I've been researching the "zero-net agenda". It's so out of touch with reality, it's looking like less of a scam and more of a hallucination.
In the middle of the v-e-r-y long WEF outline of that plan, you run into this statement:
"If [CO2] emissions are cut to zero... atmospheric concentrations of CO2 would quickly fall, before eventual…
I've been researching the "zero-net agenda". It's so out of touch with reality, it's looking like less of a scam and more of a hallucination.
In the middle of the v-e-r-y long WEF outline of that plan, you run into this statement:
"If [CO2] emissions are cut to zero... atmospheric concentrations of CO2 would quickly fall, before eventually stabilising at a lower level."
There is no mention of an ideal CO2 ppm level[*]. Or what effect a "quickly" falling CO2 level could have on plant life that is unable to quickly adapt. Or how they will stop the plummeting atmospheric CO2 before it starves out plant life and the entire food chain (including the algae and bugs they expect us to eat).
But they don't seem to notice.
[* The 'ideal' number making the rounds is 350 ppm. Why? Because "countless scientists, climate experts, and governments officials agree" on that number. (MN350)
Said agreement can be traced back to the calculations of one man: NASA physicist James Hansen. That's the guy in charge of Space Studies who became "the father of global warming [sic]." The same guy who in 2007 predicted oceans would "rise 20 feet by 2100"... while actual sea rise 1990-2020 was 10 cm / less than 4 inches... Why is anyone still listening to him??]
I also found a WEF page actually warning us not to expect trees to regulate the CO2 naturally. They admit that "forests can slow the warming of our planet by absorbing around 25%" of CO2 from the air. But "only if the forests are healthy" -- and they warn that forests "might not be" healthy enough to do it.
In the "near future".
In "North America".
Because heat "could" wipe them out, maybe.
Because heat plus drought weakens trees.
Thus, there is a vicious cycle already in motion which we can't stop, so we need their "zero" plan.
What the WEF omitted, which anyone can look up for themselves:
One CAUSE of drought is lower CO2 - their plan will help weaken the trees as a self-fulfilling prediction.
North America has only 18% of the global forests. Gotta wonder why they aren't talking about the other 82%.
Even there, the 'alarming level' of 400 ppm from 1990-2020 caused the USA forests to show a NET GAIN of 2.4%. (Canada saw a miniscule -0.4%.)
It's bizarre that so few rational people even think to fact-check the WEF. But if they are in the grip of a spiritual hallucination, and they are essentially in control, we will need stronger help from Heaven to survive their fit of insanity.
"For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will again. And if those days had not been cut short, no [organic] life would have been saved...." (Matt. 24:21-22)
On the other hand, Live Science last week published some relevant news that made me snicker.
Researchers tracking the results of January's Tonga sea-volcano explosion learned from satellite data that this one NATURAL event pumped so much water vapor into the atmosphere that it added an **extra 10%** to what was there... and this surplus will hang around up there for the next FIVE YEARS.
The open secret of course is that water vapor is by far the most abundant "greenhouse gas"... around 60-70% (compared to CO2 which is less than 1%). And water vapor has that name because it nurtures all "green" plant life and relieves drought. The LS article called this potential "destructive", so you can see they drank the Kooky Klimate Kool-Aid.
But what this means for the WEF lunatics trying to destroy the planet's ecosystem (I suppose in the delusion that this will make it easier to control the food supply):
Everything they worked for can be undone with just a small string of unforeseen and uncontrollable "natural events".
"He who sits in the heavens will laugh; He will have them in derision." (Ps. 2)
Little known but before the global warming scam James Hanson did a paper on Global cooling caused by CO2, late 1970's from memory. Unfortunatley I no longer have a copy and the paper has been scrubbed from the google scholar search I think as I can no longer find the paper
I've been researching the "zero-net agenda". It's so out of touch with reality, it's looking like less of a scam and more of a hallucination.
In the middle of the v-e-r-y long WEF outline of that plan, you run into this statement:
"If [CO2] emissions are cut to zero... atmospheric concentrations of CO2 would quickly fall, before eventually stabilising at a lower level."
There is no mention of an ideal CO2 ppm level[*]. Or what effect a "quickly" falling CO2 level could have on plant life that is unable to quickly adapt. Or how they will stop the plummeting atmospheric CO2 before it starves out plant life and the entire food chain (including the algae and bugs they expect us to eat).
But they don't seem to notice.
[* The 'ideal' number making the rounds is 350 ppm. Why? Because "countless scientists, climate experts, and governments officials agree" on that number. (MN350)
Said agreement can be traced back to the calculations of one man: NASA physicist James Hansen. That's the guy in charge of Space Studies who became "the father of global warming [sic]." The same guy who in 2007 predicted oceans would "rise 20 feet by 2100"... while actual sea rise 1990-2020 was 10 cm / less than 4 inches... Why is anyone still listening to him??]
I also found a WEF page actually warning us not to expect trees to regulate the CO2 naturally. They admit that "forests can slow the warming of our planet by absorbing around 25%" of CO2 from the air. But "only if the forests are healthy" -- and they warn that forests "might not be" healthy enough to do it.
In the "near future".
In "North America".
Because heat "could" wipe them out, maybe.
Because heat plus drought weakens trees.
Thus, there is a vicious cycle already in motion which we can't stop, so we need their "zero" plan.
What the WEF omitted, which anyone can look up for themselves:
One CAUSE of drought is lower CO2 - their plan will help weaken the trees as a self-fulfilling prediction.
North America has only 18% of the global forests. Gotta wonder why they aren't talking about the other 82%.
Even there, the 'alarming level' of 400 ppm from 1990-2020 caused the USA forests to show a NET GAIN of 2.4%. (Canada saw a miniscule -0.4%.)
It's bizarre that so few rational people even think to fact-check the WEF. But if they are in the grip of a spiritual hallucination, and they are essentially in control, we will need stronger help from Heaven to survive their fit of insanity.
"For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will again. And if those days had not been cut short, no [organic] life would have been saved...." (Matt. 24:21-22)
On the other hand, Live Science last week published some relevant news that made me snicker.
Researchers tracking the results of January's Tonga sea-volcano explosion learned from satellite data that this one NATURAL event pumped so much water vapor into the atmosphere that it added an **extra 10%** to what was there... and this surplus will hang around up there for the next FIVE YEARS.
The open secret of course is that water vapor is by far the most abundant "greenhouse gas"... around 60-70% (compared to CO2 which is less than 1%). And water vapor has that name because it nurtures all "green" plant life and relieves drought. The LS article called this potential "destructive", so you can see they drank the Kooky Klimate Kool-Aid.
But what this means for the WEF lunatics trying to destroy the planet's ecosystem (I suppose in the delusion that this will make it easier to control the food supply):
Everything they worked for can be undone with just a small string of unforeseen and uncontrollable "natural events".
"He who sits in the heavens will laugh; He will have them in derision." (Ps. 2)
For the vapor to hang around for five years or so, we must be in some kind of closed system, I would think.
Little known but before the global warming scam James Hanson did a paper on Global cooling caused by CO2, late 1970's from memory. Unfortunatley I no longer have a copy and the paper has been scrubbed from the google scholar search I think as I can no longer find the paper