er is veel meer aan de hand.

Bezit geeft macht. Grootbezitters hebben veel macht, kleinbezitters een beetje en bezitlozen hebben geen. Wie niets bezit moet alles huren. Dat kost een veelvoud. Het WEF is een club van grootbezitters en hun vazallen. In tegenstelling tot hun gewelddadige aristocratische verre voorgangers oefenen zij hun macht uit door de massacommunicatie te beheersen. ‘Mind Control’. Wij, de anderen, zijn opmakers van eindige grondstoffen, die zij zelf nodig denken te hebben, dus schadelijk. Wij moeten verdwijnen. Hun geduchtste tegenstanders zijn de kleinbezitters. Die redden zichzelf en kunnen verzet bieden. Daarom moeten boeren, vissers, andere kleine zelfstandigen, zoals winkeliers, verdwijnen. Ook eigen huis bezitters zijn niet afhankelijk genoeg van grootbezitters, het grote geld. Elimineren dus. Het gaat helemaal niet om klimaat, CO2, stikstof, COVID, natuur of wat ook. Eén-kind dwang mislukte (China); condooms en anti-conceptiepillen slaan niet voldoende aan. Verhoogde sterfte, door energie-gebrek, oorlog, armoede, honger en kou is effectiever. Dit is in een notendop het traject waarin we gestuurd lijken te worden.

Het impliceert een paradox. Bezit afschaffen treft niet alleen machthebbers, maar ook kleinbezitters, de ruggengraat van de tegenkracht. Lenin en Stalin zagen dat goed. Die creëerden een verse gewelddadige elite en elimineerden zelfstandige boeren en burgers. De WEF-kliek doet dat op een manier die de getroffenen laat geloven goed bezig te zijn. Belastingen op eerste levensbehoeften en kleinbezit en bovenal geldschepping om waardeloze goede doelen te financieren, ontmoeten minder weerstand. En het resultaat is hetzelfde. Geloof mij, of geloof mij niet. U merkt vanzelf wel wat uw volgnummer is op de dodenlijst voor de ‘goede’ zaak. Rijk word rijker en de rest word armer, heel duidelijk, geen discussie over mogelijk. Lees het verslag hier:

http://www.clepair.net/trend-wealthdistribution&consequences.pdf

The shorter version of the above article is here:

So, who is speaking for the people? | Bread on the water

Aanbevolen literatuur:

https://www.bol.com/nl/nl/p/geloof-niet-alles/9300000118255410/?bltgh=ipivJKNyTLIpzJbbTn9Apg.4_13.15.ProductTitle

Het Kasteel Chambord, gebouwd net na ca. 1500 AD