Previous Update....... Updates Index.......My Post-Trib Book


May 21 - 27, 2024

Carbon Dioxide Diddly Squat

Foote-in-Mouth Disease

Eunice Foote is said to be the mother of global warming. She discovered that carbon dioxide traps some heat from sunlight before it hits the ground, and therefore discovered, but did not announce, that this gas has a cooling effect on the earth because it prevents some solar heat from reaching the ground. However, the amount of intercepted heat is so small that we can't say there is a cooling effect of any concern, yet the goons are claiming that this weensy bit of intercepted heat is of dire concern in heating the planet. Such an embarrassment these goons are.

The heat intercepted in the air moves into outer space faster than would be the case had there been no carbon-dioxide in air, and this amounts to global cooling because the intercepted heat doesn't get to heat the ground. Most of it doesn't get to heat things 100 feet off the ground. In this video, can you spot how she may have misinterpreted her experiment:

First of all, the bottle of carbon-dioxide is jam-packed with it so that the three additional degrees C would be as about zero additional degree if the bottle had the gas at .0004 density of air.

Aside from that, we might like to know the mechanics of why the carbon-dioxide rose in temperature more than the bottle with air. The best way to answer this is to know what heat is. It's not kinetic energy, as claimed, but is the mere existence in space of free electrons. Therefore, the only explanation for this set-up is that sunlight knocks out more electrons from the carbon-dioxide molecules than it does off of oxygen and nitrogen atoms.

It really doesn't matter what's going on at the mechanical level. As concerns us in relation to the climate-change scam, all we need to understand is that the goons hijacked this "experiment." It's not an experiment at all, but is a means to show that a volume of carbon-dioxide absorbs more sunlight than the same volume of oxygen and nitrogen combined. If carbon-dioxide was not present at all in the air, a little more sunlight would pass to the ground and ocean surfaces to become heat there instead of in the air. The heat would then come out of the ground and oceans to become atmospheric heat...just the same as it does if intercepted in the air. How does this hit-the-ground situation amount to a hotter climate? IT DOES NOT. Spread the word.

I can venture a guess as to why carbon-dioxide absorbs more sunlight than air atoms, at least in-part because it is a larger molecule, but also because it's heavier so that, in any specific volume at STP, it's got a higher number of molecules than both oxygen and nitrogen. So, with both bottles being bombarded by the same number of light waves, the molecules with more atomic material will get more electrons knocked off of them. Or, if you wish, you can view it as blocking more sunlight, because all transparent materials block some sunlight, be it ever so small of the whole coming through.

Once free from protons, electrons are the true definition of heat. So long as they are captured by protons, electrons cannot enter the skin, cannot enter a thermometer, cannot act as heat. I just want to share this with readers because it's my personal discovery, and Jesus says we should share knowledge from our storehouse of knowledge. I did not ever hear this idea from anyone else, though I suspect others had discovered, before I was born, that heat is the material of free electrons. They can enter into the atomic pores of any material.

To put it another way, Ms. Foote was playing with the photo-electric effect, defined as disengaging some captured electrons, due to sunlight's bombardment, from atomic surfaces. This is going on at all times to all materials basking in sunlight.

When the sun shines on carbon-dioxide immersed in air atoms, it loses some heat material, but when a cloud between it and the sun, the carbon-dioxide re-loads with electrons abundantly available all around it in the air. There is no net-heat loss or net-heat gain in the photo-electric effect. Whatever heat exits the molecule from sunshine bombardment is regained when the sun isn't shining. The best we can say is that there is TEMPORARY heat gain in the air, but, again, this saves the ground from receiving the heat.

Carbon-dioxide is therefore the greenhouse roof in reverse -- the greenhouse floor, that is -- preventing some solar light from reaching the ground. The climate-change clowns have it backward because it serves their $$$stealing purposes.

The climate-change stooge wants you to believe that carbon-dioxide can steal more heat from sunlight than oxygen and nitrogen atoms. Not technically correct. This gas does not put the heat into its pocket, where it remains. Carbon-dioxide instantly releases the sunlight as heat, and so it acts as a shield deflecting the heat into the air. On the other hand, each oxygen and nitrogen atom absorbs-and-emits (deflect) less heat from sunlight, and therefore each atom gives off less heat to the atmosphere. But the amount of incoming heat from sunlight is identical in both cases. It's just that the carbon-monoxide blocks a wee more of it...without generation of new heat. Can you please tell me how this amounts to a crisis?

The only pertinent question: what critical or destructive effect is there due to a carbon-monoxide molecule blocking a teensy-weeny-itty-bitty amount of heat rather than allowing it to reach the ground? The global-warmists, spewers of mind pollution, are worthy of long jail sentences for stealing tax dollars for purportedly seeking to fix no crisis at all.

The biggest point of all is that the oxygen and nitrogen atoms, along also with the air's water molecules, block a lot more sunlight than the itty-bitty numbers of the air's carbon-dioxide molecules. The magicians can't say that the latter results in a greenhouse effect without also saying that air and water do the same, but this is how magicians can operate, stressing something over there so that you don't look over here. While each air atom can't deflect as much solar heat, there's 2,400 times as much air-atom material as compared to carbon-dioxide material hovering in the atmosphere. It's what the magicians don't want you to look at.

Modern science is forced to conclude that a gas making up only .0004 density of air can block only a little more than .0004 amount of the solar heat coming through. If carbon-dioxide can block four times as much light as compared to air atoms, then it can block .0004 x 4 = .0016 parts (16/1000ths) of the total sunlight. Does that look like a heat-confounding crisis that can destroy continental coasts in 20-30 years?

Demonic clowns are monkeys on our shoulders at this time, and they aim to push climate-change with more demonism now than before, because the people are allowing them to get away with it. If Bill Gates wants to drop particles in the air to block sunlight, the best he can do is to add more carbon-dioxide, for it exactly blocks sunlight. This is what we are not being told, what we are missing, wherefore spread the message that this gas blocks sunlight.

What these clowns need to do is to re-do the experiment above with a carbon-dioxide bottle having a density of .0004 times less than (1/2400th of) normal air, which will be at 14.7 psi / 2,400 = .006 psi. Obviously, the temperature in the near-vacuum bottle of carbon-dioxide will not rise anymore than in the bottle of air.

Scientists of the establishment are still in the dark (or pretending to be) as to the real nature of heat. Atmospheric heat consists of solar electrons streaming in as the solar wind. Due to their repelling each other, they compress all around an air atom or molecule, squeezing inward upon them and thus loading themselves upon the peripheries of atoms.

The protonic cores of atoms and molecules are surrounded by many, non-orbiting electrons caught/trapped by protonic attraction. Solar electrons are free from protonic attraction until some of them squeeze into the captured-electron atmosphere surrounding every atom. This is how atoms and molecules store heat, because the solar electrons around atomic peripheries become temporarily trapped by protonic attraction...yet they will leak off once the density of solar electrons in the air decreases (this defines a decrease in atmospheric temperature).

For as long as electrons are trapped upon atoms, they are not technically heat. They can't get into your skin, they can't get into a thermometer, if they are trapped on atoms. Only when they leak away, as air cools, do these electrons return to being heat particles again. The reason I know this is because it's a no-brainer to figure out from the things known in atomic physics.

There is often much water in the first mile of sky-height. Free electrons, as they rise from the ground toward space, slow down when bumping into the water droplets / molecules. This situation is simple to understand as slowed heat traffic, and constitutes the real greenhouse-roof effect, but an itty-bitty amount of carbon-dioxide cannot slow the electron flow much at all.

Why do solar electrons rise into space? You wouldn't believe me if I told you. They are repelled by gravity because free electrons in the heat of the earth's magna is the true gravity source of the planet. Electrons repel electrons so that gravity repels incoming solar electrons out into space; if it were not so, the earth would fry. From outer space they arrive; into space they end up again. The air's materials slow the incoming electrons. Once the gravity force becomes greater than the inward force of solar-electron flow, gravity gets the upper hand and changes their direction to upward (usually on an upward ANGLE, not straight up, to begin with).

Someone writes: "How come the heat absorbing capability of Atmospheric water is never discussed in these climate discussions? From my work with FTIR, I know atmospheric CO2 is heat absorbing but it has a very narrow absorption spectrum while atmospheric water vapor has a very wide and deep absorption spectrum that will engulf a CO2 peak." To put it another way, water in the air deflects thousands of times more solar heat, yet nobody argues that we need to remove water from the air to avoid a climate-change catastrophe. In fact, this is all so STUPID because gases that block solar light have a cooling effect on the planet, not a heating effect.

In the desert, water is mainly absent, yet carbon-dioxide is as present there as anywhere else in the air. But carbon-dioxide in the desert does diddly squat for restricting atmospheric heat's flow out into space, proof-positive that this gas is of no concern as to its ability to create a greenhouse effect.

How is it a global-warming crisis for the carbon-dioxide to steal some solar heat before it strikes the ice of Greenland? The experiment above tells us that one carbon-dioxide molecule blocks more solar heat than any other constituent of the air. In that case, there ought to be a little less melting of the ice sheets than would be the case with no carbon-dioxide in air. Right? Yes. The clowns focus you only on the rising heat, saying that carbon-dioxide shields heat rise, but what about its shielding incoming heat? Why don't they address that part? Because globalist gangsters can't benefit from that part.

When they do address the incoming heat, they say that it's different than the outgoing heat. Aside from the blah-blah that they spew next, that claim is true. The incoming heat is from light waves, and the outgoing is different, a flow of electrons. Sunlight "pumps" electrons into the earth's surface, and these electrons then rise upward. But carbon-dioxide prevents some sunlight from pumping some electrons into the earth's surface, and that's the new weapon we need to bring to the climate-change battle, because this is where the battle rages most: at the effects of carbon-dioxide upon incoming heat.

I'm sure some are wondering what I mean by sunlight pumping electrons into the earth's surface. A solar light wave toward earth begins when an electron is ejected outward from the sun toward earth. There exists a solar wind of electrons between both cosmic bodies, and so the ejected electron bumps an electron to it's front, and the second one bumps forward a third, so on all the way to earth. The forward bumps continue through the atmosphere until they reach an electron beside the earth's ground or waters, and this last electron in the line gets jolted into the ground or water to act as heat there. These lights waves are going on innumerably and very fast. Everything basking in sunlight increases in temperature because electrons are being bumped, or "pumped," into them.

But we now need to address how the electron-bumping gets past all of the air atoms before reaching the earth's surface. There can be no photon particle because it cannot get past all the air atoms. It will strike a proton of an air atom eventually, and in fact there are so many air atoms that a photon particle will strike many, many protons such that the light will cease to be a straight line from sun to earth. And if it ceases to be a straight line, we would not be able to see the sun as a crisp / distinct circle. Instead, it would be a large and dim blur, so dim that the earth would freeze, for if light particles collide with protons, many light particles will be deflected backward or sidewards into space. COLD EARTH is the result.

It's therefore a no-brainer to figure out what light truly is because there's only one option: light waves travel around an atom's electron periphery. That's right, light waves move as motion energy, electron to electron in the solar wind, and when one light wave bumps into an air atom or carbon-dioxide molecule, it can logically travel around its outer layers of captured electrons...because God made electrons the light-wave medium for electron bumping. Electrons cannot transfer light when bumping protons; it works only when electrons bump other electrons, and all atoms are surrounded by them. Light is a pure Genius invention.

The light wave strikes one side of the atom, then circles around the entire atom, the "flies" out of the atom on the opposite side to resume the electron-to-electron bumps in the solar-wind electrons. And the wave repeats this fly-around each time it collides with an atom or carbon-dioxide molecule. There is no other known option, absent of a fatal flaw, for describing the mechanics of light waves. The photon bullet has a fatal flaw, the go-around light wave cancels that fatal flaw.

The carbon-dioxide molecule is able to resist some of the light wave passing around it such that a few captured electrons go missing from the molecule as heat particles. The resistance to light-wave flow is in the captured electrons, and resistance, by nature, means that some light-wave energy goes AGAINST the captured electrons, with the logical result that some captured electrons get jolted sufficient to become heat. Of course, most atoms deny the go-around light-wave because the captured electrons of most atoms do not allow it. These atoms are called, opaque. But "transparent" atoms are PURE GENIUS, thank you Oh Lord.

The bottle experiment of Ms. Foote exactly proves that the dioxide BLOCKS incoming solar heat, for rising heat through a greenhouse-like layer of air is irrelevant in that experiment. That's right. Nobody in their right mind claims that there's a greenhouse effect taking place in the bottle. The extra heat formed in the bottle is not there from heat entering the bottom of the bottle, and then getting trapped between dioxide molecules as it rises through the bottle. The extra heat is clearly from blocked sunlight.

Yet the evil wizards in science departments refuse to tell us what they can see with their own eyes, that carbon-dioxide BLOCKS some sunlight so as to convert it to regular heat. BLOCKS IT. Get that through your blockheads, foolish climate-changers, because blocked heat does not make the earth's surface warmer, but cooler.

Therefore, the more carbon dioxide in the air, the less light that reaches Greenland's ice. Where, then, is the crisis from rising sea level due to increased ice melt with increased carbon-dioxide???? It's obliterated. The manufactured crisis, that is, is obliterated, and the ice stays intact. If permanent ice in any location has been recently melting in summer more than ice is added in winter precipitation, it's not due to carbon-dioxide. There are two other ways to accomplish it.

When sunlight is blocked in the air, the resulting heat tends to move upward in spite of air currents (winds) keeping it lower for longer periods, and therefore the blocked heat won't generally make its way down to the ice. Eunice Foote inadvertently discovered that carbon-dioxide serves to reduce ice melt, but she interpreted things differently.

The evolutionist establishment refused to understand, into and beyond Einstein's day, that heat is the material of free electrons...and here we are a century later where they still refuse to acknowledge that the kinetic theory of heat cannot be correct. There are two forms of solar heat, one from light waves injecting electrons into anything the waves strike, and one from the physical flow of the solar-electron wind into the air. It is not true, as claimed, that the earth's magnetic field forbids solar-electron flow into the air. The reason that science makes this false claim is that the entry of solar wind into the air leads to the death of big-bang viability.

The goofs tag heat as infra-red light, but heat is not light at all, though the two always co-exist, yet they always co-exist with free electrons too. Instead, heat is a flow of electrons that cause some infra-red light. Moving electrons are the source of light; the faster they emit from atoms, the stronger the light waves they create. Electrons that define heat move so slow that they produces weak, invisible-to-the-eyes light.

Electrons in outer space and in the air are the light-wave medium, duh, the scientists had figured this out long ago but decided to scrap the idea, to keep it from the world because they needed the kinetic theory of heat to compliment their big-bang fantasy. Electrons filling the air is the murder of the big bang, I've shown how this can be so. In short, solar electrons load themselves onto all atoms, gas, liquid and solid. These electrons force air atoms to remain at a distance from one another, and every indication is that air atoms REPEL one another due to these self-loading electrons. If air / gas atoms did not repel, they would become instantly a liquid because gravity would force them together at a lowest-possible point. Atoms need to repel each other with more force than gravity seeks to bring them together, otherwise gases could not exist. The higher the gas temperature, the more the gas atoms inter-repel, what does that tell you? It should tell you that electrons foist their negativity upon atoms. Negative repels negative, and so atoms repel atoms to the degree that heat exists in their midst. Take away most of the heat, and gases become liquids.

The more heat-particle electrons in the air, the harder air atoms repel from one another, the higher up they reach into the sky. It is this atomic inter-repulsion which destroys the big-bang theory, can you figure out why? This is why science leaders rejected the obvious-to-them reality that heat is the material of free electrons. No respected scientist is permitted to advance this idea without being punished, ridicule included.

What is better for the creation of the universe by the big bang, atoms that attract one another, or that repel one another? Now you know why the goofballs chose to believe that gas atoms attract one another. But in order to make that choice, the needed the further claim that gas atoms remain apart due to flying around, and colliding constantly, at many thousands of miles per hour. It is by these hard collisions, and bouncing off of one another, that they remain apart so as not to become liquids. This is the kinetic theory of atoms, yet it's impossible for more than one reason.

For example, it's known that the weight of air is what causes a gas pressure of 14.7 pounds per square inch at the ground. It's less than 14.7 pounds further up from the ground, because there is less air weighing down. It's known that a column of air, one inch square, from ground to air ceiling, weighs 14.7 pounds upon the ground. However, if air atoms attract each other, they cannot transfer their weights to anything, and consequently air pressure at the ground could not be 14.7 psi.

The goofs define air pressure as the collisions of ever-speeding atoms against any surface, but as air pressure registers exactly as the weight of air, it's plain and simple to conclude that air pressure cannot be due to collision forces of atoms. It is very unlikely that the collision forces of atoms would be exactly 14.7 psi by sheer coincidence. Weight and colliding atoms are not the same thing at all. Therefore, atoms transfer their weights to the ground because they repel each other.

Can you grasp what thing exists between repelling atoms that could transfer their weights? It's so easy to figure that it's plain-Jane to figure that scientists had understood this principle long ago, yet they rejected it without telling the public that they were looking at it. They knew it made more sense than kineticism, yet they want kineticism so badly that they prefer to lie to you about it.

The goofs have gone terribly wayward into error by adopting the kinetic theory. For example, they would say that hydrogen gas at 14.7 psi has lighter but faster H atoms (than air) so that it gives exactly the same 14.7 punch as atmospheric air atoms do. In other words, they "discovered" the relative speed of H atoms by this fallacious kinetic theory. They have never witnessed atoms racing around, but assume that they cause gas pressure, and so once they arrived at the wrong relative weights of atoms, they did worse by assigning them specific speeds that are non-existent to begin with. They arrived at the relative weights of atoms by assuming the unthinkable: all equal volumes of gas at the same temperature and pressure have the same number of atoms. LAUGHABLE GOOFBALLS.

Okay, so where are we today? The earth is growing greenery like never before since the Garden of Eden, and there's no threat to ocean coasts from permafrost melt? And so why are they stealing trillions of dollars in taxes to "fix" this excellent situation?

All those climate-changer stooges on social media, who rally for the goons as if this were a fun sports competition, have no feelings in their hearts whatsoever for the deep costs to hard-working people in making the "green" change by force of national laws. These are possibly, by and large, the same ignorant / heartless people who would see nations arrest those afraid of COVID vaccines, the same people who would take the 666 without a blink:

Note the chart in the 2nd minute:

The short video below shows you how climate-change stooges lie and omit facts. You first see that the atmosphere prevents much solar radiation from hitting the ground, but late in the video, this is ignored, and the only concern is rising heat trapped by "the one-percent." What's he mean by the "one-percent"? Apparently, he's lying to his audience, trying to make it believe that carbon-dioxide is one-percent of the air. He's probably including water vapor into that one-percent, but says nothing about it. And he has the audacity to say that the one-percent of "infra-red absorbers...manages to intercept about 90-percent of earth's outgoing heat." Cow patties. These words are framed as heavy-duty misconception. In reality, all of the heat gets out without any problem at all. The water in the air simply slows the heat passage a little, and the carbon-dioxide does diddly squat to that effect. He's a disgusting, bone-headed, falsifying blockhead contributing to the heist of all mankind, no small matter.

Ignore the complicated way the molecules are drawn, for physicists have no idea how molecules look or behave, but rather they invent things as needed for their theories, and all they need to do to be convincing is to make some drawings while giving the appearance that they know what they're talking about. They are unafraid because almost nobody can prove their inventions wrong:

Not all the atmospheric heat from a cloudy night comes from water droplets slowing the traffic of rising heat. Much of the heat comes from water droplets (that make up clouds) increasing in size, for whenever atoms or droplets of any kind merge, they release heat, a well-known fact.

More falsifying exaggeration from a google offering: "Even though it only makes up 0.00017% (1.7 parts per million by volume) of the atmosphere, methane traps a significant amount of heat, helping the planet remain warm and habitable." Say what? A mere 1.7 molecules of methane, per million air atoms, is going to "trap" a "SIGNIFICANT" amount of heat??? What a disgusting writer from NASA. This is the brainwashing of a global cult. A methane molecule must be a giant vacuum cleaner that sucks up heat thousands of atoms away from itself. What a disgusting writer from a satanic, globalist cult, NASA.

The International Energy Agency: "Methane is responsible for around 30% of the current rise in global temperature ... " We are dealing with a demonoid machine intent on exploiting us. We had best fight back with prayer, but also with words in the public square. It is completely asinine to claim as confident fact that .00017-percent of air material could cause a whopping 30-percent of all temperature rise from the norm, even if they know exactly what the norm is...which they do not.

In the video below, the Foote experiment is done, not with sunshine through the glass, but with radiated heat entering the glass containers. In this case, the container with carbon-dioxide gas does not increase in temperature more than the air, meaning that carbon-dioxide is NOT an absorber of heat. It absorbs some light, which then converts to heat, but does not absorb that this becomes a way in which we can clobber global-warming stooges on the head the way Moe did to Curly:

In the second experiment using the bag of carbon-dioxide (video above), the speaker claims that the dioxide absorbs more intra-red light than the bag of air does, which I don't dispute other than to say that it "blocks" the light rather than to absorb it, for "absorb" can be misleading in this case. The dioxide is not a vacuum cleaner sucking in the light and retaining it, which is the meaning of "absorb." Instead, the dioxide blocks the light, and at least part of the reason for its blocks more light is that dioxide molecules are larger/heavier and more dense than air atoms. Like, a thicker forest blocks more wind.

Equal volumes of gases at STP weigh 44 units for carbon-dioxide and 16 for oxygen. It means that goofball, in the video above, has almost three times as much material in the bag with the dioxide than in the bag with oxygen.

No matter how one frames this experiment, it's not true to nature because nature has only 1 part carbon-dioxide to 2,400 parts air atoms. When a video speaker fails to mention that "detail," he/she is being deliberately misleading. He/she does not want you to know how little carbon-dioxide there is in air, for this "detail" is not only extremely important in a discussion such as this video presents, but is the KEY / PRIME / MAJOR part of the discussion...that is bound to make the viewer realize that global warming is a scam. Shame on this popular video owner for pushing a scam for fear of bucking against elite goofballs.

He himself proved that there is no greenhouse effect when he showed that carbon-dioxide does not absorb normal heat. All hoopla in climate-change proof revolves around the trapping of normal, upward heat, and yet this experiment shows no such trapping. Shame on the video owner for not pointing this out.

Even if the dioxide captures 100-percent the sun's heat and locks it up in its prison cell, how does this amount to global warming? These idiots are making idiots of viewers. If the dioxide captured all sunlight, that's called global freezing, STUPIDS. They can perform greenhouse-gas magic till they're blue and purple all over, but they've lost this game before it even begins. The more the they show and prove that the dioxide acts as a shield of solar heat, the more they shove Foote into their mouths.

If the back-catcher catches the baseball before it hits the umpire, how is this a crisis to the umpire? It carbon-dioxide catches some heat before it hits the ice, how is this a sea-level crisis? There would be more ice melt with zero carbon-dioxide, but the blithering, irresponsible, reckless idiots have it backward.

To be precise, a google offering: "Earth's atmosphere now has 416 parts of Carbon Dioxide for every million parts of air." That's a fraction of 1/2403.

Some goof tried to tackle the question: "". As part of his response, this magician has the following blah-blah:

CO2 makes up only about 0.04% of the atmosphere, and water vapor can vary from 0 to 4%. But while water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas in our atmosphere, it has “windows” [poppycock] that allow some of the infrared energy to escape without being absorbed. In addition, water vapor is concentrated lower in the atmosphere, whereas CO2 mixes well all the way to about 50 kilometers up. The higher the greenhouse gas, the more effective it is at trapping heat from the Earth’s surface.

To the contrary, the higher up the carbon-monoxide, the less of it gets to the ground. Did he forget this part? No. Why didn't he mention it? Because he's a deceiver. He's a magician who wants you to look only at the heat rise, not the heat fall. Guaranteed, heat does not get "trapped" while rising through a meager gas such as 1 part per 2,400.

I've just watched a video claiming that carbon-dioxide has recently increased from 280 parts per million to 420 parts, since the 1800's (about the time of Ms. Foote, hmmm). The walloping implication is that man has increased the dioxide by almost 50-percent, but this is scare-tactic disinformation because man-made carbon-dioxide is a minute part of what nature itself makes continually. A google offering: "CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere and humans have contributed only 3% of that." Where does the 280-versus-420 come from, may we ask? I don't know, but while it's going around because it's working in making converts, it's going to stab the stooges in the back eventually.

Someone has been spreading this bunk: "As of my last knowledge update in September 2021, approximately 75-80% of the carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth's atmosphere is estimated to be due to human activities..." That is a very dangerous lie when it gets around, but, so long as the rest of us are permitted to do information combat against it, the nutbar is actually doing a disservice to the global-warming showing how badly he's been deceived.

I can see where this is going, taxing our water-producing machines / processes because water is a bigger "greenhouse gas" than carbon-dioxide. It doesn't bode well for hydrogen-based power, not because its water exhaust is a real threat, but because the useful idiots are now the biggest threat to humanity. That's right, it's not the white, male "terrorist" who's the biggest threat, but those who help the corporate thieves intentionally reduce us all to paupers, too afraid of failing to pay the bills to make information war against the elite kings. The latter want like-minded corporations to be the diadems on the facia of their crowns.

Some writes, probably correctly: "There is plenty of other evidence that CO2 is trivial to climate change. Water vapor is by far the most important greenhouse gas, providing 96 to 98% of any greenhouse effect." You see, the Schwabites are barking up the wrong tree, but they do so deliberately because the game plan is to take away our gasoline cars. If our cars were producing water vapor instead of carbon-dioxide, they'd be barking up the water-vapor tree.

Someone does warfare very nicely:

First you are mistaken. The percentage of CO2 (total) in the atmosphere is 420 +/-10 ppm. That is 0.042%.. You have overstated the percentage by almost 3 times. But the point you make is correct in that the percentage is so low as to be nil. It cannot have any significant effect and cannot compare in IR emission effects to water vapor which can be 3% of the atmosphere and typically is above 1%. Water vapor covers the entire range of CO2 adsorption and it does the job at nearly 250,000 times the efficiency of CO2.

Climate-change fanatics are: BARKING UP THE WRONG TREE. Their only solution now is to pump out the oceans, because it's they which do most to "pollute" the air with clouds. Bad oceans. Bad-bad clouds. To where shall we pump out the oceans?

Here's the scariest quote I've found yet, studding with errors: "Since 1880, we’ve added 46% more CO2 to the atmosphere than the level that the planet maintained prior to our industrialized use of fossil fuels. We’ve also raised the temperature by 1 degree C, which in turn has increased the evaporation rate by 7%, thus increasing the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere." Bang-bang-bang, we're dead for sure.

Plus, as the goons always like to say that carbon-dioxide ABSORBS heat, then they are unwittingly admitting that this gas has a cooling effect, for the very definition of absorbed heat by atoms is, "cooling." Ha-ha-ha. Bang-bang-bang right atcha. This is going to be a fun war to fight because our enemies are killing themselves, first by swallowing toxic arguments, and then by handing us their swords by which to stab them. Have no mercy, because we do better to put them out of their misery than to let them howl at the moon all night long.

Carbon Dioxide Just as Clean as Hydrogen Exhaust

Electric cars were on their way up in sales in 2022 because people were not being told much about the problems. Videos like this one are like the grim reaper to EVs:

There's more people who hate to give-in to globalists plots than to abide by them, meaning that the onslaught against electric cars has only just begun. This creates the added headache to globalists in figuring out a public-acceptable excuse for censoring bad reports on electric vehicles. Hate speech against electric vehicles must be suppressed fast because the globalist deadline for EV supremacy is in less than a dozen years.

As people learn that most electric-charging stations, including peoples' homes, are powered from fossil-fuel electric generators, wallop, even the Green parties will become opposed lest they get a backlash from their more-sensible voters, or lest they appear willfully ignorant. And another wake-up call: ev's are heavier, needing more "gas" to get from A to B, and most of that extra weight is pure toxicity to the "mother earth" they claim to coddle.

Globalists, laughing stocks. Nobody ever says that globalists think things through, but everyone's going to know that they intend to "succeed" by brute force, no matter how bad their ideas are for the people, and many supporters will be murdered by them all along the way, such a terrible way to die. But, of course, they will deserve it. The Bible tells us so.

Our job should be to warn the masses against supporting globalist plots, for this is the back-stabbing devil. By now, the masses should already know it, but they obstinately refuse to take the warnings. Lovers of the deaths of others they will become, and death they will receive from the satanic bodies they support. Those who are basking in satanic spirits within their souls will support the murder of vast numbers of people in the name of reducing populations, like when one views humans as stink bugs. And that's because cities have too many people, not what God intended. Don't blame Him.

City politicians are to blame for over-crowded neighborhoods because they have been greedy for maximized property / business taxes. Spread the people out more, and people will love each other more, but proudful elites don't want them happy in the countrysides, but are plotting to pack them in 15-minute sardine cans on the other side of the city tracks, wanting never to cross paths with them. It's just as though globalists are suckers for punishment. Imagine a lunatic, justin trudeau, punching himself in the face until he's dead. That situation full-blown is called, Armageddon, the end-result of hard-headed, stupid people who think they are good leadership material when leading to everything unBiblical.

As the world moves closer to the Millennium, it appears that non-human work will be done by water fuel. This technology is far better for the environment that ev's. There's lots of power in water, if anyone can figure out how to break it down atomically, and they do have a way that may have hidden improvements to be discovered shortly after Armageddon.

Gas stations already have unlimited water, no problem. Ideally, people would fill up with water, which is converted on-board the car to hydrogen, but rather than burning the hydrogen in a piston engine, it's used to produce electrical power (technology already exists), meaning there isn't a tank of hydrogen on board either.

But on-board conversion of water to hydrogen is not practical, needing hidden secrets yet to be discovered on how to make fast-and-inexpensive H atoms from water. And so the next move could be hydrogen-tank fuel on-board cars that converts to electrical power: the "hydrogen fuel cell." Why didn't Musk go into this type of technology to begin with?

This video below has a computerized voice-over, and the speaker talks too fast, sorry, but this is the way of the future: fast-talkers, and lots of imagery, in video presentations, to better keep you from spotting misinformation:

The problem with green freaks is that they refuse to be honest with the people. They lament "dirty" fossil fuels when in fact gas-powered cars now release almost all carbon-dioxide, not dirty at all. Toxic oil is taken from the rocks, and converted by cars into an earth-friendly gas, a win-win for the most part. But nobody tells you this. Instead, they demonize carbon-dioxide like pushers of a fraudulent program...because that's what it is.

The amount of carbon-dioxide caused by man in MINISCULE, of no effect in the atmosphere but to give plant life more food so that it then returns more oxygen for us to breath, another win-win. Gasoline cars were once bad only when they spewed carbon monoxide, but I doubt they spewed as much as forest fires do, and so the problem was only in the cities. By the time carbon monoxide spreads outside of cities, it's of no more concern than forest-fire smoke.

The dioxide is not poisonous; anyone who campaigns by telling you that it create a greenhouse effect is the FREAK, part of a fringe minority led by money-grubbing, billionaire imps. If you've seen trudeau operate, you've seen what a thieving, mischievous imp looks like who seeks to gather fellow thorns-in-your-side, useful idiots of "climate change." There's a reason they stopped calling it, "global warming," because they look unscientific (idiotic) when using that phrase. Sea levels have not been rising, period, and carbon dioxide makes up FAR LESS than one-percent of the atmosphere.

Instead of making hydrogen on-board your car, it's being made from water at the gas station, a method already operational in California. It reduces waiting times at gas stations from an hour on average (for battery cars) to five or ten minutes, which is a huge deal because I'll bet that most people loath electric cars mostly for the long wait in refueling. But the price of gas-station-produced hydrogen gas is three times as much as gasoline, meaning that nobody wants this yet.

The trick is to produce hydrogen for about five times less cost than it's presently costing. And God knows how to do it. In the meantime, gasoline engines are as clean as hydrogen exhaust, with carbon-dioxide on the one hand, and water vapor on the other. We've got to get this through our heads: carbon-dioxide is SAFE and CLEAN when in the open air.

Apparently, if I understand the video below correctly, the mere CONTACT of platinum with hydrogen gas causes the H atoms to lose some of its captured electrons, on one side a hydrogen fuel cell. These electrons become an electrical current toward the other side of the fuel cell. Both sides begin as empty space.

As the freed electrons repel one another to the other side of the fuel cell, from there they attract the H atoms (through a membrane) from which they had been separated in the first place. It seems ingenious or fortuitous. However, the video doesn't tell why or where the H atoms combine with oxygen (from the air) to become water as the exhaust.

Some will tell you that the H atoms within the membrane are protons, because atomic physicists have wrongly defined a positive-charged H atom as a proton. That's because modern atomic physics chose the wrong atomic model in order to make viable the erroneous big-bang theory of creation. They view each H atom as having just one electron, which is one of the nuttiest ideas of modern science. Ideas more nuttier are in this same atomic model, but that's another story. In reality, an H atom has many electrons, and loses only a small fraction of them in the fuel cell. If anyone can figure out how to deplete the H atom of more electrons, it forms greater heat and/or electrical energy, for all energy is based on inter-repelling electrons or inter-repelling atoms. All energy is based in electromagnetic repulsion force. There is no such thing as a neutron, and that too is one of the nuttiest ideas of modern science.

In the video below, showing the fuel cell with protons, the claim is made that electrons can't get through the membrane. FALSE. If atoms can get through it, so can weensy-teensy electrons. There is no material that electrons can't get through. Free electrons define heat, and heat penetrates all materials. One of the nuttiest inventions of atomic physics is the kinetic theory of heat. In reality, heat is the substance of free electrons (freed from atoms).

It's not that the electrons can't get through the membrane, but rather that they prefer the speedy way to the other side of the fuel call, by going around the membrane. That is, electrons inter-repel along the easiest path (of least resistance), and if it's a choice between inter-repelling along a metal wire versus going through a membrane material, it'll be the electrical wire with priority.

I know why electrons find it very easy to travel along a copper wire while atomic physicists do not know. That's because they have the nuttiest view: orbiting electrons. Only a total nutcracker thinks that electrons can orbit protons or anything else. I hope you're not one of them. Here's the video:

This video, too, refuses to tackle the question of why / how the positively-charged H atoms combine with oxygen in the air. It says only that air is permitted to flow along the cathode side of the fuel cell. Apparently, modern science doesn't know why the positive H atoms combine with O atoms, but no doubt they have ventured a guess, but no doubt they are wrong in that guess...because, once you have committed to a wrong atomic model, most-everything you guess will be wrong.

We know that H atoms and O atoms, alone in a container, will not combine unless there is a spark in their midst, or sufficient heat achieving the combustion temperature point of hydrogen gas. I don't see either of these active in the fuel cell, as described by the last two videos.

It's either necessary, or unavoidable, that the positive H atoms combine with oxygen, otherwise the designers of the fuel cell would take the H atoms and run them through the fuel cell repeatedly and perpetually, wouldn't that be nice? But, for some reason, the H atoms are made useless by becoming water. It seems that, if they did not run air over the cathode, the electron (electric) flow toward the positively-charged H atoms would not take place. That's because the electrons would re-load upon the H atoms, and cease to make them positively charged, cancelling the electron flow, because the latter depends on positively-charged H atoms.

In other words, they need to get the re-loaded H atoms out of the cathode side of the fuel cell, for this allows a new dump of positively-charged H atoms to come out of the membrane and take their place. It is therefore fortuitous that the re-loaded H atoms are plucked out of the fuel cell by passer-by O atoms. But why do O atoms attract re-loaded H atoms when this doesn't happen in normal conditions without a spark or high heat (500C)?

There is evidence that God created a special atom, the O atom, to be different than all others in that it somehow retains a positive charge when it's a normal atom (neither depleted or over-loaded with electrons). This makes the O atom the reason for the combustion of a multitude of materials. Add some heat or sparks to combustible materials immersed on oxygen, and boom! or flames result.

In the fuel cell, there is always a set of positively-charged H atoms within the membrane, and therefore there is always a surplus of freed electrons -- as compared to when the process begins with zero H atoms in the membrane -- acting upon the H atoms in the cathode. Therefore, this slight over-loading of H atoms with electrons could itself be the catalyst that allows O atoms to rob the H atoms away. If correct, it teaches us a thing.

When one runs electricity through water, it's a surplus of electrons added in the midst of water molecules, yet it separates H atoms from O atoms. Whey then, does the reverse take place in the fuel cell? I suggest that electricity running through water is erosive, like a wind blowing captured electrons off of both H and O atoms. That is, the electricity makes the H atoms positively-charged enough that they repel from the positively-charged O atoms. But in the fuel cell, the H atoms are made more negative to a point sufficient to attract O atoms (or be attracted by o atoms).

Atomic physicists know that some metals knock off more electrons from H atoms than others, yet, dopes, they retain the concept that H atoms have only one electron each. How can one metal make H atoms positively charged more than another metal unless H atoms have more than one electron each? Duh. A platinum catalyst is used because it knocks off more electrons than other metallic catalysts. The more electrons knocked off, the closer to one another they are when knocked off, and the harder they inter-repel from one another down a metallic conductor. This defines their voltage levels: the closer together, the higher the voltage (and amp potential). The closer together the electrons, the more your wheels turn.

Here's a break-through to alleviate expensive hydrogen fuel cells due to the platinum catalyst:

A new sustainable and practical method for producing hydrogen from water has been discovered by a team of researchers at the RIKEN Center for Sustainable Resource Science (CSRS) in Japan led by Ryuhei Nakamura. Unlike current methods, the new method does not require rare metals [i.e. platinum and iridium] that are expensive or in short supply. Instead, hydrogen for fuel cells and agricultural fertilizers can now be produced using cobalt and manganese, two fairly common metals. The study was published in Nature Catalysis.

...Eventually, the team overcame these issues by trial and error, and discovered an active and stable catalyst by inserting manganese into the spinel lattice of Co3O4 [cobalt-oxide], producing the mixed cobalt manganese oxide Co2MnO4.

Testing showed that Co2MnO4 performed very well. Activation levels were close to those for state-of-the art iridium oxides. Additionally, the new catalyst lasted over two months at a current density of 200 milliamperes per square centimeter, which could make it effective for practical use...

By the time the Millennium arrives, making fuel out of water can be an easy, do-it-in-the-kitchen process. The Future is ours, Christian, not theirs. All of their labors, all of their learning, will be inherited by the meek of the planet, the ones that proudful globalists despise.

We would expect corporate forces deeply committed to electric vehicles to attack the viability of hydrogen fuel cells, but for as long as fossil fuels are needed to produce hydrogen gas, both types of vehicles are going to fail the people who can't afford either. And when globalists foist these expensive ideas on the people, they are like trudeau punching himself in the face until politically dead. This is a super by-product of ev's, the falling flat on the face of the globalist tyrant.

So here's what they are willing to do. To force car dealers to stock half gas cars, half electric cars, and when all the gas cars are sold out for that year or half-year, people that need a new car will be forced to by electric against their will, or wait until a new lot of gas cars arrives to the dealership. But that shouldn't happen because car dealers should give the boot to the government for stomping on their rights to sell cars and make money efficiently. That looks like a divorce between globo-politics and globo-corporates. It'll force dealers to sell their over-stocked electric cars very cheap to get rid of them, but because this is dandy with globalists, car dealers are talking bad against them. And that's also why the buyers will vote political stooges out of power who support this callous attitude.

I think it's possible that globalists are trying to force us off of gasoline cars because they know most won't be able to afford electric cars, exactly what they want: for us to have no car at all. And with so much computerization in the workings of cars, they can booby-trap electric cars to fail fatally, afterwhich we will be less likely to buy another one. What then? Move into a 15-minute city, and buy a bicycle? Our worst enemies are the liberals, the daft useful idiots who can be easily programmed. They are the booby traps. GM is working on a car powered by compressed air, perfect for a tiny / light car in a 15-minute city.

Things are headed to CRITICAL. A corporate backlash against globalism would be dandy, don't you think?

The globalist-pet, corporate executives would get to have the best ev's that don't break down, and there will be charging stations in the parking lots at work, which may even have employees stationed to fill up the batteries for the owners. The executives would get special passes to allow them to drive anywhere, the favored-lot class versus the blue-collar sardines. If fascist Schwabites get their way.

A solution to the fear of gasoline cars is for the government to forbid insurance companies from charging almost double insurance cost for when a person owns two cars but drives only one at a time. If we could own two cars at the same insurance cost, we would more likely buy a small, gas-saving car for when we drive to work, for example, and the larger vehicle for shopping. People don't choose small cars due to lack of sufficient space for groceries and other things purchased, per outing. People who want to renovate their own homes don't want a tiny vehicle. People who like camping and fishing don't want a tiny vehicle. Can we blame them? People with three children don't want a tiny vehicle. The solution: get rid of two insurance policies for when a person owns two cars. In the policy, it would read that nobody but the owner is permitted to drive either car. It's a fair deal.

The Earth is Looking Very Good

Our best tactic is to repeat everywhere that a little extra carbon-dioxide into the atmosphere is NOT poisonous, not able to cause a greenhouse effect. Just undermine the stated need for electric cars. Again, taking toxic crude oil out of deep rocks, and turning it into carbon-dioxide, water, and free electrons (energy) in a piston engine is a win-win-win situation. The little extra carbon-dioxide, on top of what Creation makes naturally, is good for all plants, and plants return the favor by giving us more oxygen, making bodies stronger, healthier. It's all in the way one frames carbon-dioxide. We should not allow the goons and useful idiots to get away with demonizing it.

We should not succumb to the notion that climate change is real, just because we wish to fit in. Fit in with what? With error and money-grubbing elitists who want to replace all cars for the same motives in wanting to vaccinate the whole world every six months? Selling vaccines to everyone on earth at $50 a pop, every six months, pales in comparison to foisting an electric car or solar-panel outfit on every family / single person. Expect the globalists to act more concertedly on foisting the latter program.

The grubbers wanted green electricity because they were scheming to profit for everytime we fill a car with it. But, now, the world is no longer in love with farmers' fields filled with solar panels and wind turbines, and the people are disillusioned with electric cars too, perfect. Now is the time to teach the truth that a little extra carbon-dioxide, thanks to clean burning of fuels, is good for the trees.

On a cloudy day, there's about 3-percent water in the air, which is 75 times as much as carbon-dioxide. Even if man could double the carbon-dioxide in the air, it would be like having 76 times as much water (instead of 75) as compared to carbon-dioxide, of no concern whatsoever, because on a day with maximum humidity, water makes up 4-percent of the air -- 100 times as much as compared to carbon-dioxide. If climate-change goofs were really led by truthful scientists, they would have had this pointed out to them.

google offering on the MONOXIDE: "Carbon monoxide has a typical 'lifespan' of several months in Earth's atmosphere. The gas eventually reacts with oxygen (O2) to form carbon dioxide (CO2)." Even a little carbon monoxide, once blown out of cities while the people sleep, isn't worthy of much concern to life globally.

Leave it to climate-changers to put out this headline: "Wildfires in 2021 emitted a record-breaking amount of carbon dioxide." Forest fires, the new "evidence" for global warming, as if the greenhouse effect causes more lightning. Certainly, they can't argue that global warming starts more forest fires due to the land being drier, because they themselves claim that the earth has heated up only a fraction of one degree, i.e. which makes land no drier at all.

"Nearly half a gigaton of carbon (or 1.76 billion tons of CO2) was released from burning boreal forests in North America and Eurasia in 2021, 150 percent higher than annual mean CO2 emissions between 2000 and 2020,..." Sure, because globalists are paying villains to set forests on fire, yes, arson. A google offering claims that the planet has "37.15 billion metric tons" of carbon-dioxide, and so if forest fires, this year, create .8 billion ton of it more than last year, it's of no concern at all. THE MEDIA FEEDS CROCK.

Let's do the math, like good scientists honest with ourselves, shall we? We start with 37.15 / .8 = 46.5 times less carbon-dioxide than what the air contains. As carbon-dioxide makes up .0004 of all air to begin with, forest fires in 2021 increased the carbon-dioxide levels by .0004 / 46.5 = .00000086 parts of all air constituents. No scientist in his right mind believes that this will make the planet hotter, but what's really going on is hot money, our paying stolen taxes to do something about it when nothing is done but slipping the money into the pockets of racketeers and climate-change activists.

The video above shows that politicians who push climate-change do not fight climate-change...because they know there is no climate-change issue to speak of. Eight billion dollars for climate-change fraud is enough to make 8,000 millionaires who can become climate-change activists who will help to rob the tax-payer for more billions. See how it works? Pass $$$ to partners and potential partners, and many will become fellow thieves. I don't know whether this $8B includes revenue from carbon taxes, but if not, the heist is even worse, and how I wish we were in the old days when the people would get a rope and do justice on the spot.

In the Middle East, they cut the hands off of thieves, but Middle-Easterners in the West vote for the likes of you know why racism is on the rise in the West, not because of skin color, but because first-generation foreigners, especially, help keep the anti-Christs and thieves in power.

In the video below, the non-scientific goofballs are using the heated oceans as an excuse to call for the cutting of fuel emissions. The speaker claims that the oceans can increase by a whopping 2 degrees F, in any given year, but, goofball, when the oceans are hotter (from internal heat), it makes more clouds in the sky, and those clouds are the real greenhouse effect, not carbon-dioxide. GOOFBALLS, why are you wanting to take my gasoline car if the water vapor is your real the problem?

Oceans cannot increase 2 degrees purely from heat transferred from the air that is itself a fraction of a degree hotter on average. Hotter sea waters are from other heat sources, internal heat from rocks but also from months having more sunlight. This video has scripted disinformation, especially in the claim of rising sea levels:

You can't ask google for seas level increases because it's foisting disinformation on the public, giving the false impression of constant sea-level rising from year to year. If air temperatures are not changing, and they have not been to any measurable degree, sea levels cannot rise. But land can be sinking, giving the false impression of sea-level rising. You cannot trust sea-level measurements by satellites because those people are going to dish put disinformation...because globalists can easily arrange it. It's been discovered that the climate-change goons have been measuring average temperatures by placing thermometers on city hot spots (e.g. pavement) rather than over dirt and high in the air. This is deliberate deception.

Ask youtube for "sea level statistics," get climate-change hype. And it's hiding all the videos debunking sea-level rise. Hype is when a headline says, "Oh no, sea levels rising double what was predicted." Yeah, 1/8th of an inch instead of 1/16, over a year. UNASHAMED BUFFOONS. They show graphs with steepish upward lines to give the impression that the annual rise is frightening. Youtube headline: "Climate crisis: Americans forced to move twice because of rising sea levels" CROCK. No ocean front has gone so high as to force people out of a house. It's a crafted, news-media disinformation headline.

I patiently fished out this level-headed sea-level report from youtube. This video shows photographs of identical coastal locations as much as, or more than, 100 years apart with no seas-level change. What are you going to believe, the goons or your own eyes? Ignore the chart in the 10th minute that was concocted by evolutionists to affirm the ice age, which is fantasy to explain why human populations are so low today under the evolutionist claim that man is almost a million years old (predicts far-higher population numbers in the world today).

Old photographs are probably the best way to measure sea-level changes if their time of day and date is known to the minute, so that one can calculate how high the tide was at the time.

Aside from that, one needs to consider the earth's internal heat, which fluctuates. At times, when it's hot, it slightly bulges sea floors and consequently raises sea level a little. When magma cools down, the prediction is that sea level will go back down. The transport of magma from under sea floors to the top of sea floors through volcanic tunnels also predicts some rising sea level. In fact, as "mid-ocean ridges" are active volcanoes, it can predict a constant and stable (linear) rise of sea level since man has been keeping sea-level records.

When science claims that sea level has been steadily going up, the news media, obedient to globalist wishes, announces that sea level is suddenly increasing at an accelerated rate. That's climate-change disinformation.

What do we think it means if sea level rises in any given year when air temperatures drop? It means that something besides air temperature is causing rising sea levels. But this rise is so small per year that we can say it's not rising at all to any concern. Besides, if ocean-front homes get threatened tomorrow, they are usually owned by the rich, no big deal, no big loss to truck in some gravel and dirt to keep the water away from the house. Six inches of dirt will keep the property dry for over 50 extra years. This is not a crisis, but is rather a manufactured, fake crisis.

And with the sea-level hoax gone bad, that's why to goons decided to blame fiercer hurricanes and tornadoes on climate-change, another disinformation program, obviously. And when hurricanes and tornadoes don't get as fierce for a few years, and they start to look like frauds on that front too, they start burning forests down to blame climate-change for that too, because there's trillions of perpetual dollars to be had in this hoax.

The hockey-stick hoax below, as well as solid evidence that tree-ring data is unreliable for predicting temperature swings from year to year, perfect for anyone wanting to cast a science hoax by simply cherry picking the tree trunks to be used, and scrapping the ones that don't conform to the desired outcome:

Matt Ridley (on youtube videos) says that the planet was producing 25-percent more food, per person, after the global population doubled in his lifetime. He told the world that carbon dioxide is making the planet greener in color, and growing the food better. The fact that climate activists will NOT tell you this, no matter that it's more than logical -- it's expected and probably undeniable -- exposes their dishonesty, and makes thieves of government operators taking your taxes for nothing. God is keeping score.

And the fear-mongering as per cutting down trees to make ranchland is unfounded too if the global greenery is increasing steadily thanks to man's input of carbon dioxide. It's not just that, but the use of crude oil to heat homes massively reduces the number of trees cut down for the same purpose. It gives the planet a richer level of oxygen, win-win-win-win-win.

Besides, the freaks are now proving that they would replace cows with solar panels everywhere upon the open lands, and of course grass doesn't grow very well under forest-to-forest solar panels, meaning it's the $$$-grubbing freaks who are proving destructive. They want to cut fertilizer use because it makes less land needed to feed the world. DESTRUCTIVE. They hate the poor people which they have made, we get it.

Ridley said that 65-percent less land is used to produce the same amount of food as was produced in 1950, but when did you hear the global-warming stooge tell you something like that? Instead, they find ways to shoot holes into such claims. Ridley shows a graph (6th minute) wherein the line is linear from 1950 onwards, meaning that population-control freaks have known that there's no food crisis at all.

Just because average global rainfall increases at times does not mean that the air is warming due to carbon dioxide, for if the hotter rocks heat the seas more, the sea produces more rain and probably harsher hurricanes too. If God has in mind to heat the planet in time for the great tribulation, to make tribulation survival easier, it can explain the expected increase in hurricanes and tornadoes. More rain for crops, higher shallow-well levels, and warmer winters is a win-win-win situation for people living off-grid.

It only makes sense that when the earth looks better, the rich-and-ruling class will want to hog it all for themselves. They don't want the poor class camping in "their" wilderness, and the thought of most Christians retreating massively into the countrysides probably gives them some nausea. Revelation 12 and 13 discloses that the end-time generation will seek to thwart the retreat of Christians into the wilderness.

As the global-warmists are demonic goons, clear and simple, it's not surprising that they are now attacking forestry even while their voter base is supposed to be filled with tree-huggers. These goons would use their deceptive ways to turn tree-huggers into tree-cutters, by making stupids believe that climate-change is more a threat than burning / cutting down the forests. The canadian government was caught, last summer, starting forest fires in Quebec, some 20 of them on the same night, 50, 100 or more miles apart. This is a good thing to some extent because it clears land for tribulation survivors if only the tree roots would become rotted by the time Christians need the land to grow foods.

Tree-huggers would once deny the cutting of trees on behalf of the birds who live in them, but, now, we don't hear them screaming about the murder of birds via wind-turbine "farms." If this looks like hypocrisy, it's because demons teach the unGodly what to think. The devil is always concerned about destruction. He would protect the trees to make life harder for people, and he would destroy the trees to make life harder for them.

The Ridley video above has only 321 thousand views over 11 years, meaning that youtube is severely crippling its legs. HYPOCRISY and DESTRUCTION, hand-in-hand. The only thing needed to heal the planet is the murder-by-God of the industrial rich-class who are the chief hypocrites and destroyers, the ones who farm and raise anti-Christs in all the wheat fields. The meek will soon inherit the planet to God's delight.

From a climate-change article: "Since 1901, global precipitation has increased at an average rate of 0.04 inches per decade,..." Even if that number is hyped, it's like nothing at all. In fact, it's good to be getting a half-inch more rainfall now than 100 years ago. What's the problem? It looks very stable to me, and tends to prove that temperatures have been stable. It appears that a steady increase in global precipitation is related to the steady increase in sea level, which I take to mean that warmer oceans produce both higher sea levels (due to expansion of waters) and more rainfall. What is the problem? NOTHING. The humanoid-demons seeking to control globalism have been seeking to ruin your peace of mind, but it's gotten far worse because they are raping you of your hard-earned money.

If sea levels are rising due to warmer oceans, then that is not technically rising sea levels. Or put it this way, that rising sea level due to expansion of oceans cannot swamp the coastlines. It means that sea-level rise is NOT due to Greenland melting. The buffoons have got it all wrong deliberately, and the world is learning of their crimes. When better people begin to rule, woe to them. To keep them better people from obtaining political power, they guilty will self-destruct by acting tyrannically. Brutes have a short shelf life. Brutes incite their victims to punish them. There could be as many as a million people who would, if given the legal nod, order the execution of trudeau with great joy. The more he acts brutally, the more they would kill him. Ditto for other Schwabites. It is they who will need to live in fear.

"By using satellite images, the scientists show that global forest cover increased between 1982 and 2016." This was a surprising find to quell tree-huggers and mother-earth worshipers. Then, from an article by Schwab's WEF: "There is a net gain in the number of trees on Earth, but only thanks to an increase in man-made plantations." LIARS. Almost nobody is planting new trees massively. Nations collect tax money to plant new trees, then don't plant new trees. Ask trudeau if he knows anything about that.

As WEF is a chief global-warming snake, it loathes to admit that more carbon dioxide makes more trees. Your self-appointed leaders are lying to you. An extra 1/25th of an inch of rain per decade, or an increase of 1/16th degree of temperature per decade, cannot account for a visible expansion of tree growth. The "culprit" must be the extra carbon-dioxide. And the forests are becoming thicker in spite of the lumber industry, in spite of some using wood as winter heat, in spite of forest fires. Where's the crisis, WEFers? Give back the money which you have stolen.

It appears that God is cutting an excuse from under the feet of our enemies, for they would deny us a retreat into the wilderness based on the excuse that our cutting trees to heat and build our homes is a crisis in the making. NOT SO. Trees are not going extinct after all. And God has an Axe prepared at the root of the globalist tree. In one swing, down she comes.

When you read an article seeking to explain why forests are creeping into lands once barren, note that they don't credit the man-made carbon-dioxide. That's how you can know that the authors are demonic. They would deny you the plain truth to keep alive the global-warming scam. To rob us of a thrill, they would say negative things like: "Climate change is making trees bigger, but also weaker". Ya, sure-sure. Next, the safety freaks will deny us, by law, a walk in the forest lest a weak tree falls on us.

Or, they would argue that richer forests are bad because the increased shade kills more trees. You can't win with buffoons intent on making people bite their nails in fear. "Enhanced tree growth and stand-level biomass are often linked with a simultaneous increase in density-driven mortality and a reduction in tree longevity." The fact that someone would write such a thing shows that there's people with too much time on their hands to study things that don't matter. It's framed so scientific, but is laughable. Tree growth kills trees, they lament...and they need our money to fix it.

Trees are weeds, and thank God that tree shade kills most of the new trees because each tree has an over-abundance of seeds. Duh, but don't forget to bite your fingernails off, today, because it's hit-and-miss whether climate-changers will be able to save the planet by 2050. Cut the trees down now to make caskets for your children, because there may be not enough trees in a decade or so. These buffoons have nothing better to do than count the number of trees in the world. WHO CARES, STUPIDS. Why don't you go down to the local food bank and make yourself useful, or something.

canada's pet media, and its gangster partner, the CBC, has this headline to help make globalist puppets smile a little as they get beaten up on all fronts: "Canada's wildfires blamed for rise in global loss of tree cover outside of tropics." Yippee, says Schwab. And every night he prays to his god, "burn canada down."

Someone has done the count, and who are you to disagree: there are exactly 3.04 trillion trees (these people are nuts to write that number down). Then, if we can trust that they're not exaggerating, "it takes around 450 mature trees to offset the yearly emissions of one person in the UK." We'll assume that number is the same no matter where people drive cars and heat homes. Doing the math, there are 428 trees per person in a world having 7 billion people. Doesn't that look like they have fudged the numbers to make it appear that there aren't enough trees to eat all of our emissions?

How would you go about counting all the trees in the world? Do you think you could get it so accurate that you would report 3.04 trillion rather than 3 trillion? can you see that reporting the .04 is to make you think they counters had a real handle on counting the trees? Do you understand that it's impossible to count all the trees? Do you understand that you can neither prove nor disprove 3.04 trillion? They can make up any number they wish. How much money did they spend counting the trees of the world? Can you see what wasteful hypocrites they are, only to lie to us in the end concerning their studies?

It is enough to know that carbon dioxide in the air is not toxic, not killing trees, not killing animals, but helping us all. What's the crisis? Only a lunatic claims that the world is about to be destroyed for an increase in temperature of one degree over a century. The lunatics are stealing the money of your children, I apologize if this depresses you. It angers me.

The rise in sea temperatures do not include the whole bulk of ocean waters, but refer to surface temperatures only. I don't know what water depth they use to define "ocean surface," but to show that ocean temperatures are very stable: "...for every 1 degree Celsius increase in temperature, water will expand by 0.00021 times its original volume". They say that the average ocean depth is 12,100 feet. If oceans were one degree warmer this year than last, they would expand by 12,100 x .00021 = 2.5 feet. Therefore, as sea levels do not rise anywhere near 2.5 feet, from year to year, ocean temperatures are highly stable, suggesting very little change in heat addition from the molten rocks.

But you can clearly see that the small fraction of an inch change in sea level, from year to year, can easily be due to a small change in the earth's internal temperatures. It's to be expected because nobody expects the interior to continuously produce the same amount of heat exactly. The sea level rise or fall has been so small historically that, surely, part of the cause is internal heat. And so, if correct that sea-surface temperatures have been rising continuously for the past 45 years, but with neither temperature drop nor rise between 1960 to 1980, then why shouldn't we pin this situation on internal heat? What are we going to say, that there was a greenhouse effect from 1980 to the present but with greenhouse effect from 1960 to 1980? That doesn't sound correct.

There's really no way to discover whether ocean surface fluctuate in average temperatures due to heat from above or below. Minute amounts of heat entering at sea floors will rise to the surface and accumulate there because water is stingy when giving up its heat content. But why should we believe the reports of 45 years of continuous rise in ocean temperatures when we know that nation-hired liars are in the business of pushing scenarios conducive to proving the existence of a carbon-dioxide greenhouse effect?

My only point here is that they can't prove that the extra heat at ocean surfaces comes from the air. Plus, if oceans receive more sunlight one year than the previous one, they are expected to warm more. But what they do is to assume that changing surface-water temperatures are directly reflective of changing air temperatures, and this then becomes their proof of global warming since 1980.

Imagine the money wasted seeking to discover the weensy increase in global ocean and air temperatures when it's of zero threat concern, and then, after wasting that money, the politicians steal thousands of times more in government money to fix the gigantic "problem" (= daily human activities) that cannot be fixed...unless they kill a gigantic portion of the global population. So, on the one hand, they pretend to care for peoples' futures such that they embark on a (faked) salvation program, and then they secretly conspire to kill half the globe in the name of solving that same crisis.

If judges don't think that these people deserve to be executed, maybe the judges need to be aborted too. That Day is coming, what a glorious day it will be. God has an Extermination Program of His own, part of His Salvation Program.

Headline at The Guardian: "‘Headed off the charts’: world’s ocean surface temperature hits record high". Oh-no: "Scientists warn of more marine heatwaves, leading to increased risk of extreme weather". This is very good news, for Christians need the planet to get a little more wet. Soils get healthier when continuously moist. Larger weeds make for better soils. More dropped leaves from trees and bushes, super. This is excellent, time to rejoice and hope for more global warming.

I'd like to see it go up four or five degrees, so long as it all goes north and south. Heat from incoming sunlight does spread naturally north and south because it's hottest at the equator. Heat pushes heat, and it spreads to colder regions as wind. But heat from the greenhouse effect is not necessarily more prominent at the equator. When warm air from the south comes crashing against cold air in the north, rain happens. The warm air climbs on top of the cold air, and the warm air dumps its water load because temperatures get colder higher up.

The warmer the northbound air, the more rain. The more rain, the better the greenhouse effect (for warming the region), not from carbon-dioxide, but from water vapor as it rises from the moist ground and collects as droplets in the air. The warmer the air, the higher the water droplets rise, making it harder for heat to escape into outer space (heat is partially blocked by water droplets). We badly need global warming in canada; the crops here would do much better if temperatures were 4 degrees higher, but canadians are too brain-conditioned by the likes of the CBC to shout it from the rooftops that global warming is by far a net-positive thing. The brain conditioners would have the people believe that, if they dare portray climate-change as a positive thing, they will be punished. Now is past-time to rebel, oh what fun.

A google offering: "The average temperature of the sea surface is about 20° C (68° F),..." Wikipedia's article on "Sea Surface Temperature": "This value [26.5 C] is well above 16.1 °C (60.9 °F), the long term global average surface temperature of the oceans." Yet Wikipedia and others give the average global surface temperature, of the air, as 15 C. If those figures are correct, then the air above the oceans is, on average, colder than the water, in which case heat usually transfers from water to air, not vice-versa, suggesting that the air is not responsible for getting surface waters as high as 16 C. There is heat input into the water from other source(s).

To put this another way, there is no correlation between ocean temperatures and air temperatures. It seems untrue that air warmed by the greenhouse effect is heating ocean waters slightly warmer than would otherwise be the case, because the water is warming the air more then the air is warming the water. They can't say, "ah, as water temperatures are .02 degrees warmer this year, therefore the air was .02 degrees warmer this year." But, if they wish, and it appears they are, they can give you that false impression.

According to NASA, a bastion of falsified information, "The average global temperature has increased by a little more than 1° Celsius (2° Fahrenheit) since 1880." That's .014 F per year, on average. Can we see how easy it is to falsify such a slight increase in temperature?

The real crisis is that the climate-change leaders see their deaths arriving before they succeed in making $zillions on green energy. They doom themselves with hyped predictions of doom within 10-20 years:

We had a very warm winter with very little snowfall this past winter, in mid-Ontario, anyway. VERY LITTLE SNOWFALL, not good for climate-change fiends because they celebrate precipitation, for then they can happily argue that the water in the air will aggravate global warming, and they can enjoy twisting their swords in our bellies. They just love to win this debate even if it costs them big money on green taxes, which is how you can know that they are fiends, accomplices of the useful-idiot kind. The point is, they are now saying that there was rain in the arctic, bad-bad-bad. Yes, it was a very mild winter, and so some rain way up north is of no surprise, but when we have a cold-cold winter, they are nowhere to be heard to say that, maybe there is no global warming happening. But as soon as we get a heat wave, out they come like bats from their caves to celebrate their self-conceived rightness.

Okay, there may have been rain this year in the arctic, one day or even two, yet it's the same year that had very little snowfall, and so why not mention that bitty too? And as we had little rainfall, some other area got more-than-normal rainfall, and so that area must have gotten hit by crappings from bats flying overhead. And this is how they operate, in and out of their bats caves, silent-cold when climate betrays their claims, and fever-hot when climate supports their claims. I wouldn't be talking about this at all; I'd just leave them to their misery, except that globalist forces are poised to take more taxes yet, to build their global empire with our money so that they can exploit us all the more.

Hydrogen-Stove Gas Not a Good Idea

In the course of writing this section, I came across the new solar panel in the video below which makes hydrogen at home for a hydrogen-powered car. This could be useful for tribulation survivors who need to get around when not allowed to make gasoline payments. Just trade in your car for a used hydrogen-powered car in time for the tribulation period, once we are sure the tribulation is almost upon us.

Alas, it's better to trade-in for an electric vehicle because a solar panel can get much more electrical power than hydrogen power, just know that. Plus, the more electric cars become unpopular, the cheaper we can get a used one as the tribulation arrives. However, hydrogen gas doesn't go bad over time, but car batteries suffer, and leak their power, when just sitting around for weeks and months at a time, not driven. Choices choices.

Google offering: "As a result, if your vehicle is parked for an extended period of time, the battery charge level will become low. Extended periods of time at a low state of charge will shorten battery life. To maintain the battery state of charge, drive your vehicle for more than 30 minutes at least once every three months." That doesn't sound like a big problem. You can easily use a small solar-panel system to charge a car if it's driven a few minutes only per month. In some cases, these drives could be vital for picking up important needs. We might be able to use cash when buying used items from private citizens.

The problem may be: how can we find a used water pump, for example, if the 666 system doesn't allow us to go online? There's no guessing how bad the situation will become for us. If it's only a store pass, disallowing us to enter stores, that would not be all bad. If we can yet be online to make purchases by credit card or checks, and to get parcels delivered to our homes, it would be very helpful. At this time, we hear (even from WEF) that things are going cashless, but God may have other ideas. It may not work well for the banks to take us cashless due to revolt. But it's always best to prepare as though we will not be able to make most purchases, or, even if we can, we may be unable to locate what we might need due to not having telephone / computer services.

Plus, the video hints that one can rig up a normal solar panel to produce hydrogen, which can then be used for gas cooking. Imagine, free cooking gas every sunny day when not allowed to buy and sell. Or, just use solar panels to charge batteries in the normal way, and then use the batteries to make hydrogen whenever you need to cook or heat bath water, day or night. This is a big deal:

Anyone wanting to convert propane appliances to hydrogen should see the video below as a primer. Be careful, and know what you're doing, though it doesn't take much. A couple of the heaters he shows would be excellent for rapid heating of a bathroom when people want to take showers but there's not enough gas to keep the bathroom warm at all times. I've taken two-gallon "showers" no problem at all, with stove-heated water, getting myself just as clean as a regular shower. I used a plastic margarine container to do it along with the pot holding the water. But in winter, bathrooms need to be at least 55 degrees (brrr), and 60 much better.

Satanic globalists have a big problem here wherein we can make cooking gas on our own. They don't want us to know how to convert a natural-gas burner to a hydrogen burner, guaranteed. I know this because youtube won't easily give me a video on the topic, at least not here in satanic canada. You might like to invest in this stove that can use different gases, including hydrogen (I don't like the information-stingy guy who presents this and similar videos):

Here's my thinking, though I don't know anything about this on the practical side, so take with caution. As hydrogen burns cleanly, what's it matter how the flame comes out of my gas kitchen stove that's now suited for propane? I can also re-set the burners for natural gas. I doubt that General Electric has a way to re-set specifically for H gas, but what's it matter how the flame behaves as it comes out of this stove's burners? Why can't I use it for cooking in the tribulation period? I probably can. But I would test it first to make sure. The danger would be unburned hydrogen while the flame burns, though I can't see how that could happen just because the orifice is too big or too small.

To convert from propane to gas (or vice-versa), one needs only to change the orifice (at the burner), a one-minute job once the wrench is found. An orifice is nothing but a hole sized appropriately for the specific type of gas. When burning propane, the wrong-sized orifice can create some carbon monoxide, but that's not possible when burning hydrogen. If any part of the hydrogen is burning beyond the orifice, one would think that 100-percent of the gas will be aflame.

One needs a hydrogen-gas regulator, available everywhere. When asking google about using propane / natural-gas stoves for hydrogen, Quora comes up at the top, and it's article dissuades people (lots of fear-mongering) from trying it rather than telling where to get the appropriate orifice. Hydrogen gas is used all over the world SAFELY.

Some are fear-mongering: the flame is not visible, you might burn yourself accidentally. If the stove valve is at the off position, the gas is not burning, duh. Watch the fear-mongering because globalists definitely don't want people making their own gas in their own yard. The question is: how much H gas is needed to cook the average meal? If one has a tank large enough to hold that much, one can have perpetual cooking heat just by turning on and off the hydrogen-producing "machine" needing only electricity from the solar panel(s). Flip on the switch, it makes hydrogen. Flip off the switch, it stops making hydrogen. But what if one forgets to turn the switch off. We need to deal with that problem.

We need good videos on producing one's own household hydrogen, and this is where the Internet might be betraying us, if not fully now, than maybe later when homesteaders start to move to home-based hydrogen. Here's a portable stove that uses no plug-in electricity to turn water into hydrogen. Instead, it uses the sun, perfect:

We can't trust google offerings. It first tells us: "Gas cooktop/range – 65,000 BTU/hour." But someone else says: "On average a gas cooking stove burner uses about 7,000 BTU's an hour." That's a big difference when one tries to use this information to discover how much hydrogen gas would be needed daily. "On average, a typical propane cook stove burner uses about 25,000 BTUs (British Thermal Units) per hour on high heat." This makes the person who used 65,000 look like he's lying big-time for some cause.

It's important to point out that even 7,000 BTU's seems too high for cooking because that converts to 2.0 kwh's, or cooking at 2,000 watts for a full hour. Nobody does that. The small burner on your stove is said to burn at 1,200 watts, and I assume that's on high heat, but we don't usually cook on high heat. Therefore, it seems we just can't trust google offerings on this topic.

If we now want to discover how much electricity is needed to produce hydrogen in a volume sufficient that it can produce about 4,000 BTUs, I'm reading that, using commercial means of H production, 50 kwh's are needed to convert nine pounds of water (about a gallon) to 1.0 pound of hydrogen. I'm then reading that 1 pound of hydrogen makes about 51,000 BTUs of heat, which converts to 15 kwh. That's either robbery or disinformation. What good is it to produce 15 kwh of hydrogen by expending 50 kwh of electricity? We may as well forsake hydrogen production and use electric burners instead.

However, one writer tells that the stated heat production (15 kwh per pound) of hydrogen does not include heat produced from the recombining of H atoms with O atoms to produce water as the exhaust. I think this could be a significant amount of added heat we're not being told about. Whenever atoms merge together, they release exactly the amount as they absorb when split apart.

Okay, so how much cooking does a pound of H gas give you? Assuming that 4,000 BTUs over an hour of average-heat-level cooking, you'll get 51,000 / 4,000 = 12.75 hours of cooking. According to these numbers, you'll need 12.75 times less than 50 kwh of solar-panel electricity, or about 4 kwh, to get an hour's worth of cooking. That's 4,000 continuous watts over an hour. That's no good, because we may as well just run electricity from the solar panels, which needs only 1,200 watts to burn a small burner on high heat. So, now we know the score, apparently, that converting solar power to hydrogen gas for cooking is a big waste. I was excited about nothing on hydrogen production for cooking. It's useful only if you're caught without an electric stove.

Google is confusion when it comes to this topic. One writer has the ridiculous claim that a small burner on low is working at 1,000 watts while the larger burner on high is at 3,000 watts. Surely, there's got to be much more than three times the difference in heat between those two scenarios.

To get 4 kwh from a single solar panel is not easy to do. If the solar panel produces a maximum 1,000 watts, it will need four hours of sun with sun shining directly -- at 90-degrees-- upon it. This is easy if you can slant the panel toward the sun at will, providing the day doesn't have many clouds.

If then we would do much better to have two such solar panels, which can be about 4 feet long, how good are the portable hydrogen-making stoves with fold-out (wee-wee) solar panels? You might get a cup of coffee now and then, or some warmed-up canned beans, but, besides, who wants a hot cup of coffee in the heat of the day? Something to think about before you go out and buy one.

The video below claims that adding sound waves to electrolysis makes 14 times more hydrogen (under certain, not-ideal conditions), but what's the catch, and why didn't I think of this? It's so logical because electrolysis has a flow of electrons that jiggle water atoms, helping to separate them, and so sound waves can only help that jiggling go further, right? But of course. The trick is to find the best sound waves per given type of hydrolysis operation.

The inventors claim that the sound waves protect the surfaces of the electrodes so that they don't become less effective with time in producing hydrogen, but the inventors might also know that the sound waves facilitate dissociation.

The sound waves probably cost $near-0. It drastically increases hydrogen output for virtually no extra cost. The comments section says that using sound waves to enhance H production is not new; one writer: "This is exactly what they murdered Stan Meyers for discovering back in the 90's..."

My only frowning on this idea is that we can't use this method at home unless the sound-wave-making machine can be purchased at a fair price. But that machine will likely be patented because it's the secret for advancing production. What good is cheaper hydrogen for the tribulation period when very little hydrogen can be stored at home in very-expensive tanks? Nobody's going to do that. We need a miracle from God that can produce easy energy at home, cheaply. Solar panels at four times less money, and batteries at 10 times less money, would do it. Batteries are not rocket science, just lots of metal (lead is even "cheap"), but the greedy metal distributors have put their prices through the roof.

There's some very good revelations in this week's Jaxen Report, starting in the 28th minute. Also, see the story on Xlear versus the U.S.-government demon, starting about the 50th minute:

I did not ever hear about Klear during the plandemic. The inventor (Nate Jones) claims that "grape seed fruit extract" (from grapefruit) destroyed viruses during the plandemic, even though it wasn't invented for viruses, but for keeping bacteria from planting themselves up the nose. It happened to work with viruses too. The government forbade him to spread the good news about his product. It's more proof that the government was $$$scheming$$$ wickedly with fellow conspirators to produce the scamdemic.

The Goofs Who Invented Empty Mass

In the video below, the atom of the first minute is never fully covered with electrons, but there is more disservice done to the viewer because, in reality, there needs to be far more than one layer of electrons around a proton. Electrons inter-repel so that they would spread fully around the proton, with no proton "skin" showing, as shown in the first minute.

The atomic-physics goofs started to pile up, and formed a gang assigning the atom the impossible orbiting electron. That's what happened, to the shame of science. And here we are at the brink of 2024, and the world of physics is still so utterly devoid of integrity that it won't advertise the obvious impossibilities of the orbiting electron. It doesn't inspire me to praise this establishment, let's put it nicely like that. We need a clean break with evolutionism, because it's ultimately responsible for this nuttiness, because they created an atomic model that makes the big-bang viable. That's what they wanted most.

Rutherford was an idiot, and those who push this "discovery" of his are idiots too, uninclined to come up with an alternative explanation for what his experiment showed. He was shooting alpha particles...defined as positively-charged helium atoms, but this is crock. Alpha particles must be positive atoms SPIT out of radioactive materials, but how can helium be in radioactive materials...are they still nuts today? At least they give me a laugh once in a while.

If correct that alpha-particles are positive in charge, they won't stay that way very long, does anyone in the establishment tell you that part? If they come out of materials positively charged, they must be spit out by electrically-charged regions in the material. It's as though they are clinging to atoms until a point arrives that they are unlocked from whatever has them clinging, and out they fly dressed with fewer captured electrons due to the jolt each receives. That is, they are expected to lose a few electrons from off of their butts when something boots them hard out of the material surface. But helium material THEY ARE NOT.

Let's give Rutherford the benefit of the doubt, and say that alpha-particles went through the gold foil. Is this any reason to suggest that the gold foil is almost all empty space? Only a lunatic makes such a claim, one not fit to be a scientist.

Here's the reality: every atom anywhere has outer electrons (not orbiting) barely clinging to protonic attraction. The deeper into the atom, the closer the electrons are to protonic attraction, and therefore the more-strongly they are held to the proton. It's a no-brainer. But the most-outer electrons are held on the weakest, and barely held on because they are under as much inter-repulsion forces OUTWARD as they are under attraction forces INWARD (to the proton). The outer electrons are repelled outward by all other electrons beneath them.

The outer layer is defined as the one receiving as much outward force as inward force. This equilibrium of forces is what determines how wide the atom will be. Every atom, regardless of size or shape, is roughly at equilibrium at the outer layer. The stronger the protonic attraction, the more electrons it can load, and therefore the wider / larger the atom will be.

The point is, the outer electrons are hovering over the protons in equilibrium such that they can easily be plowed through by bullets such as Rutherford was shooting. As the bullets go deeper into the atom, they find more stress in plowing through so that, when they slow down enough, their tendency is to snake / weave through materials along paths of least resistance, which is along the outer layers of electrons, which can almost be like flying through empty space due to electrons hovering in near-perfect balance between positive and negative forces. Eventually, the bullets can exit the foil, but they will come out altered in course because the tightly-held, deeper electrons deflect them from their original paths.

The electron bodies of all atoms, which make up a solid, are merged into one another. When merged, their outer electrons are attracted by the proton of every atom involved in the merger; it's what causes atomic bonding, it's what causes liquids and solids to form. A bullet could, if fast enough, plow through protons, moving them aside while moving through. But when slowed down enough by successive collisions, the bullets are more prone to following the paths of least resistance along the peripheries of atoms. But by the time they reach a slow speed, they could ricochet in any directions possible, and therefore they can exit the foil in any direction.

Why couldn't alpha-particle bullets move aside hovering electrons, and ram through? It's such an easy, logical conclusion to make, any magnet-savvy kid could come up with it. Electrons hovering above protons means that empty space does exist in gold foil, but not to the massive extent claimed by those who invented orbiting electrons, who see very few electrons per atom. That view is nuts and unnecessary. It's unnecessary because the alternative, to the contrary, is logical: gold foil is packed with electrons such that they likely take up more space than the protons. There is easily as much matter in foil as there is empty space. Doesn't that sit better with you than the claim that a solid is in the range of 99-percent space?

Why did he use gold foil? Would the alpha particles not go through aluminum foil? If not, why not, if indeed aluminum is almost all empty space? There's all kinds of foils and other material just as thin. Did he try those before making his irrational mad dash? What ailed him to rush rashly into the arms of his orbiting-electron magic? His fellows have had a century to espouse an alternative, sane theory, but they are all involved in a conspiracy to shelter the irresistible, orbiting electron. What comparison is there between merely grandma's plum pudding to dazzling, dizzy deceit, it's just so much fun to play with orbiting electrons.

He may have been using gold foil because gold is a soft material, easy to bend compared to other metals. The atomic bonds are weaker. The outer layers of atoms hold each other more weakly, and thus passage of bullets through gold can be predicted to be easier. But if the reason for penetration is truly 99-percent space, then aluminum, iron, silver, tin, copper would have that too. Let us see what happens in the same experiment using foils of those materials in the same thickness used for the gold foil. I can tell you this, that if this experiment could be repeated with several other metals, we would have heard about it.

Rutherford was a zealot, and his zeal got the better part of his common sense. Electrons cannot orbit protons, it's just so easy to figure. The entire human race must be hopelessly stupid. Had he never seen the moon in orbit? Does an electron at the speed of light look like a normal orbit? Did he even ask, what puts the electron into orbit? Did he even ask: aren't orbiting electrons going to crash in clouds of smoking vapors when they hit something? Who's going to put them back together again? Rutherford was in fantasyland, and all the world of science went with him. Why?

There must have been a secret motive, because nobody adopts anything this crazy without one, and nobody tells what the motive is when adopting something this crazy. Why did they want an impossible, fast electron? The big bang, their speed baby. They want the big bang to live on in perpetual speed to this day and beyond. That is what they imagine: big-bang speed everywhere.

A version of Thomson's atom, which you saw at the beginning of the video above, had a proton much too large, I think, and definitely did not have enough electrons covering the proton, though this is debatable depending on how he imagined the atom. He probably had more than one theory going through his mind on how the electrons and the proton were built together. He had the electrons IMBEDDED in the positive field of the proton, a genius guess, as it turned out. Yes, protons are imbedded in a positive field, and they hover in that positive field, making it easy to move some of them aside. Apparently, what Thomson didn't have was a hard atomic core, but to be fair, he may not have ventured a guess as to how hard it is.

Rutherford, by counting the deflections from the gold foil, and comparing the number with the shots that went forward after penetrating the foil, thought he could estimate how much hard protonic material there was as compared to empty space. What he didn't allow into his teaching is that some percentage of bullets could have plowed right through gold protons, and out to his detection surface in spite of collisions with them. Therefore, he really could not know how many of the shots frontward into his detection surface were proton misses versus proton hits.

Besides, there's no way for bullets to miss all the protons from one side of the gold foil to the other. Rutherford was wrong because the bullets did strike many protons and yet came forth roughly in the frontward direction in which they were shot.

The way in which people tell of his experiment, he apparently assumed that every proton hit resulted in a deflection of the bullet. But he could not know how many gold protons were plowed through, each one a strike, per alpha particle, by the time the latter came forth from the gold.

To push the empty-space theory with falsifications, Rutherford's proponents would be prone to minimizing the number of gold atoms across the thickness of his foil. For example, a google offering: "...the gold leaf would be around 490 atoms thick". That's ridiculous. Five hundred atoms is nothing. Another google offering is more like it: "Depending on how thick the hair is, it might be 300,000 to 1,000,000 atoms from one side to the other."

What I can tell you with certainty is that an alpha-particle is larger than the gold atom, for gold has one of the smallest atoms of all the elements. The goofs have it backward, thinking that helium is the second-smallest atom while gold has one of the largest. Rutherford's experiment does better for the empty-space theory if alpha-particles are very tiny in comparison with gold atoms, and so this need can possibly explain why the physics establishment chose metals to have the largest atoms while choosing hydrogen and helium as the smallest. I don't think they can prove the size of atoms as they teach them, but I can offer evidence that hydrogen has the largest atom, and that metals have the smallest.

Okay, so if the gold leaf was 100,000 atoms thick, each alpha particle penetrating the gold foil could strike 1,000 or more gold protons, depending on how wide the alpha-particle is in comparison to gold atoms. In that case, the deflections of particles backwards and sidewards from the foil may have included products from the gold foil: clusters of electrons and/or individual gold atoms.

I don't know the basis / reasoning for their claim that the alpha-particle issuing from a heavy metal needs to be equivalent to their perception of a helium atom, but, guaranteed, these goofs have the atomic model so wrongly modeled that it's not likely good reasoning. I don't know enough about the alpha-particle's origins to know what tricks they may have played with it, but some evolutionists of that time period were willing to pull off hoaxes to advance evolution. It was their nature to falsify science. I think they enjoyed misinformation, to see how far they could trick the public.

If the alpha-particle can zip to the detection target after it has penetrated past 1,000 atoms, then it can also bring with it some gold atoms. Right? Did Rutherford include that idea? It may have crossed his mind, but he chose to publicize something else: all strikes on his detection surface were from alpha particles.

You've probably seen motionless metal balls lined up in a row; when a moving ball strikes the row from one direction, it stops dead in its tracks, but the last one in the row simultaneously starts moving with the same velocity and force as the striker had before it was halted. Why couldn't that sort of motion transfer be possible in Rutherford's experiment? That is, the bullets may have struck one side of the gold, but only gold atoms came shooting out on the other side. And these gold atoms would probably have been positively charged because the jolt of knocking them out flung some of their captured electrons away.

I've just read at Wikipedia's Alpha Particle article that these bitties supposedly move at a quarter the speed of light, hee-hee, which is how you can easily know that the goofs are science lunatics. They've driven themselves mad with errors piled on errors.

Is there no other way to propose how electrons are captured on atoms besides orbiting at the near-speed of light? Did Rutherford and others conspire to ruin Thomson's atomic model because the latter's electrons were stationary while cosmic evolutionism favored unimaginable speeds from the big-bang explosion? Looks like. In those days, evolutionists were still seeking to become dominant. They weren't yet, and so they had to work secretly to conform science departments to whatever ideas would favor their developing, mainly-secret beliefs.

Do you know how itty-bitty small the circle of an orbiting electron is? Do you realize what the speed of light is around that itty-bitty circle? Do you really think that these ittie-bitties could hold to an orbit at that speed? Do you realize what would happen when these itty-bitties crash into one another, and they go zinging at the speed of light off of every street corner throughout the unsuspecting atomic neighborhood? There's going to be some bad crunch sounds in the machinery alright. How do you spell, DESTRUCTION?

An orbit is a perfect balance between a moving object and gravitational force. The proton has a positive, gravitational force. The moon cannot be placed anywhere around the earth where it would stay in orbit at zillions of revolutions per second. How did Rutherford expect, or how did he prove to his peers, that the electron could stay in orbit? It's not scientific. It's not true to reality.

The fast electron can be marked out as so absolutely necessary to the God killers that they refuse to abandon it to this day. In reality, both protons and their captured electrons remain stationary when no electrical or physical force is foisted upon them. Is that too logical, too boring? An atom is a tiny, positively-charged earth surrounded by a literal, electron atmosphere. The higher from the protonic surface the electrons, the less dense they are, exactly the earth-air situation (though not likely fully for the same reason).

Air atoms weigh down on one another, and the fewer there are weighing down, the less crunched together air atoms are. For example, at the height in the sky where there is 50-percent of air atoms above, and 50-percent below, the air atoms at that middle point are half as dense as the air atoms at the ground, because half as much weight in air atoms are pressing down at the middle point as compared to the full weight at the ground. Scientists know this, yet they are pitiful in their deception because they claim that air atoms, and all other gas atoms too, ATTRACT one another.

Sorry, goofballs, that can't be true because inter-attracting air atoms cannot weigh down on one another. Sorry, liars, deceivers, but you should know better. You know that air atoms are not in contact with one another, and therefore you realize that they cannot weigh down on one another, yet you admit they do weigh down on the earth with 14.7 pounds per square inch. And you deceive the people by only telling them that this is air pressure without also telling them that this is the weight of air atoms created because they inter-REPEL one another.

There is no other way for gas atoms to weigh down on one another unless something exists between them, and that something is their mutual repulsion force. And because they repel with equal force in all directions, the full weight of the air, at any elevation, is re-directed in all directions. But, verily, this air pressure is also weight pressure, the two are one and the same. Air atoms redirect weight pressure in all directions.

I ask you. Why would scientists, who know better, claim that gas atoms attract one another? In fact, I doubt very much that they want to tell you that they attract one another because they don't want you even to think about it, lest you realize what I've just told you. And it's easy to figure why they chose inter-attracting gas atoms, because their primary concern has been to make the big-bang method of creation viable in your mind. If all the first atoms from the big bang repelled one another, you would ask: then how did they come together to form stars? So, you see, just to shore up the big bang, they lied to you about gas atoms.

As they need inter-attracting gas atoms, they had to invent the "kinetic theory of atoms," because the only way to explain gas pressure, where atoms attract, is to make them all race around perpetually at hundreds of miles per hour. And so they lied to you about that too. But it gets worse because they break the laws of physics when they claim that atoms continually collide yet never slow down. They lied to you, telling that atoms never lose energy upon collisions. FALSE.

What will happen when Ball A, weighing five pounds and having no ability to bounce, is thrown at 20 mph hour at Ball B weighing five pounds and moving at 20 miles per hour in the opposite direction? What happens when they collide head-on? Well, obviously, Ball A will transfer exactly as much energy into Ball B as Ball B itself that the motion of Ball B will be canceled, and, vice-versa, Ball B cancels the full force of Ball A, leaving zero energy for further motion. The two balls drop to the ground, and lie still. Did energy get destroyed? No. It got used up. The energy of one ball got used up to stop the other ball. Just because the balls no longer move is not reason to conclude that energy was destroyed. That's the trick of the goofball. He wants you to believe the fantasy that the balls will continue to move without any slowing down after the collision.

It doesn't matter what the angle of collision of two balls; there will be an overall slowing of their velocity. If both move at 20 miles per hour, only a goofball maintains that, after a collision, they continue to move with a total 40 miles per hour. If the balls don't strike head-on, they will continue to move after redirecting each other, but they will move with a total velocity less than 40 miles per hour. And with each subsequent collision, they will move ever slower...until they have no motion energy remaining. This is how you make a fool of your local atomic physicist. Try today, and have fun.


For a few smiles in Canadian-political electioneering:

CTV this week has a video headline: "Can the Liberals recover from 'Trudeau fatigue'..." This is deceptive, as if Liberals don't want to vote for him this time due to be tired of him. CTV, shameless. The correct headline should be: "Half of Liberals Despise trudeau Enough to Vote Conservative."

Klaus Schwab, the ugly man who infiltrated the trudeau cabinet, is quitting his job as WEF leader. After all, there's no glory to be had this year or the next on his platform. Get ready to meet your Creator, old man. You can explain everything to Him. If He bothers to give you a hearing. Who do you think will pay the price for all the people you helped to kill and permanently injure?

The biggest story this week is Tony Fauci's advisor and helpmate, David Morens. His emails have been exposed, and they are dastardly for convicting he and Fauci, and Ecohealth, of mass-murder, if Trump's next Attorney General cares to take them to court. But Trump is part of the mass-murder, and so the killers are not probably not fretting too much about what Trump will get done on this crime-of-the-century. Here's just one video on the topic:

The drawback to this discussion on the likeliness of COVID escaping from a lab is that the next plandemic can be blamed on yet another leak so that the public will find in harder to proclaim it to be a baseless, non-dangerous scam. The more the perpetrators can front the next, new virus as dangerous, the less the public has the excuse of refusing vaccines / lockdowns. We learned that the perpetrators did not need to release any virus from a lab to go forward with a faked pandemic.

The would-be perpetrators of the next plandemic may be throwing Fauci-and-company under the bus at this time in order to set up a faked lab leak. That is, the disclosure of these new emails may be deliberate (by perpetrators) to make credible a lab leak as early as this winter, for the public in not likely to believe that a dangerous virus will break out naturally from bats or chickens as early as this winter. Half the world is expecting another plandemic, and so I doubt that they will get away with one this winter. They tried last winter, but didn't have the beastly support.

This Morens story would be bigger on social media if Trump supporters were inclined to advertising it, but, the trouble is, vaccine crimes are largely "uninteresting" to avid Trump supporters. Here's some of Morens' emails, where you can see that he's a typical, gangster-minded operator. He was Fauci's advisor for 24 whopping years, perfectly explaining why Fauci himself has a NY-gangster accent:

When I google "david morens" on Friday morning, gotcha-articles by CNN, Washington Post, etc., are all absent. google stacks their gotcha-articles on page one only when a story can be framed problematic for Republicans. This in itself is democracy-hijacking gangsterism. We are seeing things such that we will not view God as cruel when He drops the whole gang into the Lake of Fire. God wants to justify such a horrendous punishment by exposure. This is what the end-times in much about, God's exposures as the criminals squirm and deny guilt rather than confess and repent. In Fauci's case, he likes to strike back at anyone exposing him, hissing like a cornered snake.

Repentance is freedom. Repentance is merely a choice, being sorry before God for all harmful decisions, and deciding to change, to do things as He knows the right. Do we think He's intelligent enough to know the right? Are we going to decide for God what is right and wrong? The world behaves that way, slaps God in the face, presents Him as wrong and awful. That's why they will be destroyed when Patience runs out.

The tie Morens wears in Congress looks chosen for a buffoon. What could that be about? His emails reveal that gain-of-function was taking place in Wuhan with funding from a Fauci > Ecohealth pipeline. Whoever is responsible for making bioweapons in a lab is the one responsible if a leak takes place, because the one responsible for funding the work is responsible for creating the virus knowing that a leak could take place. If it takes place, blame does not go only to the worker who carried the virus to the outside. The more killings they feigned from COVID-19, the more compelling to take them to court. Did anyone hear from Trump, in the aftermath of the Morens interviews, saying that one of the first things he'll do as the next president is take Fauci to court???

Morens was conspiring with Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth Alliance, the one who said that the media will hype and fuel $$$-making opportunities via the COVID scamdemic. Daszak was speaking as though he had seen that scheme's inner workings in the past, it wasn't new with COVID-19. And so, for making money, the whole machinery killed and maimed millions upon millions, I never stop hearing their stories in the comments sections of videos. Nobody in these videos goes to Fauci's support, and few condemn Trump. The consensus from public admissions, even from what were once avid pro-vaxxers, is that vaccines were a mass-murder weapon. To see the Morens emails in print:

We should have the insight to realize that, during the conducting of a crime, the perpetrators will send tailored emails that amount to evidence (if needed) making them appear innocent or unrelated to the crime. Conspicuously missing from the article above, and all videos I've watched, is the origins of the Morens emails.

In just days as I write, the WHO will put forth a proposal to many nations asking to be gifted with the legally-binding right to control the next plandemic on behalf of national leaders, to control what medical organizations and doctors can and cannot do, and all-around worse than in the COVID scheme. Hopefully, Schwab resigned this week because he knows the votes are not there for the WHO to succeed. WHO and Schwab both have head offices in Switzerland.

Another week, another investigation of possible theft of tax dollars by Liberal politicians in Canada:

I thought this was a worthy video for tending to expose that invisible vaccine powers were assassinating African leaders because they thought they could get away with them most easily:

People are worried now that big corporations will replace workers with robots while their globalist partners in politics see to it that humans are murdered in massive numbers in order to save from paying them welfare when they are out of jobs. But wait. What good is employing a robot 24 hours daily when half the human population is eradicated?

For whom will the robots manufacture products 24-hours daily if the buyers are killed off? What good is a robot making toilets at half the price if there are half as many people using toilets? Killing people out of work is killing the buyers that make the corporations rich. Duh.

Someone might think: if robots can make products for four times less money than humans while the population is cut in half, then there's higher profits to be made. But wait. When robots make products for less money, the corporations are compelled to sell products for less money, but how will that bring in higher profits?

Besides, the people can elect politicians who promise to limit the number of robots, politicians who give priority to humans before robots. Some laws would be needed to limit automation. That's very doable because robots don't vote, but humans do.

Here's congressman Thomas Massie showing off his palatial homestead, his grit, and his traditional values:

Charles Stanley is right about praising God in prayer. At times, try not asking God for anything in prayer; try understanding Him, an awesome task that makes you feel appropriately very small. I was asking why He made the animals so dumb, so confined to their instinctual programming. I resolved that, had He made the animals intelligent, they would gang up and draw war plans against humans and other animals. It's best to leave them on the dumb side, incapable of drawing out plans:

Here's a prayer from the comments part of a video on Israeli news: "I pray that God blesses Israel and that ALL will be safe! In Jesus mighty name I pray!!!" I see prayers like this continuously, as if the well-intentioned believers are totally oblivious to the many prophecies of the end times in which God will Himself cripple Israel to the point of national devastation in warfare. Our prayer should perhaps rather be that God have mercy against end-time Israel, but then again maybe not. Wrath against Israel means that she is His evil wife gone with a multitude of other lovers, but Christians treat the Israelis today as though they are blessed by God even though they know that they reject Jesus to the point of concerted hatred.

On the other hand, we should not oppose Israel as do violent Palestinians, or even peaceful Palestinians. We understand that the Israel people are destined by God to be the gem of the planet, and that God forever gave this nation the region that modern Israel now controls.


Here's all four Gospels wrapped into one story.

For Some Prophetic Proof for Jesus as the Predicted Son of God.
Also, you might like this related video:

Pre-Tribulation Preparation for a Post-Tribulation Rapture