On the naming and shaming of Carbon Dioxide

Guest essay by Tom Peer

Poor old carbon dioxide. One minute it was a harmless gas providing as vital a link in the cycle of life as water or oxygen and then the next thing it knows it’s a pollutant.

To add insult to injury it’s not even carbon dioxide any more, just plain old carbon. Stripped of two out of three of its constituent atoms. No longer oxidised, instead demonised as humanity’s greatest threat, it’s a bad time to be CO2. It’s enough just to say “carbon pollution” and instead of meaning soot or smoke or anything that involves real carbon pollution you’re actually referring to imaginary damage wreaked by a harmless gas.

What was it that poor old CO2 did wrong. How come it’s public enemy number one and Nitrous Oxide gets to go to all the cool parties?

The carbon shaming reached a nadir this morning with the Telegraph’s latest foray into the climate debate


A headline that would make sense if we were talking about actual carbon, but we aren’t, we’re talking about CO2, and the headline demonstrates the bizarre and pervasive lack of understanding about the difference between the two.

Let’s not forget the European diesel fleet is the end result of a policy designed to save the planet by reducing CO2 and nothing of course to do with providing a competitive advantage for German manufacturers over foreign competitors who might have had slightly more compunction about faking the results of emissions tests.

Since the VW scandal the very same priesthood class that’s been sermonizing about the evils of CO2 for the last two decades has taken a remarkably haughty position over the choking diesel fumes that have seen air quality in our cities drop to a level not seen since the days of coal fires and pea soup fogs.

The London Times’ resident atmospheric physics expert Prof. Hugo Rifkind told us with his usual supercilious panache that:

Even a sceptic has to believe in air pollution

I don’t usually let any of this denier name calling get to me, but that one stuck in the craw. Something I suppose about the murderous idiocy of the diesel fraud choking me personally unlike denying the developing world the benefits of fossil fuels which keeps the unnecessary deaths safely remote.

Exactly how do they reconcile their moralizing zeal for CO2 reduction with a mocking condemnation of those who opposed a policy aimed at reducing CO2. Of course, I forgot, all fossil fuels are just so old hat. We’re all going electric now.

The solution to the pollution problem created by the warmists and the rent-seeking motor manufacturers isn’t, as you’d think, listening to the people that said diesel was nonsense and using cheap and efficient petrol cars. Oh no, that would be far too simple. And would be sort of tacitly admitting our planet saving zealotry has already killed more people than global warming ever will.

No, the solution apparently lies in going back to the same people that caused the problem in the first place and seeing what regulations and subsidy they now need to fix a problem caused by regulation and subsidy.

Instead of gentle nudges in the direction of diesel engines for people buying 60 grand German autos, we need wholesale government subsidy for electric cars like they give to Tesla in America. Who could argue with that? Don’t you realise Electric cars don’t produce any carbon at all?

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
February 27, 2018 7:37 pm

“Carbon dioxide”?
You mean cancer pollution?
Less skepticism, more science, please.

Reply to  Brad Keyes
February 27, 2018 7:41 pm

Sorry, I forgot to back up my critique with a legitimate respectable reference to the future facts on the ground:

The first climatically-correct chemistry textbooks appear in Australian high schools. The dioxide anion has been renamed ‘pollution’; chemical symbol C now stands for ‘cancer.’

Reply to  Brad Keyes
February 27, 2018 9:28 pm

The dioxide anion has been renamed ‘pollution’;
perfect. time to outlaw hydrogen pollution. after all it is hydrogen pollution that amplifies global warming by 3x the warming. caused by carbon pollution.
what we need is a hydrogen tax.

Reply to  Brad Keyes
February 28, 2018 12:21 am

…When they say ‘repent!’ Say, haven’t they read Primo Levi ‘The Periodic Table’
story of a carbon atom? … Gulped in a glass of milk, travels in the bloodstream
like in the movie ‘Incredible Journey,’ get this, it’s knocking at a nerve cell … it’s
that-which-at- this-instant, ‘issuing out of a labyrinth tangle of yes and noes…( OMG)
guides this hand of mine to impress on paper, this dot, here, this one.’

Reply to  beththeserf
February 28, 2018 2:28 am

When they said ‘repent!’
I wonder what they meant
We will not hear the likes of Leonard Cohen again in our lifetimes, I fear.

Reply to  Brad Keyes
February 28, 2018 5:20 am

dioxide anion? That would be (O=O)- or possibly (O-O)- Oxygen is most often O2 or as O with a -2 charge so oxide ion makes more sense or dioxygen for regular O2.

Bryan A
Reply to  Brad Keyes
February 28, 2018 6:27 am

So avoid the dioxide anion and fill the atmosphere with Monoxide instead. Carbon Monoxide the stuff of life death

Reply to  Brad Keyes
February 28, 2018 7:15 am

“Groupthink” induces a special kind of ignorance. Ignorance is the most brutal of slave masters.

Reply to  Brad Keyes
February 28, 2018 1:36 pm

Brad Keys,
Who are the authors of these chemistry textbooks?
Why did the school system/systems adopt these chemistry textbooks?
Who in the school system/systems authorized the adoption of these chemistry textbooks?

Reply to  Barbara
February 28, 2018 2:31 pm

Barbara, I believe the link should answer your questions. Did you read the rest of the post?

Reply to  Brad Keyes
February 28, 2018 5:35 pm

Brad Keys
Just read the “2027”. Thanks. Got it now!

Reply to  Brad Keyes
February 27, 2018 7:54 pm

Anyway, don’t you folks have popcorn to eat instead of picking pedantic, semantic nits?

Reply to  Brad Keyes
February 27, 2018 9:05 pm

Speak for yourself mate. If you were “climate change”, wouldn’t you be aggrieved at being reduced to “climate” just because some voters have trouble with two-word phrases. Uh oh, watch out, here comes “Paris”.

Reply to  philincalifornia
February 27, 2018 9:38 pm

Speak for yourself mate.

Thanks for the advice, mate, but I prefer to say what other people, like The Science, tell me. Anyway I thought YOU’D all be revelling in Schadenfreude over Trump’s winning of the Peace Prize? No?

Uh oh, watch out, here comes “Paris”.

It does? Methinks you’re confusing your rear-view mirror with your windshield. Paris is fast receding into posterity, mate.

Bryan A
Reply to  Brad Keyes
February 28, 2018 9:55 am

Is that Posterity or Posterior??

Reply to  Brad Keyes
February 28, 2018 1:20 am

Brad, you are in the wrong blog.
Here is one more suitable for you:

Reply to  Urederra
February 28, 2018 2:01 am

Here is one more suitable for you:

I assume you were commending Clownlink’s top story to me:

Playscripts on Environmental Justice Sought
Play competitions about Environmental Justice aren’t usually a Clownlink thing, but they could be! Why not? INNER VOICES Social Issues Theater at the University […]

You really think I’ve got what it takes?
I can see it now. My name up in lights on Broadway. And—who knows—off?
Thanks, Urederra: I’ll do it!

Mickey Reno
Reply to  Urederra
February 28, 2018 7:36 pm

I can see Brad Keyes as the darling of the “elite” theater going set in Manhattan, slobbering all over the famous playwright at elegant cocktail parties, praising him for his witty irony and sarcasm. But then one of the few smart ones will come along, a reporter for the New Yorker, no doubt, and he will figure out that Keyes has actually been using double secret reverse irony. They finally understand that he’s been mocking and lampooning THEM! This grossly offends the elitists, and they spread their wrath to the leftist media and Rachel Maddow (my beloved) and MSNBC. Brad joins David Mamet on liberal black lists all over the globe.

Michael of Oz
Reply to  Brad Keyes
February 28, 2018 3:53 am

Literally molecular Hitler?

Reply to  Michael of Oz
February 28, 2018 8:01 am

Even better. My hat goes off to you, the literal Goebbels of Gases!

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Brad Keyes
February 28, 2018 7:21 am

Brad Keyes: didn’t you see the /sarc tag?

Reply to  Walter Sobchak
February 28, 2018 7:58 am

I’m usually accused of not using a sarc tag. Not seeing it is a new one!

February 27, 2018 7:50 pm

You mean coal powered cars, like the Tesla?

Reply to  Tom Halla
February 27, 2018 7:52 pm


Roger Knights
Reply to  Tom Halla
February 27, 2018 8:48 pm

Links to two or three Tesla-skeptical articles per week are posted on the Tesla page of the Seeking Alpha financial site, at https://seekingalpha.com/symbol/TSLA

Reply to  Roger Knights
February 28, 2018 5:30 am

Roger I look at this Elon Musk and his escapades and a parallel comes to mind.
Based on his ability to fool people and know they enjoy being fooled, I have a new name for this man.
Not P.T. but IT Barnum, the consummate con artist. The digital era fakir par excellence.

Reply to  Tom Halla
February 28, 2018 5:26 am

And taxpayers supporting the wealthy who are the only ones who can afford a Tesla

Bryan A
Reply to  Rockyredneck
February 28, 2018 10:00 am

The Model 3 (If they EVAH start producing more than 3 per month) is supposed to be priced at around $35,000. Very competative (price wise) in todays market (unless you can only afford a Saturn or a used Pinto that is)

michael hart
February 27, 2018 7:51 pm

Fortunately I think even the zealots in the UK government realise that they simply can’t afford to subsidize electric cars on the scale needed to make a difference.
And the most powerful arm of the government by far, the treasury, will complain very loudly at any significant loss of revenue from taxes on petrol and diesel. All the talk of subsidies for fossil fuels in The Guardian and at the BBC is pure green drivel of course. The Chancellor of the Exchequer knows this better than anyone.

Reply to  michael hart
February 27, 2018 7:53 pm

Perhaps, but the zealots of Germany’s sociopathic governing councils certainly think they can do exactly that (make a difference) by setting the stage to outlaw Diesel cars. Good luck to that. LOL Nº 2. —GoatGuy–

michael hart
Reply to  GoatGuy
February 27, 2018 8:13 pm

Well, if the German crazies want to subsidize electric cars in Germany with German money, who am I to dissuade them? But the German auto industry and their political supporters carry a very big stick and won’t want to see the sales and profitability of the industry take a big hit either. So I think the internal combustion engine will be with us for a long time yet.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  GoatGuy
February 27, 2018 8:21 pm

I dont mind diesels being outlawed. There is no such thing as a clean diesel engine. unfortunately if we had an engine producing just water and CO2, the greenies would outlaw that 1st because of BAD BAD carbon.

Roger Knights
Reply to  GoatGuy
February 27, 2018 8:43 pm

” So I think the internal combustion engine will be with us for a long time yet.”

Mazda Says New SkyActive 3 Engines Will Be As Clean As Electric Cars January 30, 2018
Steve Hanley
Mazda has made its reputation as an innovator in internal combustion engine technology. Way back when, it glommed on to the Wankel engine and made it work when nobody else could. That led to a mini-boom in rotary powered vehicles, including a pickup truck, family cars, and the utterly divine Mazda Cosmo sports coupe that was way ahead of its time and the precursor to the iconic Mazda RX-7. I autocrossed an RX-7 — a black GSL-SE beauty — for many years. I still remember the sound of that rotary engine screaming to red line and digging hard for more.
The luster of the rotary engine has faded, but Mazda has kept its engineers busy designing ever more efficient internal combustion engines. It has made an alliance with Toyota — if the bigger company will share its hybrid and electric car technology with Mazda, the smaller company will share its ICE technology with its big brother. That way, both companies get a competitive edge without a duplication of effort.
Recently, Mitsuo Hitomi, Mazda’s managing executive officer in charge of powertrain development, announced his company is working on new internal combustion technology that will equal electric cars in well to wheel carbon emissions. It will be called SkyActive 3 and will follow close on the heels of the SkyActive X engine https://gas2.org/2017/10/26/mazda-skyactive-x-engine-power-less-fuel-lower-emissions/ that has just been unveiled. The X specification is a gasoline engine with many of the characteristics of a diesel, including better fuel efficiency but with lower emissions.
The SkyActive 3 engine will be better still. The goal is to improve thermal efficiency by more than 25% over current engines. That would make the new engines 56% efficient and that’s the point at which they become competitive with electric motors, Hitomi says. The comparison to an EV is based on electricity derived from a natural gas-fired generating plant. When computing the well to wheel emissions of a vehicle equipped with a SkyActive 3 engine, Mazda included the emissions associated with the extraction of oil and the refining of gasoline.
Hitomi did not offer a timeline for delivering the Skyactiv-3 technology, but he said it would give the internal combustion engine a much longer lease of life, according to Automotive News. Looks like “boing, boing” will still be a part of the world of wheels quite a bit longer than expected. One can only speculate whether such efficient engines might induce the nations who say they want to ban internal combustion engines to change their minds.

Nigel S
Reply to  michael hart
February 28, 2018 2:27 am

Roger Knights February 27, 2018 at 8:43 pm :Thanks, was about to mention that. Thank God for Ingenuity. “What have the Roman engineers ever done for us?”

Reply to  Nigel S
February 28, 2018 7:10 am

Thank God for ingeniousness.
(Ingenuity means artlessness, naïvete, or at best innocence. What we need is engineers, not ingenus.)

Nigel S
Reply to  Nigel S
February 28, 2018 9:19 am

OED, Cambridge Dictionary, Websters are all against you. I’ve been a chartered engineer for almost 40 years and have an Engineering MA from Trinity College Cambridge (alumni include Newton and Maxwell) so I’ve some idea what I mean. I think you mean ingenuous ‘(of a person or action) innocent and unsuspecting’

Reply to  Nigel S
March 1, 2018 6:01 am

Nigel S
Well bugger me—the dictionaries are indeed lined up against me on this.
I was always taught that
ingenuous : ingenuity = ingenious : ingeniousness
and using ‘ingenuity’ to mean ‘being ingenious’ (and not ‘being ingenuous’) was technically misusing it.
Which I accepted without checking, simply because it made logical and etymological sense.
(After all, ‘disingenuity’ is the quality of being disingenuous, not disingenious.)
But then since when did English make sense?
I wasn’t falsely impugning your engineering skills, just your vocab, so no need to feel defensive. It’s certainly an impressive CV, though.

Reply to  Nigel S
March 1, 2018 6:21 am

OK, I figured out the source of the confusion. What a relief.
English is wrong.
Ingenuity [En.] should mean the same thing as ingénuité [Fr.] and ingenuidad [Sp.].
To wit, the quality of being ingenuous (artless, naive, wide-eyed).
Instead it apparently means the near-opposite: ingéniosité, ingeniosidad, etc.
To wit, the quality of being ingenious (artful, cunning, clever).
Which is idiotic.
Oh well, normalcy is restored to the universe, I did nothing wrong, it was everyone else’s fault and the stars have returned to their rightful places in the Heavens.

Reply to  michael hart
February 28, 2018 8:45 am

I have recently heard that some European cities considering banning diesel autos and trucks.

Extreme Hiatus
February 27, 2018 8:19 pm

Just say it like you’re French: ‘car-bonne.’ Sounds better. ‘Bon’ also means good in French so it all sounds good. Most things sound better in French, or at least with a French accent, as fancy restaurants know.

Thomas Homer
Reply to  Extreme Hiatus
February 28, 2018 6:23 am

Je Suis Carbon

Sandy In Limousin
Reply to  Thomas Homer
February 28, 2018 11:12 am

I prefer
Je suis le charbon
I am coal.

Nick Stokes
February 27, 2018 8:20 pm

“Nitrous Oxide gets to go to all the cool parties”
It makes the bright sparks glow. CO2 makes them dull.

Thomas Homer
Reply to  Nick Stokes
February 28, 2018 5:10 am

Tell us more about ‘pollution based life forms’

Reply to  Thomas Homer
February 28, 2018 7:06 am

I for one salute our silicon-based overlords.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
February 28, 2018 8:48 am

Nitrous oxide is also known as “laughing gas”. It is popular at the college parties.

February 27, 2018 8:25 pm

What about all those politicians busy exhaling C? Maybe they could just inhale and leave it at that.

R. Shearer
February 27, 2018 8:29 pm

I’m selling a filter that removes all carbon from gasoline, jet and diesel, thus making them 99.9% carbon free.

Reply to  R. Shearer
February 27, 2018 8:50 pm

+1000! Gasoline in, water out?

Reply to  BoyfromTottenham
February 28, 2018 8:50 am

nope, just filtered out the lumps of coal so it will pass through the fuel injectors more easily.

February 27, 2018 8:54 pm

I love surprising folk down here in Oz by telling them that humans exhale nearly a kilogram of CO2 every day. Sometimes I can even see them stop and think for a minute about the implications. Then they usually carry on telling me about their rooftop solar cells…

Tom in Florida
Reply to  BoyfromTottenham
February 28, 2018 5:37 am

In that light, perhaps the CO2 increases in the atmosphere is partially due to increases in human population.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
February 28, 2018 6:16 am

Except that the CO2 we exhale comes from the food we grow, which takes just as much CO2 out of the atmosphere as we put into it.

Reply to  BoyfromTottenham
February 28, 2018 8:15 am

Let’s not forget, too, that CO2 “pollution” in the human bloodstream helps regulate breathing and metabolism.
I practice controlled breathing every morning, where I inhale deeply for 30 seconds, exhale deeply for 30 seconds, repeating this about three times, … then inhale deeply for about 20 seconds, hold that breath, allowing the CO2 “pollution” to build up — really quite a fulfilling feeling, once you get the hang of it — then slowly exhale the “pollution”, and repeat this multiple times.
This manner of self “pollution” feels quite healthy and purifying. Oh, and holding that CO2 inside the way I do has not caused my skin to melt yet. The “back radiation” has not burned my lungs either. AND I am no warmer “than I would otherwise be”. In light of this, I’m guessing that yogis would tend to be skeptics.

Mark Eastman-Flood
February 27, 2018 9:03 pm

Someone with real intelligence put it simply to the truth…thank you!

February 27, 2018 10:35 pm

Thanks for a post delivering plenty of chuckles. I’ve been pointing out to people for years that CO2 comprises two oxygen atoms and one carbon atom, so if society wants to abbreviate the name of the molecule it would make twice as much sense to call it oxygen. It’s apparent that many are baffled by this “molecule” stuff but they won’t wear my argument because they done real good in high school science and know that oxygen isn’t a pollutant.
In my opinion, anybody who refers to carbon pollution causing global warming should be disqualified from the debate because they obviously don’t know what they’re talking about. That rules out the majority of politicians, the media, a solid chunk of academia and plenty of so-called climate scientists.

Reply to  waclimate
February 28, 2018 6:46 am

“and know that oxygen isn’t a pollutant”
Actually, one of the greatest ecological “catastrophes” occurred about 2.3 billion years ago when those mean old cyanobacteria produced so much free oxygen that they saturated the natural oxygen sinks and started dumping their oxygen into the atmosphere as if it were an “open sewer”. Since oxygen is toxic to many of the anaerobic organisms common back then, it is thought that the increasing atmospheric oxygen may have killed off a large number of those organisms and were responsible for one of the largest mass extinctions in Earth’s history. Why couldn’t the mean old cyanobacteria just leave nature alone instead of messing around with it? Of course, if they hadn’t changed the atmospheric balance, we wouldn’t exists, but then since many “environmentalist” think we are evil creatures that are not part of nature, they would probably agree that what the cyanobacteria did was Evil.

Reply to  RicDre
February 28, 2018 8:21 am

oxygen not a pollutant? … guess again.
Think of the overwhelming destructive force of rust and free radical damage that kills every single human being on earth eventually (aging, you know). I have written several times about the great evils of oxygen, especially in association with hydrogen in the form of water, which kills many people each year. Something must be done.

Bob Burban
Reply to  RicDre
February 28, 2018 2:25 pm

“oxygen not a pollutant? … guess again.” Try breathing pure (100%) oxygen. It will kill you very quickly.

Reply to  RicDre
February 28, 2018 5:24 pm

Correct oxygen is a pollutant and a chemical weapon gas used by any definition you care to use because of the great oxygen catastrophy.

A pollutant is a substance or energy introduced into the environment that has undesired effects, or adversely affects the usefulness of a resource. A pollutant may cause long- or short-term damage by changing the growth rate of plant or animal species, or by interfering with human amenities, comfort, health, or property values.

Among the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), chemical warfare (CW) is probably one of the most brutal created by mankind. CW agents are extremely toxic synthetic chemicals that can be dispersed as a gas, liquid or aerosol or as agents adsorbed to particles to become a powder.

We just apply the normal human bias that “time and natural” only began when we arrived.

Phil R
Reply to  waclimate
February 28, 2018 10:06 am

Even better, the molecular weight of CO2 is 44, while the atomic weight of C 12 and O is 16. Therefore, almost 3/4 (73%) of CO2 is O by weight.

Reply to  waclimate
February 28, 2018 10:12 pm

Oxygen is toxic at high pressure. Ask any scuba diver.

Phillip Bratby
February 27, 2018 11:26 pm

Great article.

February 28, 2018 12:28 am

If a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere emits a photon, that photon can depart in any direction, up, down, left or right, forward or backward. This means that slightly less than half the CO2 emissions reach the surface.
Please explain how this qualifies as a ‘greenhouse gas’. Especially when the range of emission frequencies, 13 to 17 microns, is only about 8% of the range of emissions FROM the surface.

Wayne Rogers
Reply to  Richard111
February 28, 2018 9:12 am

According to the Wien formula 15 micron wavelength is a temperature of about -80°C. Since CO2 emissivity is about .002 and is .04% of the atmosphere, Antartica may benefit slightly.

Michael 2
Reply to  Richard111
February 28, 2018 10:51 am

Wrong place for a tutorial but here’s a short version: CO2 is indeed a greenhouse gas; one of many. Anything that impedes outgoing longwave radiation from the surface of the Earth is a greenhouse gas. The relevant question isn’t what happens when CO2 emits a photon (which at the surface is a rare event), they absorb photons and convert it to molecular vibration, heat, in other words. Thus, energy that would have radiated into space is captured near the surface adding in a small way to contact and convective heat.

A C Osborn
Reply to  Richard111
February 28, 2018 11:09 am

The mean free path length of an IR photon is about 25 metres, so that is how far it travels on average before meeting another molecule, which if it happens to be H2O, CO2, Methane etc it means it will be absorbed and if re-emitted a half of those original photons going down will now be going back up instead.
It does not take much distance for all those downward photons to be be redirected, so I don’t think very many of them ever get down to the Surface do you?
And if they should manage to and hit water then they do not penetrate to any depth, so cannot warm the Seas and Oceans like sunlight.

Reply to  A C Osborn
March 1, 2018 10:45 am

A point that seems to be missed here. The adiabatic lapse rate up the atmosphere. Due to kinetic collisions between molecules radiative gasses will be at local ambient temperature. CO2 molecules at any temperature above -30C (243K) will NOT absorb ANY radiation from the surface but WILL radiate continuously over the 13 to 17 micron bands. If a CO2 molecule does absorb an in band photon there will be NO change in energy for that molecule as it must have just emitted a photon. Kinetic collisions are far more numerous than the emission/absorption time factor. CO2 molecules are a coolant in the atmosphere at any altitude.
The only time CO2 molecules pass heat to the atmosphere is when the sun is shining and the 2.7 and 4.3 micron bands are activated. But then warm air rises and cools people tell me 🙂

Scottish Sceptic
February 28, 2018 12:39 am

Central Scotland (Glasgow and Edinburgh) have largely shut down due to snow. I can’t say what it’s like elsewhere but the road which is usually full of children is deserted I can’t see any cars that are moving. This is the worst winter we’ve had in 20 years. One winter doesn’t make an ice-age and of course this is precisely what they predicted with rising CO2

Mike Flynn
Reply to  Scottish Sceptic
February 28, 2018 1:20 am

Snow? Snow?
A dreadful example of hydrogen pollution (or would that be oxygen pollution)?
Ban hydrogen! (Or should that be ban oxygen?)
We need more di-oxygen carbide.

Reply to  Mike Flynn
February 28, 2018 2:20 pm

Remember this? Hippies signing a petition banning water.

Reply to  Scottish Sceptic
February 28, 2018 5:32 am

The Russian’s predicted cooling starting in 2017-18. If anyone knows cold it’s the Russians! Low solar periods give us polar stratospheric warming in the winter, which gives us arctic air pushed down into the mid latitudes especially with a La Niña in place.
The classic setup for UK snow is an arctic air mass in place and a low pressure system coming into it from the south. Good luck as that is what is in the forecast for the next few days.

Phil R
Reply to  rbabcock
February 28, 2018 10:11 am

Not questioning you, just interested. I understand that SSW (or PSW) can push arctic air south, but didn’t know there was a relation to low solar periods. Do you have a link or reference?

Reply to  rbabcock
March 1, 2018 2:55 am

Phil R,
I had a link to an article describing the mechanism, but as usual, doesn’t work anymore…
The mechanism described is as follows: the main difference in radiation over a solar cycle is in the UV range. While total energy only changes 0.1% over a solar cycle, in the UV range it is about 10%.
High solar activity thus means more UV, more low stratospheric ozone and higher temperatures in the lower stratosphere in the tropics.
The higher temperature means more temperature difference between equator and poles, which pushes the jet streams more polewards. That includes rain patterns and clouds. With low solar activity, the opposite happens and the jet streams get more equatorwards. That includes the polar vortex which may meander out of the poles and reach much more southwards (for the Arctic vortex).
Some climate gurus here “explain” that with global “warming”, as the temperature difference at ground level between equator and poles gets smaller, but it is what happens in the stratosphere that influences the weather/climate at ground level, not reverse…

Reply to  Scottish Sceptic
February 28, 2018 7:01 am

Scottish Sceptic, bring out the Flying Scotsman! That steam-loco can do the job.

michael hart
Reply to  beng135
February 28, 2018 7:18 am

Just don’t bring out that flying Scotswoman who managed to get herself disqualified from all three speed-skating events she competed in….twice. Two Olympics in a row!

Reply to  beng135
February 28, 2018 8:55 am

Rode that train many years ago. The original Hogwarts Express.

Michael 2
Reply to  beng135
February 28, 2018 10:54 am

Over the Ribblehead Viaduct [https:]//www.youtube.com/watch?v=uia1vSrX1BE

Vincent Causey
February 28, 2018 1:24 am

It will be interesting to see what happens when the 2040 deadline for the ban on “buying and selling” fossil fuel vehicles in implemented. Around the year 2030, buyers of new cars will start to factor in the realisation that the resale value of their car will be zero in 10 years. Probably they will be buying one or two year old vehicles which are a lot cheaper.
By 2033, the new car market will be in crisis as the number of buyers will have plummeted. The dealer network will go into freefall while two, three and four year old cars will be in huge demand. As this downward spiral accelerates it will be a brutal fact that by 2035 there will be no new car market in any real sense of the word while cars over 4 years old will be in high demand.
There will be an upsurge in electric cars as people are forced out of desperation to buy a mode of transport and this will happen very rapidly from a low base. The sudden surge will create a massive demand for electricity which will see a continual crisis in the power sector – brown outs on a daily basis, probably 3 day weeks as well.
Of course, in reality, the deadline will be pushed back to 2050 when the damage becomes apparent, on the wishful thinking that it will just take another 10 years.

Reply to  Vincent Causey
March 3, 2018 3:54 pm

I’ll be buying a fleet of new internal combustion vehicles in 2039 and then driving and repairing them for 30yrs. While idiots cope with electric cuts and failures my 4x4s will be towing loads past the abandoned elec vehicles.

Leo Smith
February 28, 2018 1:34 am

The issue of off-grid power devolves really to a subtle blend of energy efficiency, energy density (weight AND volumetric), cost , and safety. Diesel actually sits just about plumb in the optimal position (given access to atmospheric oxygen).
That is why it’s the fuel of choice for the military. Everything from a jet to a tank runs on the same fuel.
All other options have been explored and discarded. Batteries are not there yet. You won’t win a war with battery powered tanks. Batteries theoretically will never be there, either, unless some kind of fiendishly complex lithium air technology can be made safe and efficient at decent power levels.
Nuclear fuel is even better but for one problem: safety. The shielding required is too heavy for all but perhaps tanks, and ships.

N. Jensen
Reply to  Leo Smith
February 28, 2018 5:27 am

So jet engines are running on dieselfuels ?
Not according to my understanding.
On nuclear power:
I suggest you watch the documentary ‘Pandoras promise’
It has a presence on the web.

Reply to  N. Jensen
February 28, 2018 5:54 am

Diesel is C-10 to C-15 averaging C-12 and a flash point of 52C-96C. It also will freeze untreated at around -8C. Jet Fuel is the lower end of Diesel in the number of carbon atoms so is less viscous.
Diesel is less refined and the additives are directed primarily to lubricate the engine. Jet Fuel is more refined and the additives are to keep it from freezing a very low temps, anti-fungal agents, anti-static agents and corrosian inhibitors. Both are derived from paraffin oils.
You can run a Diesel engine on Jet-A but it will run hot and with a lack of lubricants will ultimately destroy the engine. You can run a Jet engine on Auto Diesel but it will smoke and perform extremely poorly with carbon building inside the hot section. I personally wouldn’t want to be in the aircraft in flight if it gets off the ground.

February 28, 2018 1:38 am

Despite diesel cars (or rather the mendacious hype) London air quality has never been better all things considered – according to the official figures. The fact that the EU or UN or whoever have imposed ever lower air quality limits for ideological reasons is the reason the air is categorized as ‘harmful’. By any rational scientific assessment it is perfectly safe, and any infinitesimally small risk is more than compensated for by the benefits fossil fueled transport provides.
As well as reducing CO2 to Carbon, the other thing that bothers me is the contraction ‘Climate Change’, therefore excluding any notion of natural variation, suggesting that it must be man-made and dangerous.

Nigel S
Reply to  MrGrimNasty
February 28, 2018 2:38 am

Yes, the article was so multi layered it was hard to separate the jokes. I got the electric cars one at the end but I think he was actually serious about diesel. Some of the older taxis and buses aren’t so good but things are much better as you say. Junk science site is a good source for details of the EPA tricks (including actual humans tested with diesel fumes with no detectable result) that lead to the Germans deciding to game the system.

February 28, 2018 1:58 am

The main problem with CO2 is that most people have close to zero knowledge about chemistry (and those educated in the field in the last three decades have been brainwashed by the AGW/CC mafia). Example: I participate on a weekly basis in a local pub quiz, and one time I was quiz master one of my questions was to name the three most abundant gases in the athmosphere. Of course I expected some of the teams to include CO2, but it was worse than I thought (!); more than half of the teams included this trace gas. I have to add that there is generally quite a high level of knowledge among the participants (about 30 teams, most regulars, quite a few from the local engineering college). Argon is approx. 20 times more abundant than CO2…..

Reply to  NorwegianSceptic
February 28, 2018 2:09 am

At least they didn’t say “carbon”. Did they?? Just picture the vaporized diamonds spewn forth from our precious-mineral-boiling factories. The last time I heard of actual carbon being an important component in the air, it was the pencil-dust aboard a Russian space vehicle. Apparently it irritated the cosmonauts’ eyes so much that they finally gave up mocking the Americans for using decadent capitalist $20-million-dollar zero-gravity pens.

Bryan A
Reply to  Brad Keyes
February 28, 2018 10:08 am

When combined with 2 Oxygen atoms, the Carbon Containing Molecule becomes vital for ALL life.
DNA couldn’t exist without it.
Plants couldn’t breathe out Oxygen without it.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  NorwegianSceptic
February 28, 2018 5:44 am

My favorite question to ask those concerned about climate change is what percent of the atmosphere is CO2. Most reply about 20%. Telling them the real numbers usually results in the “it doesn’t matter, we are harming the planet” response.

Reply to  NorwegianSceptic
February 28, 2018 8:34 am

Great, I passed the test — nitrogen, oxygen, argon — I actually knew that without peeking. (^_^)
What I think many people are confused about is the difference between carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide, because this confusion is played on by associating CO2 with smoke stacks, to remind people of car tail pipes on clunker automobiles spewing smoke.
People see the iconic smoke stack — usually emitting STEAM (to make matters even worse) — they think of car exhaust on clunkers, remember carbon monoxide suicide methodology, see CO2, and think CO2 is like carbon monoxide, because THIS is what is visually reinforced over and over again. Visual programming is so much more powerful, you see. Visual programming shapes the stupidity.

Reply to  NorwegianSceptic
March 1, 2018 12:59 pm

Well, the question is a bit misleading as Argon, the 3rd most “abundant” gas in the mixture we call air, only accounts for <1%, while the other two Nitrogen and Oxygen account for 78% and 21% respectively. So, to say that argon was abundant is a bit misleading.
However, the gist of the comment was the utter ignorance of the general populace, with which I cannot disagree.

February 28, 2018 2:07 am

The chemical formula for penicillin is C9H11N2O4S. Note the C at beginning. People who wish to rid the world of “carbon” pollution have no idea of the damage they could reek.

Reply to  mkelly
February 28, 2018 2:44 am

As the human body consists of about 18% carbon (by mass) – be sure to bury them deep…..

Reply to  mkelly
February 28, 2018 2:54 am

mkelly: Spell checkers don’t always work!
‘Reek’ means a bad smell – e.g. ‘You reek of stale tobacco and beer.’
‘Wreak’ is to cause damage – e.g. ‘He wreaked havoc by hacking the bank’s computers.’

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  Carbon500
February 28, 2018 2:59 am

Smelly compounds often contain sulphur.

Reply to  Carbon500
March 1, 2018 8:12 pm

“Wreaked”? Do you mean rort, as in What hath man rort?

February 28, 2018 3:06 am

The only meaning words have is their shared meaning. It won’t do any good to correct someone who thinks it fine to call carbon dioxide “carbon” because they know what they mean even if they don’t understand why they are wrong.

Reply to  oldspanky
March 1, 2018 5:40 am

Well in a sense yes – but the meaning I give to what I say is all the meaning it has for me – and in consciously choosing to say exactly what I mean, I establish a basis from which to both extend and receive coherent communication.
The psyop of the mind – (including the attempting of climate/primate change – operates upon false associations and impressions of a narrative control or indeed narrative identity manipulation.
Once induced to invest identity (by the carrot or the stick), the investment is defended as ‘self’.
Once the corporo-govs are induced to align in accepting its premise, it becomes the possession that claims the narrative superiority to assign smear and invalidations in legalese and group-think.
The attempt to control perception of reality is like the ability to operate video editing in real time.
Those who are aware of the ‘mind-capture’ are in a position to look at how it works and illuminate the device of deceit without being baited into false framed reactions that serve doubt and division as a loss of communication.
The human dream of ‘control’ of reality is the primary ‘separation’ device of dissociation from it. The subjective sense of separateness set against (and subjected to) its world, is a narrative identity to which ‘reality’ is conformed, filters or distorted to support. Of course this is backwards from the outset, and yet the ‘hit’ of the sense of personal power is addictive and corrupting to a true appreciation of relationship.
To my appreciation, the patterning of the ‘psyop’ is not particular to one example but transferable recognisable in all. Insofar as we are aware, we have choice as to what we accept, and what we no longer accept. To repent – as I understand it – is to recognize something I no longer accept true of who I am, and so release it in attending to and living from what does resonate true. The indulgence in guilt is the persistence in the idea we say we don’t want while engaging with it. Guilt operates a manipulative distorting agenda by projecting onto others and world in false association. But only facing it, sees what is being believed and protected. No one can make another face what they refuse to see. But we can witness to freedom from fearful deceits and manipulations by our demeanour and congruency of thought, word and deed. No one can change that which they refuse to own, and so the uncovering of error needs become a source of gratitude, not blame – if – love of truth is to allow the truth of love to flower in true cultural endeavour.
Beneath all corrupted usage of accepted currency is original worthiness of recognition.

February 28, 2018 3:17 am

An important strategy in the ‘Environmentalist’ campaigns against nuclear power was to focus on the waste stream; so called ‘spent nuclear fuel’ (SNF). It’s actually a tiny amount, and easy to protect people from. The French store their waste from their 60, or so, reactors in a single warehouse! If one could convince people that SNF was a major issue you might be able to prevent new reactor builds. For example, by passing laws which mandate all new nuclear reactors must have a permanent, safe, waste repository. Next, the other half of your movement campaign against nuclear waste. This strategy is called ‘constipating nuclear power’.
Likewise with fossil fuel. Focus on the waste. Unfortunately, CO2 is actually beneficial to plants. So the first step is to convince everyone that waste is pollution. That was the purpose of climate alarmism. Constipate fossil fuel by stopping waste, as Tim Ball says. Just like they did with nuclear power.

Reply to  Mark Pawelek
February 28, 2018 6:22 am

The highly radioactive waste products decay away to harmlessness in a few months to a few decades.
The stuff that hangs around for centuries to millennia isn’t waste, it’s fuel, and needs to be reprocessed.

February 28, 2018 3:55 am

>>choking diesel fumes that have seen air quality in our cities drop to a level not seen since the days of coal fires<<
The reality is somewhat different. Using 1970 as an index, by the year 2016 emissions of nitrogen oxides had reduced by 72%, and PM10s and PM2.5s (soot) by nearly 80%. http://bit.ly/2oDhEfe
All at the same time that the UK vehicle fleet has doubled and the diesel powered sector has more than doubled. Perhaps it could be argued that vehicles are actually cleaning up the atmosphere.

February 28, 2018 4:37 am

I have an email sig file I sometimes use to counter the ‘carbon footprint’ garbage – “Carbon Dioxide contains two Oxygen atoms, but only one Carbon atom, and comprises 74% oxygen by mass, but only 24% carbon. Please consider reducing your Oxygen Footprint before printing out this email.”

February 28, 2018 4:42 am

Poor Carbon. The most malleable atom on the planet is being abused for no reason other than Without the Big C, there is nothing from the leftovers of fuel production to produce resins for wind turbine blades and plastics for PV cells. Stuff like that. Without poor old Carbon, there’s no fuel to burn to cook food and keep warm in cold weather, no way to drive yourself around, heat water to clean clothes (and yourself), no food production no nothing.
No trees, no flowers
No bees, no showers
No food, no heat
No bus to meet
No grassy lawn
To walk upon
Poor old much-maligned Carbon needs an ally who will take its abusers to court and make the point that without the Big C, they will have nothing to wear or eat, nothing to sit on, no junk electronic toys to play with, no plastic cards in place of cash money** – the list can be as endless possible.
**Cash money: no paper bills, just coins, like in them there Good Old Days.
Maybe it’s time we had a “Remove All Carbon-based Products” day for all the CAGWers, Warmians, and Greenbeans, just to make the point that it is so important.
Wait, make that a week, not a day, with no access to anything even remotely carbon-based, including communications, food and heat. See how long they last. 🙂
I do believe such a reality check is necessary.

Bryan A
Reply to  Sara
February 28, 2018 10:11 am

Naw it isn’t the carbon, it is the Oxidizer component that creates the problem. We need to ban Oxygen.
Or so the Oxy-Morons will attest

Steve Skinner
February 28, 2018 6:09 am

Democrats are made of carbon.

Bryan A
Reply to  Steve Skinner
February 28, 2018 12:09 pm

Democrats are made from the skin of a lie stuffed with reason

Reply to  Bryan A
February 28, 2018 12:46 pm

There must be holes in the skin, because all the reason has leaked out.

Bryan A
Reply to  Bryan A
February 28, 2018 2:09 pm

Probably used a fore skin

Reply to  Bryan A
February 28, 2018 5:26 pm

The Carbon was framed the Oxygen did it.

February 28, 2018 6:19 am

It’s propaganda folks.

Propaganda is information that is not objective and is used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, often by presenting facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is presented. link

When they refer to carbon it’s because people think of carbon as black and dirty. It’s called loaded language.

Propaganda must label events and people with distinctive phrases or slogans. master of propaganda

Reply to  commieBob
February 28, 2018 6:34 am


Reply to  commieBob
February 28, 2018 8:38 am

… yet, to explain the “greenhouse effect”, we use references to BLACK bodies. Double standard? (^_^)

February 28, 2018 6:32 am

To add insult to injury it’s not even carbon dioxide any more, just plain old carbon.
Yes. Your graphite pencil is gonna erase you. Or you’re gonna get hit w/a ton of barbecue briquettes.

Reply to  beng135
March 1, 2018 1:29 pm

Make that a diamond for me, but not too big: I want to be able to carry it home.

Richard Ilfeld
February 28, 2018 6:45 am

We need the third world to sue America, Australia, and others in the world court to continue the production of carbon dioxide. The greening of the planet has helped feed many impoverished people, and increased crop yields all over the world. Reducing the concentration in air would be a green catastrophe, starving millions, especially those in areas of subsistence agriculture. Reducing carbon dioxide is equivalent to mass murder. Save the world by greening it!

February 28, 2018 7:28 am

You call it tomayto I call it tomarto, you call it carbon I’ll call it oxygen.

Bruce Cobb
February 28, 2018 7:31 am

Goebbels would be proud of what the Warmunist movement has accomplished using all available tools of the trade, especially language subversion.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
March 1, 2018 5:50 am

By assigning such a ‘special’ evil to the Nazi’s – all other examples more easily hide. To even say this is to be likely to be be tarred nazi sympathizer. That’s how it works.
“No one understood better than Stalin that the true object of propaganda is neither to convince nor even to persuade, but to produce a uniform pattern of public utterance in which the first trace of unorthodox thought immediately reveals itself as a jarring dissonance.”
~ Alan Bullock, in Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives

CD in Wisconsin
February 28, 2018 7:33 am

“……To add insult to injury it’s not even carbon dioxide any more, just plain old carbon. Stripped of two out of three of its constituent atoms. No longer oxidised, instead demonised as humanity’s greatest threat, it’s a bad time to be CO2. It’s enough just to say “carbon pollution” and instead of meaning soot or smoke or anything that involves real carbon pollution you’re actually referring to imaginary damage wreaked by a harmless gas…..”.
Of course, it isn’t only CO2 that is being mislabeled and misrepresented here. Saying we want to “fight” or “stop” climate change is a subtle (or maybe not so subtle) means of negating or denying the existence of natural drivers of climate. As if we humans had the means to control the activity level of the Sun, the movement of the ocean currents, the clouds (although we could try to control the clouds with geoengineering, but the stupidity of attempting such a thing is something I won’t go into), etc….
The scientific illiteracy that manifests itself with these misleading labels and words is truly frustrating for those of us who know better.

February 28, 2018 8:28 am

At risk of adding some AdHoms her but am all for a laugh & a ½.
Elon is a great believer in the Simulation argument, that we’re living in one → maybe ever since the LHC was switched on, flipping us all into a parallel simulation LOL!
Anyway, CO2 is the Cinderella of gases, essential for our life and the 2 evil sisters could be Alison & Michelle (real names hidden to protect the innocent) dressed-up in drag .. just having some good old British fun, no real harm intended

Reply to  CCB
February 28, 2018 8:40 am

Climate alarmists are living in a simulation created by climate models.

Reply to  Robert Kernodle
March 1, 2018 5:55 am

Yes – and now the big question, are our own models less of a simulation? And if we take the model in place of the terrain are we just in a different kind of bubble-reality?
I don’t say this to undermine your awareness of falsely framed experience’ but to expand it.

N. Jensen
February 28, 2018 9:25 am

@Leo Smith
Thanks for your answer.
To quote:
Diesel is less refined and the additives are directed primarily to lubricate the engine. Jet Fuel is more refined and the additives are to keep it from freezing a very low temps,
end quote.
So we can presumably agree, that automotive diesel is impossibele to use in a jet engine ?
BTW : You didn’t reply to my comment re ‘fast breeder reactors’ ?

Reply to  N. Jensen
March 1, 2018 1:42 pm

You most certainly can run a jet engine on automotive diesel fuel. It will just run poorly and eventually harm the engine due to deposit build-up.
JP (jet propulsion fuels) of which there are several varieties, have additives to reduce any entrapped water content and subsequently allow the aircraft to fly at high (and very cold) altitudes without the potential of a fuel line clogged with ice crystals. If you don’t plan on venturing into these extremes the engine will run. Automotive kerosene fuel has lubricants added to coat the cylinders of the ICE. Jet aircraft are turbines and as such don’t have components that need to slide past each other like piston rings on the cylinder wall so the need for lubrication is handled differently.
Just as there a many formulations of automotive fuel to obtain necessary characteristics so is there variations on kerosene (paraffin oil based hydrocarbon).
BTW Many 1st stage liquid rocket boosters use RP/LOX as propellants. RP (rocket propellant) is yet another formulation of kerosene from paraffin oils.

Steve Zell
February 28, 2018 9:41 am

I don’t know what Germany was doing to promote Diesel-powered cars, but in France (where I lived from 1985 through 1995), the French government promoted the use of Diesel-powered cars by placing a much higher tax on gasoline than on Diesel fuel, which made Diesel fuel cheaper at the pump. Wholesale Diesel fuel from a refinery (before taxes) usually costs more than gasoline.
Diesel-powered cars got slightly higher mileage (kilometrage?) per gallon or liter than gasoline-powered cars of the same size and weight, although Diesel-powered cars do emit more real carbon (as soot and particulate matter) than gasoline-powered cars, mostly in the form of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH). These emissions become visible as “black smoke” when a large 18-wheeler truck (most of which use Diesel engines) tries to accelerate from a stop or uphill.
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, of which the most toxic is benzo(a)pyrene, are real pollutants that have toxic effects when inhaled. They are generally black solids at room temperature, although they can vaporize at the temperatures in Diesel engines, and have a higher ratio of carbon atoms to hydrogen atoms (sometimes greater than 1:1) than paraffinic hydrocarbons (C:H ratio about 0.5).
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are the real “carbon” pollutants whose emissions should be limited, not the harmless carbon dioxide, which is a necessary raw material for green plants, and by extension, for all life on earth.

Bob Hoye
February 28, 2018 9:57 am

Hi Tom Peel
Well-written piece.
Bob Hoye

February 28, 2018 11:46 am

Just read a paper called ‘Hyperventilation and the body”, C. Gilbert, Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies, July 1998. The short version: your body works hard to maintain its internal pH at 7.4. Even a variation of +/-0.1 pH units causes significant physiological effects. CO2 concentration is a vital mediator in this context. Holding your breath lowers the pH as CO2 builds up, and even mild hyperventilation raises the pH as CO2 levels drop, leading to a whole host of nasty symptoms. What caught my eye is that the normal partial pressure of CO2 in the blood and exhaled air is around 5%. In the exhaled air, this is 50,000ppm compared with the current atmospheric concentration of 400ppm. If CO2 was the dangerous pollutant it is cracked up to be, CPR would be lethal, not a life saver.

Bob Burban
February 28, 2018 2:29 pm

The ongoing discourse on carbon dioxide rarely, if ever, makes any reference to either chlorophyll or photosynthesis.

Stephen Singer
Reply to  Bob Burban
February 28, 2018 3:14 pm

The cars tires do produce carbon pollution as they slowly disintegrate so the vehicle is not entirely off the hook. .

Reply to  Bob Burban
March 1, 2018 5:52 am

Yes its running in denial of life and not within the flowering of life.

Reply to  Bob Burban
March 1, 2018 2:07 pm

I have wondered about that too, and for a long time I presumed that I understood the essential facts of photosynthesis. Then I spent a day on Milford Sound in New Zealand, with its near-vertical walls shooting out of the water for nearly a kilometre. But the huge rainfall produced major tree-growth even there. Then I noticed that there were large vertical strips of bare rock where entire sections had come down in a tree avalanche. Those trees could not have taken anything out of that bare granite. Their ” stuff ‘” had come out of the air, with leaves, like fishing nets, gathering rare carbon dioxide out of thin air, making all the carbon compounds that sustain the living world. Chlorophyl was the catalyst, sunlight the fuel and oxygen the byproduct. My eureka moment. I had a working model for a non-scientist mind.

February 28, 2018 3:33 pm

This is shocking!
Why don’t they use the most appropriate name:
Carbony McCarbonFace

Reply to  Sheldon Walker
February 28, 2018 3:55 pm

As carbon-based life forms, we are born “polluted”. We breathe “pollution”. “Pollution” flows through our veins. We heat our habitats with “pollution”, causing MORE “pollution”. There’s just no escaping it — we are born sinners. We need to be saved, and that’s why Al Gore, for one, has taken on this task.
I feel dirty.

Reply to  Robert Kernodle
March 1, 2018 6:52 am

He should lead by example and end his wicked ways.

March 1, 2018 6:26 am

The act of define (naming), and control (shaming), is mind in image or model as a sense of segregative personal identity (that also extends to its group or collective identity). A ‘self’ identified over and against ‘other’ – and yet beneath this mind is a ‘nature’ that operates/communicates unseparated from all that it is. So the human world is an augmented or virtual experience of a ‘nature’ that is obscured and distorted by our learned human conditioning.
The rule of blame is power struggle aka ‘survival’ – again as an overlay upon the natural being.
The mind-capture of such ‘power’ is the drive to keep blame alive but always pointing away – excepting token sacrifice. So the outsorcery of toxic debt operates the currency of our thought.
False currencies of thought or finance preclude true outcomes.
In a sense we have all been hacked, by our own correspondences in self-specialness and fear of loss and exposure. Freeing our mind is first recognizing what is truly ours to share and what is imbibed, inducted or imposed by a past that is not who and where we are now because we desire the true, rather than react unmindfully to a believed and perceived untruth.

Verified by MonsterInsights