@SlavaSvarogu hell yeah man. we would live like fucking kings. We need to do our parts to try to make this world for our children's children. I don't know how yet...
hi femr2, honestly I see nothing wrong in reducing the world population. However, I prefer a natural reduction ie.natural death than manipulated. On the other hand, there is nothing wrong the way we (humans) are progressing. The main problem is with the "Management" of resources and the direction.We're the masters of the world. We now have the "know-how" technology compared to 200 yrs.ago. If we could only apply those with sound "management" policies, this world would have been a "Paradise".
I tend to agree. We cannot keep increasing in numbers indefinitely, and the management of resources really does need to change. There is enough arable land for each family to be 'given' an acre and become much more self-sufficient, at least in foodstuff terms if not through production of our own fuels. Not a full solution, but a start.
It is entirely possible for 'this world' to be a paradise, indeed.
My intention with this video is to show people the real implications of "CO2 Controls".
thanks ferm2, yes,you hit the nail on the head. With the knowledge we have about this world and how it functions, we, each, can have our own space and live happier lives, as well as helping each other. Thanks to technological improvements of the recent centuries this more than possible. Everyone would love to work,be it on a farm or on tech. matters. It is the greedy and the lazy that want it this (present way) so that they can have fun and games.They have very boring lives.
@femr2... however patriarchy has destroyed the VERY cultures who were living in harmony with the Earth, the Wiccans, The First People of America, aboriginals everywhere... even small farmers, etc
@meengreens, continued: Those Natural EARTH REVERING cultures were deemed savages by whitemaledom. We need to live shorter more natural lives, Get rid of bigpharma, monsanto, factory nazi helhole farms....etc, back to living off the land!.
We MUST honour the Sacred Feminine again, the nurturer of ALL life. Patriarchy destroyed the connection between humans, life and Earth, long ago.
soley111:"I see nothing wrong in reducing the world population."
Will you be the first to help the world by taking yourself out. If the world needs to be reduced than those who are for it should eliminate themselves.
@soley111 "We're the masters of the world." Ummm, no... we are not, we are the ruination of this world. Maledom/patriarchy has lusted to be masters of this world, but in the end MOTHER NATURE wins. Read ALL about phthalates and Bysphenol A... what it is doing to the very gender that has been raping Mother Earth mercylessly for a long time.
I agree, hate debates, and no I have not forgiven myself, lol.
I always leave it at this, if your right, phew, nothing to lose, if I'm, sorry, if the Bible is right, then, well, I tried to tell, warn you, nothing more to be said, besides, bigger picture here, done my job, told, not up to me to save you, that's for God, I just love revealing truth that's all.
The bigger picture is the prediction of the last empire as predicted in Daniel and Revelation 13, the beast.
Fair enough, though I must point out that I haven't stated any opinion, which begs the question what you think I may or may not be right about. You have made a presumption, then compounded it by false 'warning', then relieved yourself of the 'guilt' by telling yourself you did what you could. Fallacy upon fallacy. You have much to learn, my son. Again...
"When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
He's not mine, he's everyones, lol, and surely your more intelligent than most and do not believe in evolution, that everything came from nothing.
Those that set out to disprove the Bible came to believe in it.
I used to be like you, play songs, having a go at God, many years ago.
What changed, cause as you see I'm not easily brainwashed, and carefully research and go by experience, having been attacked by demons and saved supernaturally, I have more proof than just letter collected into a book
This is far from an appropriate place for a theological discussion, but there is a big difference between spirituality and religion.
In no way have I "had a go at god", but you are free to believe whatever you choose to. That is the miracle of the sentient entities which we find ourselves to be.
If you want my view on your experiences, the only place to begin is with yourself. If you travel far enough you will find that 'we' is a better word for it than 'god'. You decided to forgive yourself.
So they say, but seeing as Jesus said, there will be signs in the sun, moon and stars, we look there, are sun, cycle, warming, cooling, so on.
Not, man shall cause polution and ruin things before I return, with so far 100% accuracy in predictions I'll listen to Yeshua (Jesus), not some brainwashed, or liar person, saying global warming, sorry now climate change.
This is about killing us off bit by bit, under many other pretenses.
A Mans beliefs are his own right, but I have always thought this quote should be of interest to all those who jump from video to video posting comments based in religion...
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
I don't like spamming my own comments, but I'll repeat again...
With a global cap of CO2 emission, even if specified as industry only, there is a direct implication to human breath CO2 emissions.
Assume industry is made CO2 neutral, then fast forward the clock and triple the population. The human induced CO2 emissions are back to their current level (from our breath), which must be reduced by 80% to adhere to the G8 emissions cap.
Population CANNOT be separated from a human induced CO2 cap.
I've been asking for facts and figures since I got here.. seems he doesn't want to share any peer-reviewable data or proof. Just his assumption that they include breathing in their data.
The algorythms for working out this stuff are quite simple. eg coal power stations.. coal goes in one end gets 'gassified' by burning. what comes out the chimney = what went in minus the ash. And so on..
Sadly I think you'll find the 3% - 97% 'claim' is a misunderstanding or just plain wrong.
But do you have different figures? I mean, they must have calculated this. If not, what the friggin hell are they pushing the 80% mark? It must be based on calculations, even if they're voodoo calculations.
"Do you know where I can get the best scientific study concerning the the 97% - 3% proportions"
The simplest way to begin is to look into "Anthropogenic greenhouse gases", which will give you a range of values (up to 5%). "The best" is probably subjective, but I'll root through my resources and try and summarise the most transparent in the next day or so.
There's absolutely no doubt however, from any source, that human induced sources make up a tiny fraction of the global whole.
"anthropogenic" relates to human INDUSTRIAL activity NOT breathing!
However
There are 6.5 billion humans on Earth & rising. In total, these humans exhale around 3.2 billion tonnes of CO2 per year compared to the 25 Billion tonnes from industry.
With a 10 billion population that will take it to 5 Billion tonnes of CO2 pa.
But (& this is important) breathing is a closed loop system & the plants we EAT take up most of the CO2 we breathe out!
Ecology is the most complex science out there. Good luck!
"On average, a human will breath 16 times per minute [1]. Each breath will contain, on average, 0.037 grams of CO2 [2]. An average year is 525948.766 minutes. An average human will live to be 67 years old [3]. This means that the average CO2 exhaled by the average human in her lifetime will be 20861230 grams, or 23 tons. Thats a lot of mass, but this value is hard to compare to anything. The average CO2 exhaled by all humans in one year is 2230000000 tons, or 2.23 gigatons."
As you are a member of the Green party, and are very obviously attempting to engage in politically biased 'propoganda', this discussion is over. Your statements are ridiculous, and I will be responding to each in detail.
To attempt to state that no matter how many people there are on this planet, there is an automatic 'balance' with CO2 intake by plants is laughable.
Not only are the two unrelated, but plants also release CO2 as part of respiration.
Part of the reason for various estimations is fairly heated disagreement about the method of estimation, and the contribution of discrete elements such as undersea volcanic activity, which of course are very difficult to accurately quantify. As I said, I'll root out some additional resources for you.
I will highlight though, that in context of plans to reduce human induced emissions that whether you use 3%, 4%, or 5% really makes no difference to the G8 direct implication on human population.
"Consumption of vegetation by animals & microbes accounts for about 220 gigatonnes of CO2 per year. Respiration by vegetation emits around 220 Gt. The ocean releases about 330 Gt. In contrast, human emissions are only around 26.4 Gt per year."
great video - and they want to make it a crime to oppose the CO2 myth. We need to rid ourselves of these collectivist elitists - collectivism is the surest way to enslave the people.
It will take great effort to re-inform those who believe the myths of the CO2 cycle, the truth about 'global warming' and the true meaning of the legislation being mandated.
I'm definitely for saving the planet, but there are much better ways of going about it, and entrusting the population with the truth is the first and most important step.
I'll be making more video's on the 'population' topic, and at least one will be very unpopular, but I'll be truthful and constructive.
My point which you refused to acknowledge is that Methane is far more dangerous as a greenhouse gas. Between 20 and 70 times more dangerous depending on the timescale.
CO2 is just a convenient one to tax because its directly linked to our levels of all pollution.
And I'll say this again too... the problem is not our population NUMBERS; its how we do things!
We can do things in a much more sustainable way... from recycling, to energy production it can ALL be improved massively.
europarl.. what you've missed is that the elitists were for years belittling the ecology-movement because we were the ones saying that their model of endless 'growth' based on fractional reserve banking was unsustainable! 'Money' only represents real suff in the environment (commodities) The problem with printing endless money to do 'public works' it that it eventually comes unstuck when the resources run out! Then paper money is useless.
The CO2 thing is just a conveniently taxable indicator.
Okay how about the basic premise?? What makes you think they include BREATHING in the manmade "emission" cuts they want to make?? Its just paranoia & semantics... playing on the word 'emissions'!
You obviously didn't read the answer. In addition the controls imposed by the G8, they specify a separate 2 degree temperature increase limitation, which we contribute to. Again, a direct implication that CANNOT be avoided.
You CANNOT separate human breath CO2 from industrial sources. I have explained very simply to you why this is the case. If you choose to not accept my answer then that is entirely up to you. I have explained exactly why I think they include breathing.
Meanwhile they're agreeing to new coal power and new runways... Its BS!!
Its like Goldilocks global warming... not too hot.. not too cold!
Its a fudge and it totally ignores tipping points.
For example there is every reason to believe a tipping point is reached at 2 degrees, where the permafrost tundra in Russia thaws and releases all that METHANE... which as I've already pointed out several times is MUCH MORE of a greenghouse gas!
Again, I'm not saying there are not ecological issues. We all need to be acutely aware of the effect we are having upon the planet.
What I AM highlighting is the motivation and direct implications of our governments plans.
As you say, the entire focus on CO2 is "BS", and you must ask yourself why there is such a focus. You said "it was convenient". I say it is simply something that 'the people' think they understand, when they do not, and it provides the powers-that-be with a means of control.
There is no way to separate the emissions of humans themselves from the CO2 emissions from industry. That the G8 have set a limit over which the planet is at risk is a direct limitation on the population.
In reality, 80% reduction on emissions is impossible, as a large part is made up from food production.
The ONLY way to achieve the goal of 80% emissions reduction is a corresponding reduction in 'demand' from the population, through the reduction and control of that population.
But just one more time and then if you don't answer I'm giving up on you...
"What makes you think they include BREATHING in the manmade "emission" cuts they want to make??"
Where in ANY document you've seen in all your research, have you seen "Human BREATHING" included in their figures.. or more importantly in the statement about cuts in emissions from the G8??
You said you had PROOF.. so post it!
Where does it say human breathing is even included in THEIR figures... NOT YOURS!
You are becoming deranged. You said my figures were wrong and I invited you to comment. Proof ? I have told you my viewpoint, and the undeniable logic cannot be argued with. There is no way to impose global CO2 emissions without including the implication of human breath CO2 emissions. Full stop.
I suggest you give up. I do not tolerate your kind of infantile ranting, nor your false accusations, nor SHOUTING, nor !!!!!!!.
I use capitals to accentuate a word because there are no italics. multiple exclaimation marks when I'm exasperated (like the G8 plan is a FUDGE!!! or when you don't answer) & lol just occasionally ;-)
But its very telling that you refuse to answer a basic question like what makes you think they include breathing in their calculations for 'cuts'? Its a reasonable question & you've avoided it every time.
But never mind... you're right I'm free to believe you.. or not!
I don't like spamming my own comments, but I'll repeat again...
With a global cap of CO2 emission, even if specified as industry only, there is a direct implication to human breath CO2 emissions.
Assume industry is CO2 neutral, fast forward the clock and triple the population. The human induced CO2 emissions are back to their current level, which must be reduced by 80% to adhere to the G8 emissions cap.
I have answered your question repeatedly. There is no way to separate the two.
Perhaps you missed the last half of the video here, on the monument called "The Georgia Guidestones", upon which a series of global 'plans' are "written in stone".
I suggest you research the monument, and the implications of each guide phrase.
I also suggest you begin to ask your governing bodies why all of the other ecological issues you are aware of are not being addressed.
You seem to forget the Green movement has been kept on the outside of mainstream politics for the past 40 years & even now that the mainstream parties are trying to 'sell' us their version of what to do.. why do you think that is??
Could it be that Greens actually might understand these issues and have better solutions because they've been dealing with it for 40 years while everyone else sleepwalked us into a totally avoidable disaster?
As I said, this video is about the G8 plans to reduce CO2 emissions by 80% and the implications of such. If you wish to discuss the wider ecological implications of human habitation of this planet, this is not the place for it.
You seem to forget that I am not your government, and it is to them that you should be speaking. The intention of all governmental plans has nothing to do with actually dealing with any of the ecological issues present.
I do what I can, though this PC is far from 'green'.
Unfortunately there is also a very uncomfortable truth that there are also limits on sustainability in terms of population growth.
No body, either government or 'green' has had any effect on changing the inevitable outcome of our habitation on this planet at this point in time. There may be global changes which are accepted which have an effect, and unfortunately allowing an infinite population growth is not one of them.
Please discuss ecology somewhere else. One warning.
You're talking about the G8 and CO2 & all that but you want 'ecology' elsewhere? lol
Never mind your silly warning. I'm out of here anyway. You didn't answer what makes you think they included breathing.. which is your whole argument.
And actually the greens have a very strong policy on population sustainability! Of course they do! They've been thinking about this stuff for 40+ years.
You can't separate these issues its all one thing! Thats why ecology is the most difficult science to learn.
I don't like spamming my own comments, but I'll repeat again...
With a global cap on CO2 emissions, even if specified as industry only, there is a direct implication on human breath CO2 emissions.
Assume industry is CO2 neutral, fast forward the clock and triple the population. The human induced CO2 emissions are back to their current level, which must be reduced by 80% to adhere to the G8 emissions cap.
I have answered your question repeatedly. There is no way to separate the two. Bye.
Your request sounds fair enough to me. Where is it documented, And if not documented, then I hear nothing but speculation, assumptions, opinions and other non verifiable banter. Got documents?
I also have an assumption that it will ultimately include anything and everything that emits CO2. But I can find nothing coming from the Hill that
substantiates my assumption at this time. I'll keep looking on my own unless someone points me in the right direction.
Of course, this all works on the principle that CO2 is a problem creating 'global warming', which is pure bunk. We are at the hot end of precession, and the planet will cope fine over time.
Do we need to stop using our 'precious' resources. Of course, but the point here is that the plans being invoked by those in power has nothing to do with global warming. It is about population culling and a perceived goal of creating a 'utopian' society with a maximum of 0.5 billion people, all controlled.
Again, if you think that the current level of CO2 emissions is 'dangerous', then make industry CO2 neutral, then triple the population. You are back where you started. YOUR requirement would then be to reduce the population. You cannot separate the two.
One solution could be to give every person in the world half an acre of land and ensure that they grow food and plants to become neutral in nature, but those in power will NEVER allow such a change, and there is still a maximum.
Add to this the estimation that global population will be over 10 billion by 2050 and it becomes even more of a joke. As the population increases, so do their demands for produce and food, which increases the scale of industry. Even if, say, a power station emissions are cut by 80%, when the number of power stations doubles, so does the emission. The ratio of emission from industry and emission from the population is directly linked. They cannot be separated.
I'm afraid not. Wherever you hear of governments announcing CO2 emission reduction, they mean the human induced emissions (industry and our breath) which make up only 3% of otherwise natural global emissions
To reduce emissions by 80% directly implies massive reduction in the population. There is no other way to go about it
As I've highlighted, if global industry is made CO2 neutral, the population would still have to be reduced by a third to hit an 80% human induced emissions reduction target
"The G8 has already reached an agreement at their summit in Italy to seek to limit average global temperature increases to 2C by cutting their greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050."
uk. news. yahoo. com /21/20090709/tuk-brown-in-g8-crunch-talks-on-climate-6323e80. html
You missed the 'bankers', and all of the real 'culprits' who sit above the duped 'workers' in all of the roles you suggest are killed.
You could remove all of those people, and you would have absolutely no effect on halting the 'plan'. It is only through removing power from those who sit above such trivial organisations that we 'will be fine'.
I'm pretty sure 'the oceans' produce most CO2, not cows.
One cow burp is like one litre of CO2. There are hundreds of millions of them, especially on the plains created by the destuction of the Amazon to feed fat assed Americans.
David Attenboroug has joined a group aimed at world de-population, headed by the Von Battenburg gang in London. They should go first!
"Why do you insist on contradicting everything I say?
I blocked you the other day, because I didnt like your comment...and I have never trusted you since you suddenly came on the scene and spoke to me like you knew me. I unblocked you this morning, I have just reversed that decision!
Good luck!"
I correct all inaccurate information. Why you would have a problem with that is beyond me. Must be ego.
We have conversed for quite a while. Who else called you B. ?
Why not ? If you are not prepared to have such a PM posted in public view, don't send it. (As you have indicated, you have blocked me, so responding via a PM would not be possible. Sending a message and denying any means of response, via blocking, is easily gotten around. Et voila.)
Doesn't biology teach that plants need our CO to produce Oxygen? So why would what humans breath hurt, in fact it balances nature. Plants need us and we need them to breath.
As I hope you can see, the entire human induced CO2 emissions (Industry and our breath) makes up only 3% of the global CO2 emissions, with the other 97% being made up of entirely natural processes.
The Governmental CO2 plans are, with no doubt at all, simple deception. There is slight 'global warming', but again that has more to do with natural processes (precession and galactic equator) than 'us'.
Thousands of scientists object to the 'official line' on CO2.
@starlight1946 , unfortunately there is more life on the planet than just plants. Your view is very shortsighted even though you posted over a year ago. Not surprising you have positive votes because most people when it comes to overpopulation are very shortsighted as well.
This has been flagged as spam show
so stupid, you really think we are going 33% of the planet CO2 by breathing?!? WTF!!!
freakyfranck 1 year ago
don't trees inhale co2 and exhale oxygen Oo
EchoSaviour 1 year ago
Sterelization and Birth Control would be it. And slowly it would be reduce up to the line where we need it to be.
Just 3% percent I thought it was more...
jaimepablodelasnieve 1 year ago
most annoying music EVER
freeflyer246810 1 year ago
It worked then ;o)
femr2 1 year ago
@femr2 or 80% can go to a new planet in 2050 >.>
barr65 1 year ago
Surely all the methan from beef cows helps the emissions be high? If we all give up meat that will change!
UFOSIG 2 years ago
@UFOSIG, carnivourous humans are the greatest contribution to the imbalance of food supply. People must stop devouring tortured flesh.
meengreens 1 year ago
@meengreens I agree entirely.
UFOSIG 1 year ago 3
Thanks, Friend!.
Have you read the newly published book/expose: "The Muslim Mafia" by Gaubatz & Sperry?
We finally have proof positive we have been infiltrated. Names are named!
JPK7777777 2 years ago
Boxes of documents were obtained inside CAIR's headquarters (3 blocks from our Capital Building) during their 6 month investigation.
They say the only that can stop them is for the American people to stand up & say "No more!"
See my page under comments section for plan. Thanks.
JPK7777777 2 years ago
theory of gold one billion.With modern technology one billion people on the earth can live like gods,but not 7 billions.
Today if your country not strong,bad staf.
,,Death of one person is tragedy,death of millions is just statistic,,
Jozef Stalin.
SlavaSvarogu 2 years ago
@SlavaSvarogu hell yeah man. we would live like fucking kings. We need to do our parts to try to make this world for our children's children. I don't know how yet...
vanhalenps4 1 year ago
hi femr2, honestly I see nothing wrong in reducing the world population. However, I prefer a natural reduction ie.natural death than manipulated. On the other hand, there is nothing wrong the way we (humans) are progressing. The main problem is with the "Management" of resources and the direction.We're the masters of the world. We now have the "know-how" technology compared to 200 yrs.ago. If we could only apply those with sound "management" policies, this world would have been a "Paradise".
soley111 2 years ago
I tend to agree. We cannot keep increasing in numbers indefinitely, and the management of resources really does need to change. There is enough arable land for each family to be 'given' an acre and become much more self-sufficient, at least in foodstuff terms if not through production of our own fuels. Not a full solution, but a start.
It is entirely possible for 'this world' to be a paradise, indeed.
My intention with this video is to show people the real implications of "CO2 Controls".
femr2 2 years ago
thanks ferm2, yes,you hit the nail on the head. With the knowledge we have about this world and how it functions, we, each, can have our own space and live happier lives, as well as helping each other. Thanks to technological improvements of the recent centuries this more than possible. Everyone would love to work,be it on a farm or on tech. matters. It is the greedy and the lazy that want it this (present way) so that they can have fun and games.They have very boring lives.
soley111 2 years ago
@femr2... however patriarchy has destroyed the VERY cultures who were living in harmony with the Earth, the Wiccans, The First People of America, aboriginals everywhere... even small farmers, etc
continuing...
meengreens 1 year ago
@meengreens, continued: Those Natural EARTH REVERING cultures were deemed savages by whitemaledom. We need to live shorter more natural lives, Get rid of bigpharma, monsanto, factory nazi helhole farms....etc, back to living off the land!.
We MUST honour the Sacred Feminine again, the nurturer of ALL life. Patriarchy destroyed the connection between humans, life and Earth, long ago.
meengreens 1 year ago
soley111:"I see nothing wrong in reducing the world population."
Will you be the first to help the world by taking yourself out. If the world needs to be reduced than those who are for it should eliminate themselves.
twospot7777777 2 years ago
@soley111 "We're the masters of the world." Ummm, no... we are not, we are the ruination of this world. Maledom/patriarchy has lusted to be masters of this world, but in the end MOTHER NATURE wins. Read ALL about phthalates and Bysphenol A... what it is doing to the very gender that has been raping Mother Earth mercylessly for a long time.
meengreens 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You suck at making movies
Tap5u 2 years ago
Perhaps you will do better when you grow up.
Thanks for your enlightening opinion on the video content :o)
femr2 2 years ago
The bright side, they aren't lieing to us. :D
Hey, we'll promise to remove 80% but that also means a minimum of 14% of humans but we doubt it will be that low. :D
Feedmadcat 2 years ago 2
:) smile and (((hugs))).
I don't dimiss other Gods as there is none to dismiss.
Blessings anyway, keep up the good work.
RadioTrunews 2 years ago
Thanks. Shall do.
femr2 2 years ago
I agree, hate debates, and no I have not forgiven myself, lol.
I always leave it at this, if your right, phew, nothing to lose, if I'm, sorry, if the Bible is right, then, well, I tried to tell, warn you, nothing more to be said, besides, bigger picture here, done my job, told, not up to me to save you, that's for God, I just love revealing truth that's all.
The bigger picture is the prediction of the last empire as predicted in Daniel and Revelation 13, the beast.
We see this happening today.
RadioTrunews 2 years ago
Fair enough, though I must point out that I haven't stated any opinion, which begs the question what you think I may or may not be right about. You have made a presumption, then compounded it by false 'warning', then relieved yourself of the 'guilt' by telling yourself you did what you could. Fallacy upon fallacy. You have much to learn, my son. Again...
"When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
femr2 2 years ago
He's not mine, he's everyones, lol, and surely your more intelligent than most and do not believe in evolution, that everything came from nothing.
Those that set out to disprove the Bible came to believe in it.
I used to be like you, play songs, having a go at God, many years ago.
What changed, cause as you see I'm not easily brainwashed, and carefully research and go by experience, having been attacked by demons and saved supernaturally, I have more proof than just letter collected into a book
RadioTrunews 2 years ago
This is far from an appropriate place for a theological discussion, but there is a big difference between spirituality and religion.
In no way have I "had a go at god", but you are free to believe whatever you choose to. That is the miracle of the sentient entities which we find ourselves to be.
If you want my view on your experiences, the only place to begin is with yourself. If you travel far enough you will find that 'we' is a better word for it than 'god'. You decided to forgive yourself.
femr2 2 years ago
So they say, but seeing as Jesus said, there will be signs in the sun, moon and stars, we look there, are sun, cycle, warming, cooling, so on.
Not, man shall cause polution and ruin things before I return, with so far 100% accuracy in predictions I'll listen to Yeshua (Jesus), not some brainwashed, or liar person, saying global warming, sorry now climate change.
This is about killing us off bit by bit, under many other pretenses.
RadioTrunews 2 years ago
A Mans beliefs are his own right, but I have always thought this quote should be of interest to all those who jump from video to video posting comments based in religion...
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
femr2 2 years ago
I don't like spamming my own comments, but I'll repeat again...
With a global cap of CO2 emission, even if specified as industry only, there is a direct implication to human breath CO2 emissions.
Assume industry is made CO2 neutral, then fast forward the clock and triple the population. The human induced CO2 emissions are back to their current level (from our breath), which must be reduced by 80% to adhere to the G8 emissions cap.
Population CANNOT be separated from a human induced CO2 cap.
femr2 2 years ago
Do you know where I can get the best scientific study concerning the the 97% - 3% proportions of non-human and human sources of CO2 emissions?
europarl 2 years ago 2
I've been asking for facts and figures since I got here.. seems he doesn't want to share any peer-reviewable data or proof. Just his assumption that they include breathing in their data.
The algorythms for working out this stuff are quite simple. eg coal power stations.. coal goes in one end gets 'gassified' by burning. what comes out the chimney = what went in minus the ash. And so on..
Sadly I think you'll find the 3% - 97% 'claim' is a misunderstanding or just plain wrong.
ejbh3160 2 years ago
But do you have different figures? I mean, they must have calculated this. If not, what the friggin hell are they pushing the 80% mark? It must be based on calculations, even if they're voodoo calculations.
europarl 2 years ago
"Do you know where I can get the best scientific study concerning the the 97% - 3% proportions"
The simplest way to begin is to look into "Anthropogenic greenhouse gases", which will give you a range of values (up to 5%). "The best" is probably subjective, but I'll root through my resources and try and summarise the most transparent in the next day or so.
There's absolutely no doubt however, from any source, that human induced sources make up a tiny fraction of the global whole.
femr2 2 years ago
"anthropogenic" relates to human INDUSTRIAL activity NOT breathing!
However
There are 6.5 billion humans on Earth & rising. In total, these humans exhale around 3.2 billion tonnes of CO2 per year compared to the 25 Billion tonnes from industry.
With a 10 billion population that will take it to 5 Billion tonnes of CO2 pa.
But (& this is important) breathing is a closed loop system & the plants we EAT take up most of the CO2 we breathe out!
Ecology is the most complex science out there. Good luck!
ejbh3160 2 years ago
"On average, a human will breath 16 times per minute [1]. Each breath will contain, on average, 0.037 grams of CO2 [2]. An average year is 525948.766 minutes. An average human will live to be 67 years old [3]. This means that the average CO2 exhaled by the average human in her lifetime will be 20861230 grams, or 23 tons. Thats a lot of mass, but this value is hard to compare to anything. The average CO2 exhaled by all humans in one year is 2230000000 tons, or 2.23 gigatons."
femr2 2 years ago
LOL! I put it higher!..at 3.2 gigatons (or Billion tonnes)
But the point is.. are you understanding the link between what we EAT and the CO2 taken up by those plants?
Its a closed loop & we're more likely to run out of FOOD than air.
But in reality we could feed the world many times over with what we do NOW.. we just dont because of 'economics' & 'greed'.
We are taking Carbon that has been sequestered by nature in coal & oil & putting THAT back into the atmosphere! THAT is the real problem!
ejbh3160 2 years ago
We are talking about the direct implication of G8 CO2 emissions caps upon the population level. You are on your very last warning.
femr2 2 years ago
But as I said right at the beginning they are talking about industrial CO2. As you rightly said.. "anthropogenic" emissions!
I'll ask once again.. are you understanding the link between the CO2 that plants take IN.. and how that balances with what we breathe out?
We don't make a difference with breathing!
Do you see WHY they wouldn't count that in?
(I suspect you just won't get it for reasons of 'pride')
ejbh3160 2 years ago
As you are a member of the Green party, and are very obviously attempting to engage in politically biased 'propoganda', this discussion is over. Your statements are ridiculous, and I will be responding to each in detail.
To attempt to state that no matter how many people there are on this planet, there is an automatic 'balance' with CO2 intake by plants is laughable.
Not only are the two unrelated, but plants also release CO2 as part of respiration.
femr2 2 years ago
Respiration by vegetation emits around 220 Gt. The ocean releases about 330 Gt.
Again, this video is about the direct implication from G8 imposed CO2 emissions caps upon the population.
This is not somewhere for you to show how little you actually know about the carbon cycle.
I do not tolerate any deceit on any of my videos.
femr2 2 years ago
The quote was to show you what I expect when you post a value....you need to back it up. You also need to stay on topic.
femr2 2 years ago
""anthropogenic" relates to human INDUSTRIAL activity NOT breathing!" ~ejbh3160~
Anthropogenic effects, processes or materials are those that are derived from human activities, INCLUDING our breath.
Do not try and mislead people.
femr2 2 years ago
Part of the reason for various estimations is fairly heated disagreement about the method of estimation, and the contribution of discrete elements such as undersea volcanic activity, which of course are very difficult to accurately quantify. As I said, I'll root out some additional resources for you.
I will highlight though, that in context of plans to reduce human induced emissions that whether you use 3%, 4%, or 5% really makes no difference to the G8 direct implication on human population.
femr2 2 years ago
I'll keep adding sources as I sift through, and until I'm done I'm not rating any one over another, but shall do when I'm at the bottom of the list :)
First link:
geocraft. com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data. html
femr2 2 years ago
Another useful calculation:
atmoz. org/blog/2007/05/01/direct-co2-emissions-by-humans/
femr2 2 years ago
Global population growth estimation:
unfpa. org/6billion/pages/worldpopgrowth. htm
femr2 2 years ago
Justification to state industry as mainly fossil fuel based:
epa. gov/climatechange/emissions/co2_human. html
femr2 2 years ago
You may find this view on the buy/sell process on Co2 interesting:
Doing the deal: Legal and regulatory aspects of the evolving CCS regime in the USA
colloqueco2. com/presentations2007/ColloqueCO2-2007_Session4_1-MARSTON2. pdf
femr2 2 years ago
Another numerical source:
skepticalscience. com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions. htm
"Consumption of vegetation by animals & microbes accounts for about 220 gigatonnes of CO2 per year. Respiration by vegetation emits around 220 Gt. The ocean releases about 330 Gt. In contrast, human emissions are only around 26.4 Gt per year."
femr2 2 years ago
great video - and they want to make it a crime to oppose the CO2 myth. We need to rid ourselves of these collectivist elitists - collectivism is the surest way to enslave the people.
europarl 2 years ago
It will take great effort to re-inform those who believe the myths of the CO2 cycle, the truth about 'global warming' and the true meaning of the legislation being mandated.
I'm definitely for saving the planet, but there are much better ways of going about it, and entrusting the population with the truth is the first and most important step.
I'll be making more video's on the 'population' topic, and at least one will be very unpopular, but I'll be truthful and constructive.
femr2 2 years ago
My point which you refused to acknowledge is that Methane is far more dangerous as a greenhouse gas. Between 20 and 70 times more dangerous depending on the timescale.
CO2 is just a convenient one to tax because its directly linked to our levels of all pollution.
And I'll say this again too... the problem is not our population NUMBERS; its how we do things!
We can do things in a much more sustainable way... from recycling, to energy production it can ALL be improved massively.
ejbh3160 2 years ago
The G8 plans have nothing to do with methane. How you think your money will improve the elemental balance of planet Earth is beyond me.
I suggest you approach the relevant bodies and ask them why they are not seeking to impose control over methane production.
Please keep your discussion to the G8 plans to reduce CO2 emissions by 80% by 2050 and it's implications. I do enforce this request.
Broader discussion of green issues should be performed on a more appropriate video.
femr2 2 years ago
europarl.. what you've missed is that the elitists were for years belittling the ecology-movement because we were the ones saying that their model of endless 'growth' based on fractional reserve banking was unsustainable! 'Money' only represents real suff in the environment (commodities) The problem with printing endless money to do 'public works' it that it eventually comes unstuck when the resources run out! Then paper money is useless.
The CO2 thing is just a conveniently taxable indicator.
ejbh3160 2 years ago
Okay how about the basic premise?? What makes you think they include BREATHING in the manmade "emission" cuts they want to make?? Its just paranoia & semantics... playing on the word 'emissions'!
ejbh3160 2 years ago
Okay, I'll make it as simple as I can...
Let's say that current human induce emissions (both industry and breathing) releases "100" CO2 units per year.
IF industry, which is currently 66 units, is reduced by 80%, then human induced decreases from 100 to 20% of 66+33=46.2
At that point G8 conditions are met. Any increase in the population takes the CO2 emissions over the limit.
If the population triples, and industry remains static (80% reduced from current levels), then we emit 111.2 units.
femr2 2 years ago
You didn't answer the question...
(so I'll make it easy for you and post it again)
"What makes you think they include BREATHING in the manmade "emission" cuts they want to make??
ejbh3160 2 years ago
You obviously didn't read the answer. In addition the controls imposed by the G8, they specify a separate 2 degree temperature increase limitation, which we contribute to. Again, a direct implication that CANNOT be avoided.
You CANNOT separate human breath CO2 from industrial sources. I have explained very simply to you why this is the case. If you choose to not accept my answer then that is entirely up to you. I have explained exactly why I think they include breathing.
femr2 2 years ago
The 2 degrees thing is a total FUDGE!!!
Meanwhile they're agreeing to new coal power and new runways... Its BS!!
Its like Goldilocks global warming... not too hot.. not too cold!
Its a fudge and it totally ignores tipping points.
For example there is every reason to believe a tipping point is reached at 2 degrees, where the permafrost tundra in Russia thaws and releases all that METHANE... which as I've already pointed out several times is MUCH MORE of a greenghouse gas!
ejbh3160 2 years ago
Again, I'm not saying there are not ecological issues. We all need to be acutely aware of the effect we are having upon the planet.
What I AM highlighting is the motivation and direct implications of our governments plans.
As you say, the entire focus on CO2 is "BS", and you must ask yourself why there is such a focus. You said "it was convenient". I say it is simply something that 'the people' think they understand, when they do not, and it provides the powers-that-be with a means of control.
femr2 2 years ago
There is no way to separate the emissions of humans themselves from the CO2 emissions from industry. That the G8 have set a limit over which the planet is at risk is a direct limitation on the population.
In reality, 80% reduction on emissions is impossible, as a large part is made up from food production.
The ONLY way to achieve the goal of 80% emissions reduction is a corresponding reduction in 'demand' from the population, through the reduction and control of that population.
femr2 2 years ago
But just one more time and then if you don't answer I'm giving up on you...
"What makes you think they include BREATHING in the manmade "emission" cuts they want to make??"
Where in ANY document you've seen in all your research, have you seen "Human BREATHING" included in their figures.. or more importantly in the statement about cuts in emissions from the G8??
You said you had PROOF.. so post it!
Where does it say human breathing is even included in THEIR figures... NOT YOURS!
ejbh3160 2 years ago
You are becoming deranged. You said my figures were wrong and I invited you to comment. Proof ? I have told you my viewpoint, and the undeniable logic cannot be argued with. There is no way to impose global CO2 emissions without including the implication of human breath CO2 emissions. Full stop.
I suggest you give up. I do not tolerate your kind of infantile ranting, nor your false accusations, nor SHOUTING, nor !!!!!!!.
You are free to believe whatever you choose to.
Good luck.
femr2 2 years ago
lol..
I use capitals to accentuate a word because there are no italics. multiple exclaimation marks when I'm exasperated (like the G8 plan is a FUDGE!!! or when you don't answer) & lol just occasionally ;-)
But its very telling that you refuse to answer a basic question like what makes you think they include breathing in their calculations for 'cuts'? Its a reasonable question & you've avoided it every time.
But never mind... you're right I'm free to believe you.. or not!
ejbh3160 2 years ago
I don't like spamming my own comments, but I'll repeat again...
With a global cap of CO2 emission, even if specified as industry only, there is a direct implication to human breath CO2 emissions.
Assume industry is CO2 neutral, fast forward the clock and triple the population. The human induced CO2 emissions are back to their current level, which must be reduced by 80% to adhere to the G8 emissions cap.
I have answered your question repeatedly. There is no way to separate the two.
femr2 2 years ago
Perhaps you missed the last half of the video here, on the monument called "The Georgia Guidestones", upon which a series of global 'plans' are "written in stone".
I suggest you research the monument, and the implications of each guide phrase.
I also suggest you begin to ask your governing bodies why all of the other ecological issues you are aware of are not being addressed.
femr2 2 years ago
I expect a fudge.
You seem to forget the Green movement has been kept on the outside of mainstream politics for the past 40 years & even now that the mainstream parties are trying to 'sell' us their version of what to do.. why do you think that is??
Could it be that Greens actually might understand these issues and have better solutions because they've been dealing with it for 40 years while everyone else sleepwalked us into a totally avoidable disaster?
I've been Green for 30 years now! You?
ejbh3160 2 years ago
As I said, this video is about the G8 plans to reduce CO2 emissions by 80% and the implications of such. If you wish to discuss the wider ecological implications of human habitation of this planet, this is not the place for it.
You seem to forget that I am not your government, and it is to them that you should be speaking. The intention of all governmental plans has nothing to do with actually dealing with any of the ecological issues present.
I do what I can, though this PC is far from 'green'.
femr2 2 years ago
Unfortunately there is also a very uncomfortable truth that there are also limits on sustainability in terms of population growth.
No body, either government or 'green' has had any effect on changing the inevitable outcome of our habitation on this planet at this point in time. There may be global changes which are accepted which have an effect, and unfortunately allowing an infinite population growth is not one of them.
Please discuss ecology somewhere else. One warning.
femr2 2 years ago
LOL
You're talking about the G8 and CO2 & all that but you want 'ecology' elsewhere? lol
Never mind your silly warning. I'm out of here anyway. You didn't answer what makes you think they included breathing.. which is your whole argument.
And actually the greens have a very strong policy on population sustainability! Of course they do! They've been thinking about this stuff for 40+ years.
You can't separate these issues its all one thing! Thats why ecology is the most difficult science to learn.
ejbh3160 2 years ago
I don't like spamming my own comments, but I'll repeat again...
With a global cap on CO2 emissions, even if specified as industry only, there is a direct implication on human breath CO2 emissions.
Assume industry is CO2 neutral, fast forward the clock and triple the population. The human induced CO2 emissions are back to their current level, which must be reduced by 80% to adhere to the G8 emissions cap.
I have answered your question repeatedly. There is no way to separate the two. Bye.
femr2 2 years ago
Your request sounds fair enough to me. Where is it documented, And if not documented, then I hear nothing but speculation, assumptions, opinions and other non verifiable banter. Got documents?
I also have an assumption that it will ultimately include anything and everything that emits CO2. But I can find nothing coming from the Hill that
substantiates my assumption at this time. I'll keep looking on my own unless someone points me in the right direction.
Peace
glenisah 2 years ago 2
Of course, this all works on the principle that CO2 is a problem creating 'global warming', which is pure bunk. We are at the hot end of precession, and the planet will cope fine over time.
Do we need to stop using our 'precious' resources. Of course, but the point here is that the plans being invoked by those in power has nothing to do with global warming. It is about population culling and a perceived goal of creating a 'utopian' society with a maximum of 0.5 billion people, all controlled.
femr2 2 years ago
Again, if you think that the current level of CO2 emissions is 'dangerous', then make industry CO2 neutral, then triple the population. You are back where you started. YOUR requirement would then be to reduce the population. You cannot separate the two.
One solution could be to give every person in the world half an acre of land and ensure that they grow food and plants to become neutral in nature, but those in power will NEVER allow such a change, and there is still a maximum.
Don't be Naive.
femr2 2 years ago
Add to this the estimation that global population will be over 10 billion by 2050 and it becomes even more of a joke. As the population increases, so do their demands for produce and food, which increases the scale of industry. Even if, say, a power station emissions are cut by 80%, when the number of power stations doubles, so does the emission. The ratio of emission from industry and emission from the population is directly linked. They cannot be separated.
Their plan is population reduction.
femr2 2 years ago
The stone monument at the end of the video is called:
The Georgia Guidestones
femr2 2 years ago
please tell me this is a fucking joke
MonkeyTennis7788 2 years ago
I'm afraid not. Wherever you hear of governments announcing CO2 emission reduction, they mean the human induced emissions (industry and our breath) which make up only 3% of otherwise natural global emissions
To reduce emissions by 80% directly implies massive reduction in the population. There is no other way to go about it
As I've highlighted, if global industry is made CO2 neutral, the population would still have to be reduced by a third to hit an 80% human induced emissions reduction target
femr2 2 years ago
rifleman0007
"we must reduce the population to 1/2 bilion. As soon as possible". Bill Clinton.
I wonder if Bill or any others in favour of this wouldn´t mind being on the list?
Whoever suggested it should put their names top of it.
Show us that the idea is for the good of all.
These people have no soul.
Good vid femr2.
onesliceshort 2 years ago 2
depopulation? bring it the fuck on.
*cocks gun*
chronicebonics 2 years ago 2
lol.. what are you going to do.. shoot that virus?? lol
ejbh3160 2 years ago
LOLOLOLOLOL
any excuse to bring up my gun and say a super hero movie line.
chronicebonics 2 years ago 2
"The G8 has already reached an agreement at their summit in Italy to seek to limit average global temperature increases to 2C by cutting their greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050."
uk. news. yahoo. com /21/20090709/tuk-brown-in-g8-crunch-talks-on-climate-6323e80. html
femr2 2 years ago
Nice video femr. (Trippy music.) These globalists are eugenicists, wake up people.
dukemalibu 2 years ago
"we must reduce the population to 1/2 bilion. As soon as possible". Bill Clinton.
rifleman0007 2 years ago 2
Lets kill the media, governments, arms manufacturers, oil companies and we should be fine!
Cows produce most CO2.
PollenB 2 years ago
You missed the 'bankers', and all of the real 'culprits' who sit above the duped 'workers' in all of the roles you suggest are killed.
You could remove all of those people, and you would have absolutely no effect on halting the 'plan'. It is only through removing power from those who sit above such trivial organisations that we 'will be fine'.
I'm pretty sure 'the oceans' produce most CO2, not cows.
femr2 2 years ago
One cow burp is like one litre of CO2. There are hundreds of millions of them, especially on the plains created by the destuction of the Amazon to feed fat assed Americans.
David Attenboroug has joined a group aimed at world de-population, headed by the Von Battenburg gang in London. They should go first!
PollenB 2 years ago
"Why do you insist on contradicting everything I say?
I blocked you the other day, because I didnt like your comment...and I have never trusted you since you suddenly came on the scene and spoke to me like you knew me. I unblocked you this morning, I have just reversed that decision!
Good luck!"
I correct all inaccurate information. Why you would have a problem with that is beyond me. Must be ego.
We have conversed for quite a while. Who else called you B. ?
Good luck.
femr2 2 years ago
Who died and made you the oracle?
PollenB 2 years ago 2
And why did you post a pm?
PollenB 2 years ago 2
Why not ? If you are not prepared to have such a PM posted in public view, don't send it. (As you have indicated, you have blocked me, so responding via a PM would not be possible. Sending a message and denying any means of response, via blocking, is easily gotten around. Et voila.)
femr2 2 years ago
No-one. Wrong is wrong. Correcting inaccurate information is part of telling 'the truth'.
femr2 2 years ago
Doesn't biology teach that plants need our CO to produce Oxygen? So why would what humans breath hurt, in fact it balances nature. Plants need us and we need them to breath.
starlight1946 2 years ago 4
As I hope you can see, the entire human induced CO2 emissions (Industry and our breath) makes up only 3% of the global CO2 emissions, with the other 97% being made up of entirely natural processes.
The Governmental CO2 plans are, with no doubt at all, simple deception. There is slight 'global warming', but again that has more to do with natural processes (precession and galactic equator) than 'us'.
Thousands of scientists object to the 'official line' on CO2.
Please research. I'll help...
femr2 2 years ago
@starlight1946 , unfortunately there is more life on the planet than just plants. Your view is very shortsighted even though you posted over a year ago. Not surprising you have positive votes because most people when it comes to overpopulation are very shortsighted as well.
controlpopulation 1 year ago
Your channel deserves more subscribers.
priapus512 2 years ago
Share every video you find interesting, rate, favorite :o)
Thanks.
femr2 2 years ago
The stone tablet you showed at the end with the writing on it, Where is that located?
cheesyfudge 2 years ago
The Georgia Guidestones
femr2 2 years ago
Will share straight away....
Veloce3 2 years ago