Guest Post By Representative Ken DeGraaf (HD22)
Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Gettr, Truth Social, Twitter
Before the clocks went all-digital, the first unofficial step in dealing with any aviation emergency was to "wind the clock." It was important to break through the flurry of fear and emotions to then deal objectively with the situation.
Q: When do you make the decision to eject?
A: on the ground.
It is best to deal with crisis as objectively as possible. In infantry training it was "slow is smooth, smooth is fast" because sometimes the hurrier we go the behinder we get.
The bells, whistles, lights and hype of a gameshow all serve one purpose—to put the contestant into a fight-or-flight mode where your body reacts to danger by sending blood to the heart, lungs & muscles to get you ready for one or the other. That’s great for survival, but not for thinking. You might’ve been smarter than a fifth grader before going out on stage, but probably not after.
Two hurricanes and dire tragedies in short order. Confusion about what’s going on with FEMA and its use of taxpayer extracted funds. Passions are running high. The internet is awash with fear porn. Fear porn is addictive, and fear puts you & keeps you in a reactive mode.
If you have any media, you’re certainly hearing the mantra of CO2, Climate Change and the need for government control. But I’d like to slow things down a bit and help establish some perspective.
First of all, you hear about CO2 being the primary greenhouse gas, but that is only if you ignore water vapor by considering only “dry air.” The problem with eliminating the water vapor from the air is that water vapor and clouds account for 93-95% of the greenhouse gas effect. When you base policy on 5% truth, you’re going to get bad policy. In Colorado, that policy is increasing fuel costs, imposing mandates, and throwing millions of dollars into thin air. Allow me to explain:
There are over 3200billion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere. Estimates for the natural exchange range from 300billion to 750billion tons. Humanity in total generates about 35billion tons liberating the stored solar energy of hydrocarbons, breaking them into their constituent CO2 and H2O to be recycled into more life. Of that 35billion tons, the over 300million citizens in United States generate 5.
This means that your contribution to the atmospheric energy known as “the greenhouse effect” can be roughly calculated as being less than:
(10%)(5/3200)/300million = ½-trillionth.
To put that into perspective there are 20drops per milliliter and 2,500,000Liters in an Olympic pool, that means ½-trillionth is the same as ½ of 1-drop in 20 Olympic pools of drops.
That is actually a high-average “carbon footprint” which we could apply to all 8billion of your closest friends -- 8billion ½-trillionths is 4/1000’s.
We’re told the great crisis is how quickly our average temperature is recovering from the “green” utopian famine-&-plague of the pre-industrial ice-age at nearly 0.1 degrees-C per year, approaching “ice-age + 2C” today. A rough calculation of what we could do about that “ice-age +2C” is roughly 4/1000s of 2C, or 0.008C per year, but ONLY if you and all 8-billion of your friends went absolutely NetZero, which has an absolutely NetZero chance of happening. (CO2Coalition.org has tighter numbers and more detailed calculations.)
Just because NetZero would accomplish essentially nothing, doesn’t mean it’s free. Per-person per-year estimates exceed $12,000. The cost/benefit math, of course, is beyond ridiculous, meaning that your government really has no plans to achieve it, just to bilk you of your Liberty & Prosperity on the way. “There’s a sucker born every minute,” according (allegedly) to PT Barnum, and that is proved true with the cult of “Anthropogenic Climate Change (APCC).”
“It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.”
What do you do about something you can do nothing about? You adapt.
Spending everything to accomplish nothing is not doing anything except something stupid.
NetZero is the equivalent of screaming into a cave for illumination. You’re only annoying the bats.
Consider a 100’ tidal wave barreling towards your umbrella shaded beach chair. You and your beach-mates can expend your resources to reduce that wave by 10 inches, or you can relocate everyone to higher ground. When someone wants to spend $100billion dollars to remove 1-billion tons of CO2 from the air to solve 1/3200th of “the problem,” perhaps we should just thank them to kindly pack up their snake oil and move along. Whatever that problem might be, it’s difficult to believe that the problem is a foundational molecule for photosynthesis. When someone promises to send the oceans back to their boundaries in exchange for your Life, Liberty & Property, the appropriate response is to tell them to “pound sand.”
The passion around a changing climate does not change the fact that mitigating CO2 will have a sub-negligible effect on atmospheric energy. NetZero’ing CO2 will expend and eliminate trillions of dollars of resources to fight whatever CO2-godzilla is prophesized breathlessly by the prognosticators of doom.
Science & math should be dispassionate review of the observable, measurable, repeatable and falsifiable facts, not emotional cattle prod to herd you into bad decisions. If someone wants to expend their resources on an “existential crisis” spawned from their emogination, let them, but don’t cede them any finger-wagging "moral authority" to dictate your decisions.
There is no problem the government cannot make worse with a solution. If the climate is changing, NetZero will make things worse. Our electric grid is already fragile so putting all of our eggs in that basket will just make it more prone to failure. Consider if the hurricane victims were reliant on electrical power and centrally located charging stations dependent on solar panels and wind generators mixed with the rubble.
What does that have to do with the election? Every democrat I know is 100% committed to controlling your life through the APCC narrative. 100%. They know the numbers, some by heart, but climate is not the reason, it is the excuse and “if you’re looking for an excuse, any excuse will do.” If you want to break away from the path of energy-suicide on which the governor and his minions have committed the State, then vote Republican. A vote for ANY democrat is a vote for unending tax&shackle policy.
My goal is to wrest your Life, Liberty & Property from the Leviathan of State and return it to you.
Please join me and support my campaign for the return of Constitutional governance to Colorado.
BOTTOM LINE:
Your CO2 climate impact is less than ½ part in 1,000,000,000,000
8-Billion ½-trillionth's = 4/1000 (global anthropogenic impact)
4/1000's of 2C is 0.008C (estimated total temperature effect)
FACTS:
1) CO2 contributes less than 10% of the “greenhouse effect” (5-7%)
2) The US generates about 5 of over 3200Billion-tons in air
3) over 300M live in USA
MATH:
(10%)(5/3200)/300M less than ½-trillionth
1-trillionth = 1 drop in 20 Olympic pools of drops
(20drops/ml, 2,500,000L/pool)
CONCLUSION:
The impact of NetZero is NadaZero
(1T drops)(1ml/20drops)(1L/1000ml)(1 pool/2.5M-L) = 20 pools
Your “carbon footprint” is the equivalent of 1/2 of one drop in 20 Olympic size swimming pools full of drops.
Since the USA has the highest per-capita average, let’s apply it globally to 8 billion people longing to flourish with the hydrocarbons being restricted.
8-billion ½-trillionths = 4/1000
The looming “sky is falling” crisis? 1.5C
That’s less than 2 degrees above the famine & plague of the pre-industrial ice-age 200 years ago.
2 degrees-C in 200 years is less than 0.1degree-C per year.
Outside your door changes at about 1 degree per hour
4/1000’s of 2C = 0.008C.
So IF and only IF all of humanity went NetZero at the cost of trillions of dollars every year, then we might decrease atmospheric energy by 0.008C, but that’s just the math talking.
Now, think back to the pre-industrial revolution when the survival of just 1-billion was pitted against all of nature. Since the emissions of “green” energy are merely displaced and imposed on poorer countries with exploitive labor practices (slavery) -- and ecology-raping land use -- you’re looking at a potential genocide of billions of people.
If you think that is far fetched, consider that in November of 1991 UNESCO spokesman Jacques Cousteau observed “population must be stabilized and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day.” While French was his first language, I think that communicates pretty clearly.
“Don’t ask for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.”
Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Gettr, Truth Social, Twitter
