Changing Climate

The apparent encouragement of reducing the output of CO2 as the prime cause of climate change is not matched by authoritarian (state) attitude, but expensive 'answers' using public (taxpayers') money to reveal the sham for what it is.

Greenhouse Gas
Methane (x20 potency of CO2)
Nitrous Oxide (x300 potency of CO2)
Nitrogen Dioxide

Any real desire to combat the beliefs for the causes of global warming is clearly very, very poor, especially in the UK. Thirty years from now:

2050

• Records of depths of several metres reached in flooding (over 200 years ago) cannot be attributed to the 21st century 'rationalisation' of global warming: raised carbon dioxide levels 'caused by use of fossil fuels'.

Assertions are still constantly made that
the only reason for climate change

is the raised level of carbon dioxide
and that the issue is settled

The policy is nearly always to penalise the consumer financially and yet cause a minimal deleterious commercial effect and actually enhance trading opportunities. Developing more efficient engines is good business for car manufacturers as the environmentally friendly new car has the associated 'feel good factor' that appeals to polluters with a conscience. Like it or not any car (be it petrol or diesel fuelled) owner is a polluter. The obvious approach to a really sincere attitude towards climate change would start with discouraging the use of fossil fuel completely rather that attempting to simply offset the fatal consequences. Only when it all does eventually run out will fossil fuels cease to be a problem. All the cars and other vehicles become useless literally overnight as life stops. The societal mayhem and the resulting slow and inevitable death of all life will be the result. But then it's too late, of course.

It seems that paradoxically to the myth, Nero was very proactive after the fire in Rome, using his own money (wherever it came from). This shows an attitude global governments, especially the military junta in Burma, could adopt.

The mask of illusion attempts to hide the incontrovertible fact that it will ultimately run out. Nuclear energy is not a solution either. Longer term it will inevitably lead to a similar destruction of the entire planet.

Dependency of nuclear power on fossil fuels

Destruction can only happen once in any epoch and it is just the cause of that destruction that is of concern. The planet will recover in a few million years without the human race and most other living creatures. Rotting organic matter of today will become the oil of the future. The really long-term approach must involve harnessing the electrical power in thunderstorms, tidal and wind power. The Moon orbits the Earth and has done since the beginning of its history. These resources are free and naturally occurring. The real challenge to human ingenuity and creativity should be focused on these sources. It just seems too difficult and the long-term view is the least profitable. No quick money can be made, but a dead planet provides no financial feedback either.

What is the importance of money when there is no food to buy? The logical end-game results in the total annihilation of life and its home, planet Earth. Paradoxically, mankind wants to enter the desert of destruction and pay the entrance fee in full. Where would the perceived money go? Nowhere. All the money in Hell could never buy any water necessary to put out the fires.

Structure

Logically, it would seem sensible to discourage the use of fossil fuels and not touch the essential resource of food. Similarly, the use of paper to provide 'junk mail' that is usually destroyed before producing any type of perceived return, is a major contributor in the destruction of the forests of the planet. Together with sugar cane (the source of ethanol in the gasohol fuel), deforestation works against survival for the planet and its inhabitants.

Abiogenic

The entire philosophy of fossil fuels and carbon dioxide production can be challenged by considering alternative ways that materials such as hydrocarbon oils can be produced that do not have biological origins.

Is this simply commercial (financial) lunacy or something more sinister? One argument leads to the deliberate, and very selective, culling of the human race. This melds with the 'richer' and 'poorer' philosophy. The poor are expendable so what is the explanation for offering discounted IVF In Africa? This will encourage the birth rate in a population that even now cannot feed itself. Where is the logic here unless exploitation is the aim: to harvest embryos for any genetically based (IVF) 'research' and that could theoretically generate continued, but genetically altered life.

Exploitation even plays on the 'needs' of the 'richer' nations and the scientists who are sincerely engaged in Alzheimer and Parkinson's diseases. The aged population is encouraged so increasing the numbers of elderly people who are (usually) the sufferers. There is a common theme here: increase that part of the population that will be an Alzheimer or Parkinson patient. Notably, the elderly are farmed out of the NHS cradle and into private nursing or residential homes. So cost is just transferred back to the public purse though ironically created with public money to finance private enterprises and the practice encouraged.

Ironically suggests accidental rather than any part of a cohesive, deliberate plan.