# How would you prep for this?



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

John Kerry has decided that all CO2 needs to be removed from the atmosphere.


> “Even if we get to net zero, *we still need to get carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere*,” Kerry said. “This is a bigger challenge than a lot of people have really grabbed on to yet.”











John Kerry’s Climate Warning: 'Even If We Get To Net Zero, We Need Carbon Removal'


The little-noticed remark came during a finance session of President Biden's big Earth Day climate summit.




www.huffpost.com





So how will trees and plants survive? Trees are the biggest cleaner of air we have. Turning co2 into oxygen is what they do.

When we exhale co2, can we be fined? I have no idea of what they will require for breathing. Actually this is the biggest gripe I have for masks, you breath back in part of the co2 you just exhaled. Maybe the mask mandate is a precursor of what's to come?

How does one even begin to prepare for this nonsense?


----------



## Auntie (Oct 4, 2014)

There are no words I can type and not get banned.


----------



## Tango2X (Jul 7, 2016)

Consider who said it---


----------



## Back Pack Hack (Sep 15, 2016)

I don't see where, in that article, Kerry said ALL of it needs to be removed.


----------



## Real Old Man (Aug 17, 2015)

if he's talking about all, then all life on earth must cease


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

If we get to net zero, plant one more acre of trees and you'll get "removal".

He can't possibly mean "all".


----------



## Back Pack Hack (Sep 15, 2016)

Mebbe he's referencing 'all' the excess.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Back Pack Hack said:


> I don't see where, in that article, Kerry said ALL of it needs to be removed.


How about the video the article is referencing? He actually states it here.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Imprecise speech.
I "remove" money from the local ATM, but I'm not emptying the thing.


----------



## Robie (Jun 2, 2016)

I don't care how he worded it. The guy belongs behind bars.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> Imprecise speech.
> I "remove" money from the local ATM, but I'm not emptying the thing.





> We still have to get carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere


That sounded pretty precise to me.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

And it seems they are working on it.









Clock's running out on climate change. California says it's time for giant carbon vacuums


Solar panels, wind turbines and electric cars are not enough to beat climate change. California is also looking at giant carbon-sucking vacuums.




www.latimes.com













Reducing California Emissions to Zero


California’s aspiration to become the first carbon-negative state appears to be achievable and affordable.




issues.org













MIT engineers develop a new way to remove carbon dioxide from air


A system developed at MIT can efficiently capture the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide even from ambient air, and release it in pure, concentrated form. The carbon capture work was led by Sahag Voskian and T. Alan Hatton.




news.mit.edu


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

inceptor said:


> That sounded pretty precise to me.


He absolutely thinks CO2 should be removed from the atmosphere. But why do you assume that means "in its entirety"?
Kerry's an absolute moron, but there's no reason to believe he thinks there should be an effort to completely eliminate CO2 from the atmosphere.
Taking his words to an extreme in order to make him sound stupid, when it's not what he said, only makes our argument against him look weak.


----------



## Robie (Jun 2, 2016)

I would posit...I know more about the totality of air pollution than Kerry, the man put in charge of it does.
In fact, I would bet $$ on it.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> He absolutely thinks CO2 should be removed from the atmosphere. But why do you assume that means "in its entirety"?
> Kerry's an absolute moron, but there's no reason to believe he thinks there should be an effort to completely eliminate CO2 from the atmosphere.
> Taking his words to an extreme in order to make him sound stupid, when it's not what he said, only makes our argument against him look weak.


He stated "We still have to get carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere". He didn't say lower it. Getting it out means removal. I am going by what he stated. And this was during a conference with bankers on implementing the ESG scores.

When you state the dishes need to be cleaned, does that mean only a partial removal of the remnants?


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

inceptor said:


> He stated "We still have to get carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere". He didn't say lower it. Getting it out means removal. I am going by what he stated. And this was during a conference with bankers on implementing the ESG scores.
> 
> When you state the dishes need to be cleaned, does that mean only a partial removal of the remnants?


I'm only trying to play devil's advocate in order to keep people from jumping to the extreme without sufficient support.
But if you honestly believe that the man is calling for the 100% eradication of CO2 from the atmosphere, which all people know is necessary for plant life, then maybe I can't change your mind.
Just know, if you take this argument beyond the bounds of this site, expect ridicule.


----------



## ErickthePutz (Jan 10, 2021)

How?
One at a time...


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> I'm only trying to play devil's advocate in order to keep people from jumping to the extreme without sufficient support.
> But if you honestly believe that the man is calling for the 100% eradication of CO2 from the atmosphere, which all people know is necessary for plant life, then maybe I can't change your mind.
> Just know, if you take this argument beyond the bounds of this site, expect ridicule.


I'm just taking his word. This is what he said. To expand it he stated "Even if we get to net zero, we still have to get carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere." That sounds pretty plain to me.

These are the same folks that think a high school dropout is the perfect person to teach PhD's about climate change. And I imagine they pay her well to do this.

Ridicule? This wouldn't be the first time and I doubt if it will be the last.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

inceptor said:


> To expand it he stated "Even if we get to net zero, we still have to get carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere." That sounds pretty plain to me.


Yep, it's plain to me too.
But the amazing, and equally frustrating, thing about humans is that we can see/hear the exact same thing, and interpret it very differently.
John Kerry is, and has always been, a poor communicator. I take that into account whenever I hear him speak.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> John Kerry is, and has always been, a poor communicator. I take that into account whenever I hear him speak.


I wish I could ignore him but he's hell-bent on causing damage. The Iranian cash deal, passing on intel to the Iranians, pushing hard for the Great Reset. Kerry is our ambassador to the World Economic Forum.

Kerry has never been known for his intelligence. Even in college he was mediocre at best. What he is good at though is doing what he's told to do.


----------



## The Tourist (Jun 9, 2016)

*Kerry's an absolute moron.*

This is where I tread lightly*. *Most of my life was working as a "credit manager," which means most of my work went to the *company owner* who thought all of his employees were idiots. How I managed to stay there for five years is still a mystery to me.

But I did learn one thing. Most people always utter, "The customer is always right." That is patently false and sometime downright ignorant. After the customer leaves you company's building you now get immersed in the griping and schmoozing of the corporate head. Oh, he doesn't know much either, because he's one of the "monied guys," not one of the "worker bees."

In the end, you make yourself useful. The owner of the company did not want his wife shopping by herself. She had plenty of money, but the boss was afraid she'd get kidnapped. His first opinion to me during a private interview was, "_Hey, Tourist, you carry a gun, don't you_?"

Now back to Kerry. Without a doubt, Kerry has a cadre' of wild boys who have to think outside the box for downright everything. If the boss wants a birthday cake for his wife, and they don't have any now, well, you steal one.

Now, this might sound foolish, but to the "boss" he believes he has a low maintenance group of guys who presumably never sleep. Therefore, the persona the boss has when confronting a chief-of-staff or needed money -guy is simply that he must succeed at every turn. And yes, I did have to meet with guy who worked for Playboy Magazine.

So if you ever lose your job and figure you can do everything, become the "Number One Son" of a semi-crazed business owner. Yes, your boss will be a moron, too. But that must be hidden, as well. After all, your boss must always look good, and you'll even have to stand still while he chews you out in front of a client over *a mistake he made*...


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

The Tourist said:


> *Kerry's an absolute moron.*
> 
> This is where I tread lightly*. *Most of my life was working as a "credit manager," which means most of my work went to the *company owner* who thought all of his employees were idiots. How I managed to stay there for five years is still a mystery to me.
> 
> ...


I don't give two spits about somebody's boss...
Kerry is a public official, and a moron, and I am free to call him out on it.

BTW, if you want to quote somebody so they get a notification about the conversation, use the "Reply" button under their post.
Or a more simple method of quoting only one sentence, as you've done here, is to highlight the phrase you want to quote, wait for the small popup menu to appear, and click "Reply" there.


----------



## danaben (Feb 23, 2021)

Kauboy said:


> I don't give two spits about somebody's boss...
> Kerry is a public official, and a moron, and I am free to call him out on it.
> ... additional detail removed for brevity.


Kerry misspoke. He does that a lot. His current boss does that too. California seems to be looking at plans for a giant carbon dioxide sucker; to understand how ludicrous that is read Our Man in Havana.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Auntie said:


> There are no words I can type and not get banned.


Here are the words.

Kerry is a globalist. Under the guise of "climate change," the global elite will make us live in fear, change our ways of life and give up our liberties so that they gain more power.

Kerry was born a POS and he is still a POS.


----------



## Auntie (Oct 4, 2014)

Thanks Denton


----------



## Folklore (Apr 6, 2021)

They want to make everyone a vegan. 
So they started talking about the carbon dioxide emissions from cows. 
That's why they talk so hard about organic food. 
They now need to create a demand for this nonsense, because some of them have already bought a lot of shares in agricultural holdings. 
It seems to me.


----------



## The Tourist (Jun 9, 2016)

*I don't give two spits about somebody's boss...*

_When I was in my early twenties I used to feel the same way. Then one day I came to work and found I had been promoted.

Funny thing about a promotion. Guys that always invited you along with the co-workers will suddenly forget where your office rests. And, of course, there's always one dick-head who tries to sneak out 15 or 20 minutes early because, after all, you both went together at a Packers' game once nine years ago.

One thing about guys with long memories, guys you saddle with a slang name and guys who type faster and know more clients than you, they will all be making twice what you make inside of nine months. Oh, and the cute little typist you used to flirt with, well, she's off to greener pastures and I mean before her typewriter ribbon dries.._


----------



## jdbushcraft (Mar 26, 2015)

inceptor said:


> He stated "We still have to get carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere". He didn't say lower it. Getting it out means removal. I am going by what he stated. And this was during a conference with bankers on implementing the ESG scores.
> 
> When you state the dishes need to be cleaned, does that mean only a partial removal of the remnants?


Your analogy is flawed. If I am putting oil in an engine and stop after I have overfilled it (reach net zero) I still need to remove oil from it (because there is too much). That doesn’t mean I am going to drain it dry. It just means I need to bring it back to an acceptable level. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jdbushcraft (Mar 26, 2015)

inceptor said:


> How about the video the article is referencing? He actually states it here.


He didn’t say all on the video either. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

jdbushcraft said:


> He didn’t say all on the video either.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


No he didn't. He also didn't say get it down to acceptable levels. Acceptable levels are not even brought up.

I know that 95% of bugs out there are beneficial. Yet when you call the exterminator to get the bugs out of your house does that mean down to acceptable levels?


----------



## jdbushcraft (Mar 26, 2015)

inceptor said:


> No he didn't. He also didn't say get it down to acceptable levels. Acceptable levels are not even brought up.
> 
> I know that 95% of bugs out there are beneficial. Yet when you call the exterminator to get the bugs out of your house does that mean down to acceptable levels?


Again, a flawed analogy. You are picking things where zero is the desired end result and using it as a comparison. 
If you are filling a glass with water and it overflows, you stop filling it. If it is then too full to move without spilling you must remove water from the glass. Nobody would assume you meant empty the glass. 

If you have a parking lot that has so many cars in it you can’t maneuver around in it, you need to remove cars. That doesn’t mean empty the lot. 

If a building has more people in it than fire code allows, you have to remove people. That doesn’t mean empty the building. 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

jdbushcraft said:


> Again, a flawed analogy. You are picking things where zero is the desired end result and using it as a comparison.
> If you are filling a glass with water and it overflows, you stop filling it. If it is then too full to move without spilling you must remove water from the glass. Nobody would assume you meant empty the glass.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I understand that all of my statements will be flawed because I tend to go against the narrative.

Yet the idea is to clean the atmosphere. So using that same glass of water, you only need to partially empty it to clean it?


----------



## jdbushcraft (Mar 26, 2015)

You aren’t cleaning the glass. The goal was to move it without spilling. There you go trying to use an all or nothing situation where it doesn’t exist. 

The idea is to bring CO2 down to acceptable levels. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Auntie (Oct 4, 2014)

jdbushcraft said:


> You aren’t cleaning the glass. The goal was to move it without spilling. There you go trying to use an all or nothing situation where it doesn’t exist.
> 
> The idea is to bring CO2 down to acceptable levels.
> 
> ...


Who determines what acceptable levels are?


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

jdbushcraft said:


> You aren’t cleaning the glass. The goal was to move it without spilling. There you go trying to use an all or nothing situation where it doesn’t exist.
> 
> The idea is to bring CO2 down to acceptable levels.
> 
> ...


He didn't say bring it down. Kerry said remove. Is there a new meaning to remove that hasn't made it in the dictionary yet? That was his word, not one I'm inserting.


----------



## jdbushcraft (Mar 26, 2015)

Reread the 3 examples I gave using “remove” in a non totality way. 
You can remove people from a room without removing everyone. You can remove cars from a parking lot without removing them all. Trees remove CO2 from the air. 
You are assuming he means something that besides being physically impossible, would never even be attempted by anyone creating the technology. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SOCOM42 (Nov 9, 2012)

Kerry is a useful idiot, to the left which is his home.
He has been a scumbag in this state forever and a crook.
He tried to beat out a luxury excise tax on his sailboat of $3.9 million dollars by keeping it in RI.
The hook nosed pig got caught, last I heard it was up for sale.
He probably needed the boat to bring in all the pocket back cash he gets, too much weight for the jet.
Besides customs is easier on boats over plains, probably uses diplomatic pouches for the hauling.
The only thing I can say is to give him a hymn.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

jdbushcraft said:


> Reread the 3 examples I gave using “remove” in a non totality way.
> You can remove people from a room without removing everyone. You can remove cars from a parking lot without removing them all. Trees remove CO2 from the air.
> You are assuming he means something that besides being physically impossible, would never even be attempted by anyone creating the technology.
> 
> ...


No, you are assuming. I'm taking him at his word.


----------



## jdbushcraft (Mar 26, 2015)

You should be terrified of giving blood then. I don’t think they have ever specifically stated they weren’t going to take it all. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

jdbushcraft said:


> You should be terrified of giving blood then. I don’t think they have ever specifically stated they weren’t going to take it all.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Actually I have given blood and actually they do tell you how much they are taking.

But assuming you are correct is always the best option. Assuming is a good thing.


----------



## jdbushcraft (Mar 26, 2015)

Auntie said:


> Who determines what acceptable levels are?


History. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

jdbushcraft said:


> History.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Historically, the world had a lot more CO2 than now, and was more tropical than now.
Is that the history that will be chosen? Or another part of history?


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

jdbushcraft said:


> History.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


History is written by the victors. History has been rewritten since 2008 and the process continues.


----------



## Auntie (Oct 4, 2014)

History according to climate.gov


----------



## jdbushcraft (Mar 26, 2015)

Kauboy said:


> Historically, the world had a lot more CO2 than now, and was more tropical than now.
> Is that the history that will be chosen? Or another part of history?


Not for the past couple hundred thousand years it hasn’t. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jdbushcraft (Mar 26, 2015)

inceptor said:


> History is written by the victors. History has been rewritten since 2008 and the process continues.


Climate history is written into the geological record by nature. Nature is a very impartial author. It doesn’t care how much dissolved CO2 it records in ice core samples and such. It just records it. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

jdbushcraft said:


> Not for the past couple hundred thousand years it hasn’t.


Thanks for proving my point.


----------



## jdbushcraft (Mar 26, 2015)

Kauboy said:


> Thanks for proving my point.


I take it you don’t know those warmer periods were due to variations in our orbit around the sun and tilt of the Earth, which is not what we are experiencing now. Dunning-Kruger at work. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

jdbushcraft said:


> I take it you don’t know those warmer periods were due to variations in our orbit around the sun and tilt of the Earth, which is not what we are experiencing now. Dunning-Kruger at work.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You mean it wasn't from the dinosaur's refusing to give up their SUV's?


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

jdbushcraft said:


> I take it you don’t know those warmer periods were due to variations in our orbit around the sun and tilt of the Earth, which is not what we are experiencing now. Dunning-Kruger at work.


If you're comfortable making wild assumptions about my knowledge on the subject, I'll respond in kind.
I take it you don't know that the warmer tropical conditions this planet once existed in created a veritable explosion in both flora and fauna, and can easily be seen as beneficial to all life. If you want less CO2, the excess plant life generated by that condition will take care of it, leading to a wonderful balancing effect. More crops, more livestock, more lush land. If I believed the lies about anthropogenic global warming, the end result still sounds pretty good to me.
I'll also assume you have no understanding about the solar cycles which cause a great deal of the temperature fluctuations our little dirt ball has experienced.
It's fun to assume your opponent is a fool, instead of trying to have an actual discussion. I can see why you did it.

I've never understood why people assume we, a species that has existed for but a blink in time, can completely undo the amazingly robust and durable system that this planet's natural cycles have shaped and formed over billions of years.
Or, if you like, that we could possibly destroy God's great creation in such a manner that the omnipotent being never predicted.
Take your pick.

If you're worried about the planet. Don't be. It can take care of itself.
If you're worried about the human species, take heart in knowing we will wipe ourselves out with war or disease long before the planet decides to blot out our stain.


----------

