1 Introduction
Is *it* a myth? A part in series of OMNM On Mother Nature & Materialism.
Having a relative who study this, and for that very desiny-cal reason, having stumbled upon deniers of intense and weak sorts, It’s nothing less than a must for me to get clear(er) on this !!
Time has come, it’s of imperativeness for ALL OF US to see if this is veritas or not.
I’m all for caring and cooperating with our greatest ally, our birther, the true Matrixc, Nature. In the wise and right form, though. Not anything with a religious agenda. Sheer pragmatism and care and affection. Working on what’s worthwhile and not erroneous.
First off, is there any point in running numbers?
Not meticiously so
First off, we only feed the god of money, now also god of climate change.
Are we to change, or is the climate changing, as response to our change?
There are people who argue we saved ourselves burning all that oil in the 1900s.
Peter Clack has CEC (convergent evolution of conclusion) as to Logan Rieger.
Logan Rieger said to me, all Carbon is Life.
That struck very adhesively, and for a good reason I think
It’s so first principle that it must be kept in mind, especiall when doing these enourmsly novel things be it attempting to modify cow fart or carbon taxes.
2 Meat and potato
2.1 Formula for photosynthesis & respiration (life sustaining & omni-present)
The basix are best it’s said:
For plantsa
I: 12H2O + 6CO2 + Sunb -> 6CH2O + 6O2
For usa, reverse:
II: 12CH2O + 6O2 -> 12H2O + 6CO2 + Warmthb
Exhale ratios for plants and animals
If it is that high 40k co2 in huam nexhale, it is not surprising
For one MOLECULE of Glucose, there’s 6 CO2 Molecules^(3)
https://twitter.com/PeterDClack/status/1848521216568742088
Ok so Dr Patrick Moore
was once in greenpeace, not anymore; “former activist” according to wikipedia.
So, does this indicate what I speculate?
You join a enivormental organization on x premise, finding out y and realizing first principles are OFF.
X premise being ahh co2 bad, global warming etc.
Potency of gases
CH4’s greater. Yh answer lies in bonds Perhaps. Is it comfyer than co2? As, what is its willingness to react compared to co2? carbon has 4 valence electrons, all (as v.e- always are) ready and eager to react, form a novel compound. co2 has double bonds. ch4 all got covalent. latter more stable. Hence, mooooar NRG to rip apart. does it’s bond-breaking got nothin to do with its heat trapping properties?
Better digestion less farta. but it goes somewhere? more proper metabolism?
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DIT5U6uCLjt/?igsh=Zjk1cmp0bmh2dnY=
ch4 methane shorter lifespan but when alive exerts a greater ‘heating’ effect
“heating potentail” difference cmpared to heat encapsulating power?
Gases, by the way, in this scope, they trap heat. this understanding is signifcant. it is it’s ‘modus operandi’, it’s way of doing the alleged bad-ness.
2.1a 2Sizes of molecules ATOMS RATHER
Does tie neatly into wheter we breathe oxygen or not
What’d be useful is comparing Nitrogen and Carbon size!
Carbon way bigger. Why?
Answer lies in it’s atomatic structure, so not necesseraily the period of elements but there we can SEE it.
Nitrogen 53 p piko m meter
Carbon, 67.
https://periodictable.com/Properties/A/AtomicRadius.v.html
2.2b As you can see, quite a few different takes , offers.
Ah hold on, We ahve Tom Cowan saying carbon is greater in size than Nitrogen, comparing it with Keeping an elephant in the room and keeping hte mosquites out ; elephant – C, Mosquitoes – nitrogen
https://periodictable.com/index.html
dssdf
CO2- MOUTH BREATHING AXIS
Had to see if I was convicted and there was grounds to cover where it could be good. no not even then, thats mouh breathing. conclusion again, cool.
co2 altitude axis. 3% 300m
Archeolgoy history of Earth Tellus -cene time periods. and animals look. EVOLUTION
“Climate thief”
“Never mind the logical fallacy of blaming a Feminine Principle (of energy) for destrying a Feminine planet whose plundering predators they are. Krivda Reittort P.200
Miljöbov bov being thief in Swe, and rebrackated bov-ine.
Animalae, primarily the ‘purer’ and more nutrient dense, namely those form cattle; butter, cheese, milk and not least, RED MEAT.
Word sounds religious. Should ring all sorts of bells. Loud and many. The foods did nothing, except become ‘dead’ so we can consume them. Who is the thief?
Stealing or manipulating our sense of guilt and sin, they do the high priests of climate change. As the animal CANNOT be thief it self under no circumstance, as its life is not so much free will unless being a feral, wild, animal.
So it must be us, with a huge caveat(!) if all this is true.
How’s it looking so far?
Here’s what I thought earlier:
It is us, humans, or the food to blame? Food being both well lived animals now butchered and the food we eat
Read somewhere about the sea taking in tons of co2 to. Literally:
Neither
its the nOVA4
Here we need to be familiar with a few concepts, one being direct consumption
Which is how much food is actually ingested.
This number usually is proximatated, rather directly, to be the amount of provision sold by grocery stories, perhaps even restaurants
To mention that, we see that we don’t eat it all
The ‘inedible’ part of say fruit is also counted in for how much waste is done; person/kg/year. This is an average. And it’s not real in the sense it’s how much each and every one eats
It’s for bioindivudality, preference, cost, beliefs etc. Reasons.
Direktkonsumtion efter Vara, Variabel och År. PxWeb
11.5kg 365 (days of the year in this calendar) / ~= 0315068493150685kg / day
(I don’t even eat that much, maybe it’s the optimal)
Currently I do 150g / day.
(The beauty of math
Were it the opposite, 365 / 11.5 it becomes 31, the numbers are same in that sense but they change in magntidue for so does the other side of the equal sign, the division.
3 GtC. Gigatonnes Carbon
The relevant magnitude for measuring it in gas-waste?
3 Dear cows
Yes good intention from the climate change-ers.
Is it good to supress enzyme?
What do they do?
Vital functions
belching (eructation) BURP and flatulence (farting)
3nitrooxypropanol
—
3 Fa(r)t from bovine. Cattle
Been used a scapegoat
This filled in a hole for me !
” Here is an excerpt: “Our brains are two-thirds fat. Of that, 20% is supposed to be comprised of an omega-3 fatty acid called DHA. There are no plant sources of DHA, only animal sources. There is a plant source of a precursor to DHA (docosahexanoic acid) called ALA (alpha-linoleic acid), but the body is only capable of converting less than 10% of it, at most, into the DHA. Some studies find the conversion rate to be zero. What happens when you don’t get enough DHA? Bad things.””
4 Temperatur of it all
What’s this supposed to mean? Earth set on fire?
20 deg celsius
5 Food production
make less co2 in production → meat and dairy consumers less co2e. sin?
6 Electric cars
Microwave?
Extraction of metals
Short and long term CO2 (still inside the cluster, not seeing through that itself)
7 Health side of it
Human
Plant
One source I found in anabology’s post is that plants grow best at 100ppm (1).
And here we are with people losing their minds with ppm increasing (Greta Thunberg was born at 375 ppm) (6)
Sure we might be throwing fuel on the fire, accelerating the ppm increase and its effects.
Cont. PPM
A magnitude lower than promille, per thousand
1800 ppm
2100 ppm
https://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=4058125&fileOId=4058227
Mate it ties into our HUman History
- Dinosaurs engineered the apocalypse themselves, some survivied, now they are Greys, Intelligent Dinos https://x.com/HotdogDogma/status/1897319171358425490
- We back-evolved, started as humans (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xr7vyIa1WDw) Where Reittort cites to a russian anthropologist?
- Were v old before ( thin kSeth and adamn living to almost 1000)
- Aliens enginnered oru DNA (nephilim ) (Krivda GATM)
- Or annunaki idk
https://twitter.com/JustXAshton/status/1796711251168412086
Plastic is old animals and plants; just-alive are new; Carbon and hydrogen. Organic.
You sure?
Quite.
Plastic is made up by polymers of carbohydrogen3, so is glucose — and its polymers; starch, glycogen, sucrose.
We want fresh organic, not old, that’s plastix, which appears not to be great.
I first thought this, then maybe nah due to a IG vid, going that Rockefeler invented the term fossil fuel. Might be untrue:
But again, this is Reuters.
A fella wanted money and made a newspaper. I wasn’t there so I know not for which of the two he cared more.
Now, I know not if all true or false; a newspaper doesn’t have to be one or the other.
Crude oil, petroleum & fossil fuel
Recycling
A modern concept for the stuff being recycled is modern plastic. But it’s not only plastic, there is metal too
What did we use most before.
Ceramix and glass?
Life-cycle-park. Kretsloppspark
hmm first impression
not quite dystopian
Even a workshoop in there.
Myth Busters | United Nations being a authority it is, on one side, it’s to be trusted, but that’s in a State where there are no fibbeling and debt – withholding (info). Perverting info.
” Climate change is a hot topic ” gottem
If you are to recycle..
be smart, metal in a metal container, paper in a paper one, etc.
When collecting it, e.g. plastic, literally take it in a plastic and throw the entire thing into the recycling.
“Tänk på att det bara är förpackningar som ska lämnas på återvinningsstationen. Du vet väl att du ska lämna både mjuka och hårda plastförpackningar? ”
Soft n hard plastic goes in the plastic recycling.
Much like fructose-glucose and starch.
Can’t help but c it through the lense of modern-ancient carbon-hydrogen.
Pun:
Cycled to the recyling and won because it’s called återVINning in swe .
“oxymoron and a half. Plastic Recycling Is A Dead–End Street Might be as it’s not working they way they, Greenpeace, want it to.
Site Zero
Motala, Tuddarp
‘Swedish plastic recyling’
Sutco
Weather intervening
Human-touch mediated meterology
Intervened
Glass production
and why da flip are we not using it for everything
Chesterton fence it
In the name of progress or development, itself a delusion for we forego important things – we withgo glass in the name of ALUMINIUM and PLASTIX.
As we learned in Magnificent Minecraft, sand is made into glas under high temperatur.
https://www.tekniskamuseet.se/lar-dig-mer/100-innovationer/glas
- Glass production
- Flux (flossering) ” In metallurgy, a flux is a chemical reducing agent, flowing agent, or purifying agent “
- Opalisering https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opalisering Ouzo effect. “Beskrivning: Emulsion av oljor i vatten.
- Förklaring: Uppstår när vätskor med lösta oljor späds med vatten och oljorna faller ut till små droppar”
- Luttring. Make clean?
Sources
1 https://www.ontario.ca/page/supplemental-carbon-dioxide-greenhouses
Not sure how this holds up in real world; outside, not inside, a
2a anabology https://x.com/anabology/status/1704225616193556879
2b https://x.com/AryanChadG/status/1855076853578637691
2c https://x.com/helios_brah/status/1805499783404306780
3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_respiration
4 https://www.britannica.com/science/plastic
5a. https://x.com/JohnStossel/status/1867243766605828401
5b https://x.com/JohnStossel/status/1831803491838574716
6 https://www.instagram.com/gretathunberg
Footnote
a. I hypothesize that we both, can do both. Why co2 good for us otherwise. Answer might lie in (2a.)
FOr we discover that plants r sentinent too. And sun good for us. We are more similar than we think? Different means same principles; we are mammals they duplicate. Steiner said somethn in regards to etheric body and plants.
b. We create light inside us, biophotons. That is likely not (consciously) accounted for, if it has an effect, in here.
Leave a Reply