Climate change and pandemic: It’s both your fault! (In fact, it’s the same agenda for total control)

You wouldn’t listen to the U.N. and al Gore when the world was going to end because of an invisible trace gas (CO2) if we don’t end modern civilisation? Now, you are going to listen to the U.N. and Bill Gates on how the world is going to end because of an invisible virus, if we don’t end modern civilisation. Of course, they are right about reducing environmental pollution, but their solutions for climate change focus on fake alternative energies that are worse for the environment. With that, we are back at forced population reduction.

After people didn’t get excited enough about man-made climate change, Covid-19 policies now just happen to accomplish all the goals of globalist elites. In the US, the radical left’s Green New Deal was de-facto implemented. The middle class is being abolished, Air travel and industries are almost annihilated, all commerce controlled by the state and big corporations.

“How pandemics are linked to climate change.”

Categories: Grand Solar Minimum, Heath, Recently

There are serious concerns the peakoil predictions of Meadows, Laherrère and others could be right.

Even the most euphemistic GND scenarios suggest a reduction of 2/3. People underestimate the energy they spend. There are a lot of solar cells needed for loading a car in Germany. Large cables from Africa lead to extreme voltage losses, Hydrogene production is very inefficient. It is unclear if solar and wind facilities produce any energy at all over their lifetime if the energy invested is substracted.

Energy on the other hand limits the performance of the economy. It is the oil industry itself that expects a supply crunch within the next months, not any esoteric sceptics. It seems against the law of physics to substitute with solar and wind.

A lower performing economy could lead to problems with food supply. The current world population exceeds probably the biologic carrying capacity of the earth and lives directly on oil – that fertilizers, farm work and storage facilities are made from.

It is not possible to maintain our lifestyle with garden work and burning wood. The good old times were already fuelled by coal, and before that we had only 1/16 of the world’s population.

It will not be possible to make people spend less energy because they finally have learned the implications. There is need of food and heating and education that cannot be reduced just by goodwill. Avoiding plastic sacs heavily underestimates the problem.

Personally I have always understood the climate change discussion as a workaround for a serious energy-per-capita discussion that might otherwise produce panic at the stock exchanges. Energy spending certificates might help to support energy efficiency a little bit but saving maybe 15% will not be enough.

The virus hypothesis in my eyes is just a try of very powerful men to make money. I dont see any humanistic approach behind it.

The lockdowns might reduce the energy spend but leads to problems at the oil markets that increase the difficulties. There is no reasonable population reduction by the virus itself. Valuating Covid-19 as a trigger one might argue that any trigger like extreme weather conditions, crop failure or financial turmoil would have done the trick, too.

We should expect hunger and famine as a consequence of the lockdown within the next year as there are still reserves and the oil supply crunch is going to happen after the end of the lockdowns.

Covid-19 would be an important step, though, if we assume the inscenation of a man-made apocalypse following religious scripture. We had menslaughter and the arrival of the beast in the world wars, the ever burning fire at Tchernobyl, the blowing trumpets 911, the poisoning of the waters in Fukushima and now the pandemy with following famine.

They might want to support the inevitable transition, need action for their internal group dynamics or prepare for a savior to come. Maybe they want to create s naive proof that the bible was right.

It is not clear, though, how they could overcome diminishing returns in the oil industry and a not working substitution by renewables. Maybe someone has overcome the problems of Schauberger’s turbine.

LikeLike

2 replies »

Jan says:

28. May 2020 at 18:50

There are serious concerns the peakoil predictions of Meadows, Laherrère and others could be right.

Even the most euphemistic GND scenarios suggest a reduction of 2/3. People underestimate the energy they spend. There are a lot of solar cells needed for loading a car in Germany. Large cables from Africa lead to extreme voltage losses, Hydrogene production is very inefficient. It is unclear if solar and wind facilities produce any energy at all over their lifetime if the energy invested is substracted.

Energy on the other hand limits the performance of the economy. It is the oil industry itself that expects a supply crunch within the next months, not any esoteric sceptics. It seems against the law of physics to substitute with solar and wind.

A lower performing economy could lead to problems with food supply. The current world population exceeds probably the biologic carrying capacity of the earth and lives directly on oil – that fertilizers, farm work and storage facilities are made from.

It is not possible to maintain our lifestyle with garden work and burning wood. The good old times were already fuelled by coal, and before that we had only 1/16 of the world’s population.

It will not be possible to make people spend less energy because they finally have learned the implications. There is need of food and heating and education that cannot be reduced just by goodwill. Avoiding plastic sacs heavily underestimates the problem.

Personally I have always understood the climate change discussion as a workaround for a serious energy-per-capita discussion that might otherwise produce panic at the stock exchanges. Energy spending certificates might help to support energy efficiency a little bit but saving maybe 15% will not be enough.

The virus hypothesis in my eyes is just a try of very powerful men to make money. I dont see any humanistic approach behind it.

The lockdowns might reduce the energy spend but leads to problems at the oil markets that increase the difficulties. There is no reasonable population reduction by the virus itself. Valuating Covid-19 as a trigger one might argue that any trigger like extreme weather conditions, crop failure or financial turmoil would have done the trick, too.

We should expect hunger and famine as a consequence of the lockdown within the next year as there are still reserves and the oil supply crunch is going to happen after the end of the lockdowns.

Covid-19 would be an important step, though, if we assume the inscenation of a man-made apocalypse following religious scripture. We had menslaughter and the arrival of the beast in the world wars, the ever burning fire at Tchernobyl, the blowing trumpets 911, the poisoning of the waters in Fukushima and now the pandemy with following famine.

They might want to support the inevitable transition, need action for their internal group dynamics or prepare for a savior to come. Maybe they want to create s naive proof that the bible was right.

It is not clear, though, how they could overcome diminishing returns in the oil industry and a not working substitution by renewables. Maybe someone has overcome the problems of Schauberger’s turbine.

LikeLike
Anonymous says:

27. May 2020 at 14:48

You have lockdown in switzerland?

LikeLike