Tuesday, 25 January 2022

Not a religion

On the subject of people inventing religions as a way to gain and maintain power, dividing things into Good and Evil is an indicator of what we are dealind with.


Lola said...

I really thought that that was a Daily Mash style wind (sic) up.

Why the f*** doesn't he just grow trees? or better yet, pasture?

talk about riding the gravy train.

Bayard said...

Because trees don't actually capture much CO2. What they take in during the day, they breathe out during the night. If it wasn't like that, what would they do with all that carbon?

These artificial trees are just a subsidy-capture device, but if they weren't and were employed on a large scale, they would be removing twice as much oxygen from the atmosphere as they would carbon. I'm not sure if that's good idea.

Mark Wadsworth said...

L, you don't need to 'grow' anything. Left alone, the system sorts itself out to some sort of optimum.

B, what do they do with all that carbon? There's no point worrying about the daily cycles. Having quickly Googled this, an 80ft hardwood tree comprises of approx 4 or 5 tonnes of carbon (the element) combined with about the same mass of O plus a bit of H. A small pine tree might be one tonne C. Of course after a few centuries, they fall over an rot it all out again, but they will be replaced by others.

Per person, we emit (allegedly) about five tonnes of CO2 a year, which is one-and-a-half tonnes of pure C. So a huge tree = three years emissions per person. Over a human lifetime, that's twenty trees. I think.

There are about 400 trees per person in the world, just to put it in perspective.

Lola said...

Knowing that I have about 400 trees looking after my air supply make me all warm and cosy inside.

Mark Wadsworth said...

L, but you have to add one* new tree every year to cover your and Mrs L's CO2 emissions.

* I'm just guessing here, your CO2 output might require five or ten. My numbers are probably out, but I think it's the right general approach.

Bayard said...

But the fact of the matter is that all the additional CO2 that has been put into the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution must still be there, as it will only be removed if the total mass of plants goes up by enough to soak it up and, on the whole, the total mass of plants has gone down since the end of the C18th, probably by an order of magnitude or two.

Mark Wadsworth said...

B, put numbers on these things.

CO2 in atmosphere 4 x 10^12 tonnes.

So to soak up the 'bad' CO2 emitted since then = about 1 x 10^12 tonnes. Pre-1850 CO2 is of course 'good, natural' CO2 which does no harm whatsoever - remove this at your peril!

Of that 1 x 10^12 tonnes, one-third is pure carbon = 3 x 10^11 tonnes.

That requires (say) 1.5 x 10^11 trees @ 2 tonnes C each.

There are presently 3 x 10^12 trees.

So for every twenty existing trees, we need one new one. Job done.

Please check maths, I might be about by orders of mag!

Mark Wadsworth said...

B, to simplify that a bit, it appears that per person, there are 375 trees and also 375 tonnes of CO2.

We want to get rid of 125 tonnes of 'bad' CO2 per person.

One medium-large tree is (say) 5 tonnes of CO2 (plus a bit of H).

So that's 25 new trees per person, one new one for every existing fifteen*.

* The true number could be anywhere between 5 and 50, I guess.

Lola said...

MW. Mrs L is an avid gardener. She 'adds trees' all the time...

Mark Wadsworth said...

L, best way to add trees is to do no gardening whatsoever, the things just grow by themselves.

Mark Wadsworth said...

I'm still doing the numbers. If we covered about 10% of the UK by area with trees (all the stuff that's marginal or useless for farming) that would, over the next few decades, soak up the UK's share of 'bad' CO2.

Then we have to add about 0.1% of the UK by area to soak up our share of annual emissions until marginal land is used up. After that it's somebody else's problem.

Likely impact on average temperatures = precisely naff all, but hey, it's about virtue signalling.

Lola said...

MW. If you googled where I live you'd see we are doing that as well...:-) 'Climatic Climax Vegetation and all that.

Mark Wadsworth said...

L, excellent. So next time XR stop you in your gas guzzler you can tell them you've offset your 'carbon footprint' for this year by planting ten trees.

Bayard said...

Is that 25 trees in your lifetime? I think I've already done that. Mind you, I've also cut some down and burnt them.

Mark Wadsworth said...

B, 25 to clear the accumulated 'bad' C02. Then another one every year or two to keep pace. Please check my workings, see what answer you get.

Robin Smith said...

What was a hit topic recently around here, the plandemic, is no longer discussed.

Is this your version of backtracking? Much like all french citizens after WWII were all members of the resistance?

Seems like the numbers we were fed by the authorities were an order of magnitude greater than reality thanks to the 'climate' models.

Mark Wadsworth said...

RS, it was not a plandemic.

Personally, I don't think the disease was that terrible, and most govermnents over-reacted, but
a) it was a geniune disease (I've had it at least twice and probably have mild Long Covid) and
b) the jabs seem to have ameliorated it (mine were like bad 'flu).

I've never said anything else (apart from wild guesswork which were as wrong as everybody else's will guesswork), so no need for me to backtrack.

Robin Smith said...

There you go again. :)

I was being called a tinfoil hat wearer by your commenters. Where are they now?

Identical psychosis to climate change model supporter cults.

Long covid is no more than typical post viral syndrome. Why call it anything else unless you have been hypnotised by the hysteria into a mass formation cult?

Bayard said...

RS, just becasue the usual suspects used COVID-19 to step up their looting of the public purse by an order of magnitude or two doesn't mean that it was planned. Many people made millions (at 1914 values) out of the first world war. Are you saying that was planned, too, simply so that those people could become extremely rich?

Anyway, I have been planning to do another COVID-related post, but just haven't got round to it.

Mark Wadsworth said...

RS, you ARE tinfoil hat wearer!

B, WW1 is a poor comparison. It clearly was planned by the higher echelons because they gambled on benefitting from it. German and Russian higher ups lost that bet.

Britain won the bet but gained nothing overall. The higher ups cashed in and the little people were killed, maimed and impoverished. The only good things to come out of were universal suffrage and more council housing.

Covid-19 is an actual disease (very bad flu as RS points out). The virus itself might well have escaped from a lab - even Dr John Campbell thinks that is plausible - but I doubt it was released deliberately.

Robin Smith said...

Bayard, so they didn't do it deliberately?

I like that idea. That people en masse have once again allowed themselves to be hypnotised. I to a cult like state where following what they're told religiously is all that matters. And anyone questioning these rituals is deemed the enemy to be crushed.

Yes, I like that. It fits well. Not sure if it's actual but your theory fits better than others I've heard. And your 1914 example reinforces my point even more intensely so thank you, we seem to be in agreement.

The acid test is to watch how once the cult has died a death, the slaves truly believe they never were part of it. Everyone was always member of the French resistance.

Robin Smith said...

MW thank you you may be right. But I think your tin foil hat is even bigger than mine. Fair?

Isn't SARS-CoV-2 virus more related to common cold family not flu? Can't remember. The resulting disease being the effect of the viral cause. And not always the cause of death per se. I mean, if all deaths were from comorbidites and they died with a cold, what would have been the difference except that it was planned to make the deaths look like it was a cold that killed them?

Get my point about planning yet? Better Ng hypnotised is impossible to detect as a victim of it.

Robin Smith said...

Typo apologies. 'being hypnotised' last sentence. To eager to get my point out

Lola said...

MW. I'm pleased someone else has that opinion of the 'causes of WW1 -discuss'. It never made sense to me as to how 'we' actually let it happen/ let ourselves (the UK) be dragged into it. OK, there were lots of interlocking alliances and treaties that were supposed to prevent it.

The only thing that makes sense is vast conspiracy theory to stop the rise of the Common Man over the 'Elites'.

(FWIW you might argue that the Great Reset is the next attempt (The fourth??)in 110 ish years at the same aim...I could not possibly comment).

Robin Smith said...

Wasn't WWI triggered by the formation of the US Federal Reserve (The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 to stabilise runs on banks?)('The Fed' being the lender of last resort not only for the US but all other central banks through the IMF)

I don't place any credit on the idea there's a conspiracy of the elites in any of its forms. Because there's always been a willing electorate selecting the so called elites FFS (look in the mirror if you dare).

Ditto for why LVT is a fantasy, ... much as I would like to see it happen, it can only be adopted by extreme force. And would that be the better alternative then? Thus, if you want to use economic rents to fund the state it absolutely must be done voluntarily. I'm sorry but this obviates citizens welfare in all it forms.

Bayard said...

Mark, yes, of course WWI was planned, but it was planned for political reasons: France wanted to get their own back on Germany for Germany defeating them in the Franco-Prussian war, so made an alliance with Russia so that Germany would have to fight a war on two fronts simultaneously. My point was it wasn't planned by a shadowy conspiracy of munitions manufacturers, bankers and currency speculators to make themselves rich, even if that was the net result.

RS, WWI was triggered by Archduke Franz Ferdinand being shot, which was very likely organised by the French, see above. This is why all the wailing and hand-wringing about the UK leaving the EU being a bad thing "because the EU has prevented war in Europe for 75 years" was such bollocks as all the European wars of the last 200 years or more have been started by the French and they were still in the EU. (Quite apart from the fact that there was a little war in the Balkans under the aegis of the EU, which everyone seems to have forgotten about.)

Bayard said...

"Thus, if you want to use economic rents to fund the state it absolutely must be done voluntarily."

When, in all the millennia that have passed since the concept of taxation was invented, has it ever been voluntary?

Robin Smith said...

Bayard, once again you reinforce my point superbly. We're in agreement... again!

Note of subtlety: Rent is !not Tax. The one is paid from benefits received. The other by force on ability to pay it. Really! You should know this by now.

Further, this is why LVT is properly a TAX. Because for it to be adopted, it must be done by force. It's a pity the million ground troops of Georgism don't get this yet. For Henry George himself did.

Then again, Christ was no Christian, right?

Robin Smith said...

Can we get a thread going on Bitcoin please?

Lola said...

Bayard. Agree about WW1 being 'all the fault of the French'. Mostly. In Mien Kampf AH specifically refers to the Franco-Prussian war needing to be avenged.

I have held for some time that for reasons that I cannot fathom the UK has allowed itself to be suckered in to squander blood and treasure on sorting out the Continent numerous times over the last several hundred years. And notably managing not to get involved in the 1870/71 war. The main wars being WW1, WW" and the Cold War (WW3?). And then being suckered into the EU so that 'they' could have it away with our cash plus latterly an attempt to build an EU army using UK troops.

Mark Wadsworth said...

L, re your comment at 17.47 yesterday: what's worse is that the UK stood to gain nothing. We should have stayed out of it and snaffled all the French and German colonies while they were busy killing each other. And sold weapons, uniforms and food to both sides. Win-win.

Which is sort of the same as what you are saying in your last comment at 10.36.

B, I agree, there was no shadowy cabal or weird international conspiracy. I hope I didn't give the impression that I think that.

But WW1 was still 'man made' and deliberate, as opposed to Covid which was either a) naturally occurring or b) accidentally released from a lab.

Robin Smith said...

MW certainly no WEF conspiracy.

Certainly it was planned though. Not the virus and the disease itself. (which was like a bad flu season/s) given governments own numbers.

The manipulation (or accepted hypnosis) of the people on the whole, globally, was totally planned. Do you think Governments do nothing? Their raison d'etre is to 'help' us, through fear.

And certainly there was huge following of the money by drug companies. Probably the biggest scandal in history being buried as we speak. (Boris, Ukraine etc)

And finally peer pressure, through what is popularly called 'mass formation' or auto cult behaviours. (Jung called it the collective unconscious)

One can see the effects of this even on intelligent people by the commentary on this forum (currently backing out of it, not hypocritically, but totally unaware of the self hypnosis)

Its a good case history to watch.

How come you guys never talk about Crypto? Not saying it's a good thing. Its just that the lack of commentary on it is conspicuous.

Robin Smith said...

Forgot to mention... one for the modellers, be they climate or pandemic


Lola said...

MW I also think our involvement in WW2 was inevitable, given that we'd been suckered into WW1 (WW2 part 1 as it were). AH was a maniac and would have extracted all sorts of terms if we'd sued for peace in 1940. Halifax was as deluded as Chamberlain. Mind you, likely as not Halifax and his cronies would have done well out of that negotiation - an early incarnation of 'remainers (?).

Mark Wadsworth said...

L, The UK should have just stayed neutral, like other peripheral European countries. Poor old Chamberlain appears to have cowed to the WAR! lobby. Plus, Churchill, the driver of the WAR! lobby was mad keen to go to war to make himself look heroic.

What was in it for us? We could have sold stuff to Nazis and Commies alike and watched them kill each other, win-win, while keeping our balance of payments surplus and our Empire. OK, the Empire would have collapsed sooner or later, but later is better than sooner.

Bayard said...

"The main wars being WW1, WW" and the Cold War (WW3?)"

Not to mention the Napoleonic Wars, which nearly bankrupted the nation more than once. Napoleon was right, as a "nation of shopkeepers", we would have done far better to have stuck to making money out of our, mainly mercantile, empire than getting involved in expensive wars on the European mainland.

Mark, has it always been the Tories who have dragged us into foreign wars?

Mark Wadsworth said...

B, , the Tory-Liberal-Labour comparison is only fair from early 1990s on. Before that, they were all Tories or their watered down rivals, the Whigs.

Lola said...

MW. yes. But. We'd still have needed to re-arm and not in any way sue for peace. Luckily we had a formidable RN and control of the air which would have made an invasion impossible. So telling AH to get on his bike and stay neutral would have been doable. IMHO.

Pablo said...

Lola wrote: I also think our involvement in WW2 was inevitable . . .

Have you read Why the German Republic Fell by Bruno Heilig?

Robin Smith said...

Pablo: no LVT?

Bayard said...

Mark, I realised that, but I was wondering if the Tories were more warlike than the Whigs (who were called the Liberals, long before Labour came into existence).

Mark Wadsworth said...

B, yes, the Whigs turned into the Liberals at some point.

I'm not pointing the finger though. The PMs during WW1 were Liberals. The PMs during WW2 were Tories, but AFIAA, Labour and Communists were even more in favour of joining in (because Nazis were see as right wing, especially after Germany invaded the USSR).