By Joe Bastardi
In drip, drip, drip fashion, what I have been writing about for a year is starting to come out.
Deny other factors at first (laptop existed).
Claim it’s disinformation (We “crackpots” in the employ of the evil fossil fuel industry).
Acknowledge something else might be going on to look somewhat objective (Biden never talked to anyone about his son, now we find out he did, but it was only about the weather).
By the time the real truth comes out, both with the Bidens and with what drives global warming; it’s too late. In fact, it’s too late already since an informed public may have voted another way if they knew what was going on.
And we would not be in this situation if that were the case in many, many things.
Just like an informed public, if they saw all the other aspects I have been showing you here on CFACT.org might think differently about anyone who hides these things and who is destroying our economic lifelines.
I wrote about it earlier this summer.
But it’s how they do things. And why the media, who should be striving for competitive opinions to draw in subscribers, pushes it makes little sense unless the motive is to destroy the existing free society.
The recent decision in Montana plumbs the depths of dumb. I can word it no other way. MONTANA, DUE TO ALL THE TREES THERE, HAS A NEGATIVE CARBON FOOTPRINT! So if it’s CO2 that is the problem, how does a judge rule that a state with a negative carbon footprint, is somehow destroying the lives of a bunch of kids whose lives are, actually, being destroyed by needless fear-mongering? It is one thing for a kid not to know the facts, but a judge that is ruling doesn’t know the state she is ruling in has a NEGATIVE carbon footprint. How is that even possible unless there is some other motivation?
But this opens the gates for us!
Every tree takes about 50 lbs of CO2 out of the air. I am going to use my home state of Pennslyvania, which is an industrial powerhouse that, in 2022, emitted 156,000,000,000 lbs of CO2. The dirty little secret is that Pennsylvania has almost 5 BILLION trees. At 50 lbs per tree, that is close to 250,000,000,000 lbs of CO2 taken out of the air. Meaning due to the trees in Pennsylvania, we are a carbon-negative state because of our forests! Unless you want to argue that 156,000,000,000 is greater than 250,000,000,000, which in the world these people operate in, is possible.
This does not mean I am saying CO2 is the evil demon that it is portrayed to be, and we should worry about it. I have spent a year trying to show why it is likely no more than a very tiny part. But we have yet another argument to show why their policies are the biggest existential threat. THEY MAKE NO SENSE, FOR THE REASONS THEY STATE. So a logical person concludes it’s for another reason (which I suspect most of you know).
Think about it. You have a president that tolerates China doing whatever it wants in this matter. If this is the threat he says it is, then why worry about Taiwan or all the other stuff, since their actions are direct attacks upon the US and the planet? It is classic bullying of your own people. I wrote about that here:
How do you bully your own people and then say you have their best interests at heart?
So what we need to do I advocated in another blog (which got people on my side mad as they want this beaten on the science level, the problem is it is not about science). Let’s hit them over the head with their own ideas. Let’s look at how many trees there are and how much CO2 is emitted state by state and see exactly what this increase is. I would venture to say over 50% of the states are CARBON NEGATIVE. I would venture to say our country is near neutral. THERE ARE 228 BILLION TREES IN THE US. AT 50 LBS PER TREE, THAT IS OVER 11.4 TRILLION POUNDS OF CO2 REMOVED BY TREES.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that the United States emitted 5,130 million metric tons of energy-related carbon dioxide in 2019.
THAT COMES OUT TO 11.28 TRILLION POUNDS.
Very close to what trees take out!!!!
I actually wrote about this also. If you are so fearful of CO2, plant more trees, use nuclear power, natural gas, and point-of-combustion carbon capture.
But do you see what I am saying? We essentially already are carbon neutral. If co2 is the problem, then why are we not looking at the simple solution? I don’t believe it’s a problem, but the fear and hysteria whipped up is, and laying out facts in a methodical faction to expose what is on their climate “laptop”, and at the very least, will give people open minds and a chance to stop and look at all this.
It is no wonder they don’t want this to come out. It blows their whole missive out of the water.
So what is the biggest existential threat to the freedom and progress of man today? A strong argument for climate change policy, based on a strawman house of cards with motives that are clearly counter to the best interest of our nation and the world.