Frederick R Smith has moved to Frederick R. Smith Speaks (substack.com)
As an up-front disclosure, I have no formal education in climate change. But, claim a lifetime of work experience in a field that uses a lot of energy to manufacture fixed and moving infrastructure and propel the moving equipment. As such, the cult-like Gretta projection of a teenager is an insult to my intelligence. Time Magazine's person of the year 2019. How nice.
Friends we are subject to gaslighting. A never-ending storyline framed in a 24-7 projection with a 1984 like setting proclaiming that carbon dioxide gas (CO2) is a pollutant. Dare one raise a simple question? Expect the Pavlov dog response: “You’re a climate denier.” Worse than a Holocaust denier, or might, dare I say, face hate speech charges against god Mother Nature. Because of my education in science in high school, long before science became politicized, I know better.
Of course, we all want a clean environment. Too much of almost anything can be problematic, like floodwaters. But to say CO2 is a pollutant (listen to the news) is like saying water is a pollutant. It is a necessary element for life on earth. Plants take in CO2 and give off oxygen. Nevertheless, we are drowning in a carpet bombing of information on one element of a much larger planet earth issue. There are a lot of practical questions requiring answers. While ignored by 1984 projectors, IMHO these items need addressing.
The 1984 puppet’s Green New Deal rejects carbon-based energy, despite technologies to scrub emissions. If so, then how do we build and support the infrastructure to send along the so-called renewables? If there was a never-ending supply (a fiction) of metal scrap, it still takes a lot of electrical energy to power an electric-arc furnace. Will renewables ever be able to provide that kind of peak energy? That is not a trick question.
Do the 1984s have any clue about the materials and manufacturing to make their high-speed trains? Let us not forget the manufacturing impact of new rails, crossties, ballast rock, and bridges. And so many trees removed to make the right-of-way! Seems the rest of the environment has taken a back seat to the force-fed “news” about the evil type of CO2. Consider several high-speed rail projects dropped or delayed. Reason: hyper-expensive Environmental Impact Statement studies and reports. Do they think there will be no opposition from the people with high-speed trains in their back yards?
News flash, it takes energy to propel trains, as energy-efficient as they are. How about oil and gas for plastics for medical equipment? Do we stop carbon-based mining for things such as life-saving medicines? Methinks the 1984s know these pesky details but some of their well-spoken (sic.) puppets do not (hint: AOC).
No matter the form of energy, there are effects. For example, the production of the minerals to make the batteries to store energy. We have nonexistent means to dispose of used batteries from home electronic devices. Imagine the bigger picture. The damage to the farmlands from ethanol production is a doozy. Solar panel farms will become toxic waste sites at the end of their service lives. The list goes on and on, but these few items get the point across. And oh, the hypocrisy of the 1984s. The Illuminati sure opposed the plan to build wind farms in their back yards like the waters of Cape Cod.
Do we move forward with some choices in energy produced with sound science? Long-term realities addressed for responsible energy production? I sure hope so, or do we go with a short-sighted force-fed “solution” that will make us serfs under the New World Order Leviathan?
Is global warming (oh, sorry — climate change) a result of humankind? Partly of course, like the atmospheric CO2 fluctuations long before the industrial revolution. Oh, darn I forgot, human CO2 is evil, and nature’s CO2 is angelic (human CO2 has an extra quark or something like that). There are other green-house influences such as sun cycles. Dare ask that question, as that is heresy under the 1984’s playbook.
Rest assured there no hidden agenda in these words. I am not beholden to anybody nor a corporate entity. Sure, in decades past there was a lot of irresponsible pollution going on and some today. Thanks to innovation we have reduced pollution. That is a keyword — a broader term that incorporates more than evil CO2. Emissions dropped in the USA due to the transfer of manufacturing elsewhere in the world. We know the “made in” label on products. Do these other locations have the same CO2 or real pollution restrictions? Crickets from the 1984s.
Like most things, follow the money. Who will make a lot of green (pun intended) from the
manufacturing and building the Green New Deal infrastructure? Big business under the direction of the 1984s. Let us remove politics and enter sound science to face the challenge to sustain life on planet earth.
Enough of the mind-numbing “the science is settled” mantra. It sure would be nice to see an honest discussion between honest scientists in the related fields of study. How about an analysis of the impact on the environment if we blindly and sheepishly accept the Green New Deal? An Environmental Impact Statement addressing the Green New Deal is in order.
A sincere thanks go to those reading this essay.
Frederick R. Smith
Friends we are subject to gaslighting. A never-ending storyline framed in a 24-7 projection with a 1984 like setting proclaiming that carbon dioxide gas (CO2) is a pollutant. Dare one raise a simple question? Expect the Pavlov dog response: “You’re a climate denier.” Worse than a Holocaust denier, or might, dare I say, face hate speech charges against god Mother Nature. Because of my education in science in high school, long before science became politicized, I know better.
Of course, we all want a clean environment. Too much of almost anything can be problematic, like floodwaters. But to say CO2 is a pollutant (listen to the news) is like saying water is a pollutant. It is a necessary element for life on earth. Plants take in CO2 and give off oxygen. Nevertheless, we are drowning in a carpet bombing of information on one element of a much larger planet earth issue. There are a lot of practical questions requiring answers. While ignored by 1984 projectors, IMHO these items need addressing.
The 1984 puppet’s Green New Deal rejects carbon-based energy, despite technologies to scrub emissions. If so, then how do we build and support the infrastructure to send along the so-called renewables? If there was a never-ending supply (a fiction) of metal scrap, it still takes a lot of electrical energy to power an electric-arc furnace. Will renewables ever be able to provide that kind of peak energy? That is not a trick question.
Do the 1984s have any clue about the materials and manufacturing to make their high-speed trains? Let us not forget the manufacturing impact of new rails, crossties, ballast rock, and bridges. And so many trees removed to make the right-of-way! Seems the rest of the environment has taken a back seat to the force-fed “news” about the evil type of CO2. Consider several high-speed rail projects dropped or delayed. Reason: hyper-expensive Environmental Impact Statement studies and reports. Do they think there will be no opposition from the people with high-speed trains in their back yards?
News flash, it takes energy to propel trains, as energy-efficient as they are. How about oil and gas for plastics for medical equipment? Do we stop carbon-based mining for things such as life-saving medicines? Methinks the 1984s know these pesky details but some of their well-spoken (sic.) puppets do not (hint: AOC).
No matter the form of energy, there are effects. For example, the production of the minerals to make the batteries to store energy. We have nonexistent means to dispose of used batteries from home electronic devices. Imagine the bigger picture. The damage to the farmlands from ethanol production is a doozy. Solar panel farms will become toxic waste sites at the end of their service lives. The list goes on and on, but these few items get the point across. And oh, the hypocrisy of the 1984s. The Illuminati sure opposed the plan to build wind farms in their back yards like the waters of Cape Cod.
Do we move forward with some choices in energy produced with sound science? Long-term realities addressed for responsible energy production? I sure hope so, or do we go with a short-sighted force-fed “solution” that will make us serfs under the New World Order Leviathan?
Is global warming (oh, sorry — climate change) a result of humankind? Partly of course, like the atmospheric CO2 fluctuations long before the industrial revolution. Oh, darn I forgot, human CO2 is evil, and nature’s CO2 is angelic (human CO2 has an extra quark or something like that). There are other green-house influences such as sun cycles. Dare ask that question, as that is heresy under the 1984’s playbook.
Rest assured there no hidden agenda in these words. I am not beholden to anybody nor a corporate entity. Sure, in decades past there was a lot of irresponsible pollution going on and some today. Thanks to innovation we have reduced pollution. That is a keyword — a broader term that incorporates more than evil CO2. Emissions dropped in the USA due to the transfer of manufacturing elsewhere in the world. We know the “made in” label on products. Do these other locations have the same CO2 or real pollution restrictions? Crickets from the 1984s.
Like most things, follow the money. Who will make a lot of green (pun intended) from the
manufacturing and building the Green New Deal infrastructure? Big business under the direction of the 1984s. Let us remove politics and enter sound science to face the challenge to sustain life on planet earth.
Enough of the mind-numbing “the science is settled” mantra. It sure would be nice to see an honest discussion between honest scientists in the related fields of study. How about an analysis of the impact on the environment if we blindly and sheepishly accept the Green New Deal? An Environmental Impact Statement addressing the Green New Deal is in order.
A sincere thanks go to those reading this essay.
Frederick R. Smith
No comments:
Post a Comment