Net Zero will probably be useless, admission from the US

Hello community! This is your mastermind speaking...

When Biden's deputy energy secretary, David Turk, confirmed that it will cost more than $50 trillion to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050 during a hearing of the US Senate's subcommittee on appropriations, the great mockery of climate policies unexpectedly erupted in Washington. Additionally, Turk was unable to respond to a straightforward and important question posed by Senator John Kennedy (not a member of the Kennedy family): even assuming he could answer the question. Turk, who may be described as a seller of weather pats, attempted to avoid the topic, but it was pressed relentlessly until he had to acknowledge that he had no notion. Creating the unmistakable impression that Net Zero could have no impact.

Given that the warming has been quite variable, with at least 20 years of thermal stasis, even in the presence of a continuously rising concentration of this gas in the atmosphere, it would actually be impossible to be able to respond, as the correlation between global warming and CO2 remains merely a hypothesis. Additionally, it is challenging to estimate the actual rise in temperatures because terrestrial weather stations are increasingly impacted by the expansion of urbanized areas and their heat islands, frequently send estimates in place of data, and ultimately use electronic thermometers completely incorrectly. The temperature increases are substantially lower if only the true data are utilized and the estimated data is extrapolated. Finally, the technological advancement of these tools from the 1980s to the present has an impact on satellite data as well. As a result, adjustments follow one another with criteria that point everything upward, from those same technical-bureaucratic centers that later spread catastrophism.

However, paleoclimatic research makes it clear that CO2 does not appear to play a significant role given that ice cores show that CO2 was abundant in the atmosphere in cold periods and much scarcer in warm periods. In reality, we really don't know very much about the climate and we don't know why there are periods of hot climate or glacial climate. It is no accident that 1,200 climate scientists, including Nobel laureates, have signed a document in which they expose the climate hoax and subtly criticize the wealthy foundations that are very generous to those who advance their preferred theses as well as the bureaucracy in the field that has historically been linked to governments and politics, which serves as the sounding board for these absurd alarm clocks. It should be obvious at this point that Net Zero is just a bet on roulette, suggested by an infamous croupier who expects much more from this operation that has very little to do with the climate and do so much so that when one tries to kill traditional agriculture, which is part of the same attempt to reset the climate with an agricultural revolution, one should not refuse to learn the truth out of fear of seeing one's own dogmas fall apart. The lack of good faith in this situation is clear by the desire to replace the lost food with insects, which are a tremendously higher source of nitrogen than anything supplied by huge enterprises,

But in essence, the Net zero has no actually quantifiable function and is merely an act of faith. It is therefore accompanied by a significant environmental degradation because of the materials required to replace the conventional resources. To be honest, it was in ill faith.

Don't believe the lies! The truth sets us free! Have a good day !