Ecology, the great scam. The book not to read.

Books, television programs, films, magazines or music to share, counselor to discover ... Talk to news affecting in any way the econology, environment, energy, society, consumption (new laws or standards) ...
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79123
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10973

Ecology, the great scam. The book not to read.




by Christophe » 10/06/08, 14:43

Image

Ecology is too serious a matter to be left to ecologists. They are wrong and deceive us. With six tons of rejection per capita against double in other developed countries, France is already setting an example for the rest of the planet. If the others were as virtuous as we are, pollution would be a problem to be solved. Why then spend tens of billions of euros every year to try to reduce our emissions since they represent little more than 1% of emissions from the planet, while China puts into service every week a large coal plant power ? Why cover our country with wind turbines that produce electricity when we do not need it? Why endlessly subsidize the production of biofuels that can only be marginal? Why block traffic in our cities on the pretext of saving the planet? Christian Gérondeau, first delegate for road safety and current president of the French Federation of Automobile Clubs and Road Users, asks the angry questions: are we going to continue for a long time to give in to intellectual terrorism and to the undivided reign of "political correctness" which is rife when it comes to ecology?


Without comment ... how big millitant pro bagnoles can he talk seriously about ecology? : Shock:

We had seen a good example on these forums : new-transport / live-the-car-t2600.html
0 x
Bibiphoque
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 749
Registration: 31/03/04, 07:37
Location: Brussels




by Bibiphoque » 10/06/08, 14:47

0 x
This is not because we always said that it is impossible that we should not try :)
georges100
Éconologue good!
Éconologue good!
posts: 338
Registration: 25/05/08, 16:51
x 1




by georges100 » 10/06/08, 14:50

we have a former minister who says the same :D
it's still funny that the ecology's destroyers are often linked to governments :D
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79123
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10973




by Christophe » 10/06/08, 14:51

Publishers are not supposed to put the ola to prevent editing anything ??

Attention in the same genre but probably more varied there is the green imposture who despite some misbehavior is pretty good on the bottom.

It makes the link between "green" law and the influence of "lobbies" quite well to create new markets (purely economic therefore ... ecology is only a pretext).

This is probably also why currently we are not trying to seriously solve the problem of pollution ...
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79123
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10973




by Christophe » 10/06/08, 14:54

Wiki wrote:Author of the current plans of the Paris RER,


Who do not satisfy anyone (see the link below by the Parisian pro car) ... and which give the car the best part ... Ah everything is explained ...
0 x
Leo Maximus
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2183
Registration: 07/11/06, 13:18
x 124

Re: Ecology, the big scam. The book not to read.




by Leo Maximus » 20/01/18, 23:10

This book can be downloaded free of charge from: http://www.issahamad.net/wp-content/upl ... e-2007.pdf

No, you absolutely must read (or reread) this book, which is not worth a nail.
1 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79123
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10973

Re: Ecology, the big scam. The book not to read.




by Christophe » 21/01/18, 02:04

A big enc ** of nuclear pro more this book! (Why do I see it again in 30 seconds ???)

Just read the conclusion ...

The author Mr Gerondeau self proclaims heir to Descartes? Heir of Rothschild or Louis XVI rather !!

Mr Gerondeau you are a lobbyist, paid to stack this book ...

France is beautiful and full of resources but people like you rot and dirty! The scammer is you and all your friends around you ...

Nuclear power does not contribute much to reducing global GHG emissions ...

Seek my head or my heart, I will not shut up!

CONCLUSION

Yes, the planet is threatened. The concentration of greenhouse gases in its atmosphere continues to grow at a rapid pace, with consequences that no one can predict. And humanity is doing nothing effective to fight against what could one day be a catastrophic plague. Our country has shown what to do. With 6 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions per year and per capita
12 for the average of the developed countries, France gives the example. If the rest of the world were doing like it, the risks of climate change could be largely discounted. But environmentalists oppose the main solution that allows to display this exceptional record and is the only one available today at the scale of the problem. They relentlessly reject nuclear energy, and so are the enemies of
ecology because they only offer ineffective lures. Electricity wind, solar, biofuels are just screens that mask the construction at an ever accelerated pace of coal or gas power plants that, from a climate point of view, are real catastrophes since they alone reject by themselves half of the carbon dioxide of human origin. Without any positive result for the evolution
ion of the planet, this policy is also ruinous. According to the United Nations Environment Program, investments in the myth of renewable energy accounted for 70,9 billion in 2006 and will exceed 100
billion before 2010. For nothing. They are devoted to wind power (38%), biofuels (26%), solar energy (16%) and biomass. Yet these sums are only a minority of the mountains of money spent in the world on behalf of
on the pretext of saving the planet.

For our country alone, which would have no reason to yield to the political correctness that inspires this way of acting, the total unnecessary expenditure reaches at least 25 billion euros per year and continues to grow.

It would be possible, however, to reduce these in the short term of ten billion a year, without resulting in the least negative impact on our emissions. At a time when the new government wants to put an end to unnecessary spending, this is a work in progress.
But it is very difficult to fight the politically correct. In June 2007, the new minister in charge of the environment and transport declared to want to put an end to "incantatory ecology", and he was right. But, just as soon, it was exactly the opposite with the goal of "postponing at least a quarter of road traffic to the rail and the waterway." When we know that the transport of goods by road represents more than twenty times the freight rail, this means that it would multiply the latter by at least five, which is physically impossible and would in any case ruinous. Do not some evaluations indicate that obtaining this result would penalize our economy much more than the 35 hours? Examples of unjustified spending in the transport sector are already plentiful and savings potential is an unprecedented number of billions of euros. There is no area where you can save so much and so easily, as long as you resist ecological terrorism.

Among others, is it not seriously planned to build around the island of Reunion a tramway that is a series of gigantic viaducts for a cost of one billion and a half euros, then that all Reunionese have a car. Is there really nothing more useful to do for them?
?

In the concert of nations, however, France is intended to make the voice of reason heard and play a major role in promoting a new global policy to fight against the worsening of the greenhouse effect, based on facts and not received ideas, and ceases to be disconnected from reality. Our country is the only one that has the right to speak loudly, since it alone gives the example to the rest of the planet. What we could propose holds in a few points. As the international community has belatedly understood, everything
first put China and India around the table to discuss seriously. Without the help of these two giants, nothing is possible, since the developed countries have pretty much mastered their emissions and it is elsewhere that the problem is literally exploding.
The production of electricity is then the first issue to put on the agenda. As long as the construction of natural gas or coal-fired plants is going on around the world, nothing will be possible.

The adoption by the international community of a resolution providing for termination within a time frame to be defined - no more than twenty years of the construction of any medium or large power plant discharging carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is first objective to achieve, without which all the rest would be only literature. In the current state of the art, this implies the generalization of the French solution, that is to say the use of nuclear energy associated with hydropower whenever possible, pending the possible development of capture technology. and storing carbon dioxide for conventional thermal power plants at an affordable price.
We could also mobilize so that the other countries are as virtuous as we are for their cars, that the United States stops producing models with absurd consumption, and that Germany finally limits the speed on its motorways. Another part of the action that we could propose concerns the adoption by the international community of a common amount for the sum it
is justified to spend in order to avoid the release of a tonne of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

This amount could be $ 25, as proposed by the International Energy Agency. It could possibly be two or three times higher, as others suggest, without that much changing things. But above all, it must exist
to avoid the inefficient waste that is happening today on a very large scale on the planet. Such a way of doing things would make for a rational approach to the transport sector. First, it emphasizes that the route of taxation is not the right one.
to reduce emissions from this sector because it would have to reach prohibitive levels to be effective. The tax on
road fuels already reach the equivalent of almost 300 euros per tonne of carbon dioxide emitted in Europe
without deterring Europeans from using their car and businesses to the truck. Tax aviation at the level of
25 euros per tonne of carbon dioxide emitted as is sometimes envisaged would result in increasing the average price
approximately, and therefore would have no drastic effect on the volume of the issues.

The only realistic solution for reducing transport emissions is not based on imaginary "modal transfers", but on the acceleration of the technical progress of the vehicles, and on any regulations intended to reduce or prohibit the use of the equipment.
s more consumers and therefore the most polluting. Nuclear aversion and phobia of the car, the truck and the plane are
well the two teats of the politically correct ecological. In both cases, environmentalists propose unrealistic and rogue alternatives.
to which we could devote all our resources without any significant result. They lead us on the path of endless waste and prevent us from really acting for ecology.

Instead of seeking to reduce the real or supposed inconveniences of the only possible solutions, they reject them, and
all that remains are problems. The current success of ecologism can finally be explained only if we return to the two visions of the world which, for more than two centuries, have divided humanity into two opposing camps. Some have an optimistic perception of
the man. They trust progress. They see history as a march ahead of civilization. The others
very profess a pessimistic view of humanity and are convinced that any progress necessarily has a hidden cost,
so that even when the world seems to be moving forward, it actually regresses. In our country, they are the ones who
have so far largely won the fight of ideas. They managed to impose a real law of silence, an ecological omerta.
Because all the facts that have been quoted in this book are known. But no one dares to say them. The leaders of our large companies in the energy, transportation and many other sectors know exactly what is going on. But all consider themselves obliged to lie against the steamroller of ecological terrorism. And they are wasting our money by billions. Let us wake up. How is it that we have been so misled by concepts that do not come from home? How come we have
lost all good sense, to the point of listening without reacting the sirens of those who lead us on dead ends?

It is because we have been directed for a quarter century by officials who have given ideas and opinions more importance than facts and figures.

This is undoubtedly the root of the political correctness that continues to rage unchallenged in the field of ecology. It is only time to remember that we are the heirs of Descartes, and that the vocation of our country is to bring to the world the voice of reason
and common sense, and not to get lost in mists from elsewhere.
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79123
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10973

Re: Ecology, the big scam. The book not to read.




by Christophe » 21/01/18, 02:35

Christophe wrote:The author Mr Gerondeau self proclaims heir to Descartes? Heir of Rothschild or Louis XVI !!


https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Gerondeau

Looks like you've found your goose that lays the golden eggs: ecological mythology!

Ecology and impostors, Descartes et Cie, 2007
Ecology, the big scam, Albin Michel, Paris, 2007 (ISBN 978-2226179395)
CO2: A Planetary Myth, Editions of the Toucan, Paris, 2009 (ISBN 978-2-810002-46-7)
Ecology, the end, Editions of Toucan, Paris, 2012
--- >>> The Hen that lays the golden eggs. The rebirth of Polytechnique, Les éditions du Toucan, Paris, 2013 <<< ---
Climate: I accuse, Editions of Toucan, 2015.
Climate: the big manipulation, Editions of the Toucan, 2017.


79 years is good, you should not hurt too much for humanity ... although if you think we read you ????!

Mouhahah, apart from your polytechnic friends at the Jancovici and central pro nuke and Co. ... I think you must be very alone in your ideas!

Your literary style is that of a student of second and maybe that's the worst ... for an X (50 years and more ... ah I just understand: you must have a ghost!) .. .

In short we will regret you less than Johnny! : Cheesy: : Cheesy: : Cheesy: In short, that you shut up ... and for good!
0 x
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749

Re: Ecology, the big scam. The book not to read.




by sen-no-sen » 21/01/18, 13:25

(...) "The current success of ecologism can finally be explained only if we come back to the two visions of the world which, for more than two centuries, have divided humanity into two opposing camps. have an optimistic perception of
the man. They trust progress. They see history as a march ahead of civilization. The others profess a pessimistic view of humanity and are convinced that any progress necessarily has a hidden cost,
so that even when the world seems to move forward, it is actually regressing. "(...)


It is typically a speech of "thirty glorious scientist "in the right line of Claude Allègre as well as Jean de Kervasdoué, ie elderly man (65 / 90 years) from the "baby boom" and often of modest class; but who reached a high level of comfort via the glorious thirty. They are characterized by a beak and nail defense of technical progress that allowed them a significant rise in society.
Our friend Christian Gerondeau Obviously did not take the climate-skeptic option, probably to sell us the benefits of the atom but we still feel a certain skepticism about the current ecocide.
For the rest the study of statistical mechanics is final: any "progress" (therefore of energy dissipation) leads to the production of entropy which modifies the environment, which within a planetary ecosystem irreparably generates destruction. in chain.
Thus technical progress must be understood as an intelligent entity in Darwinian competition with the rest of the forms of life on earth, defend the shameless one is done by the force of things to the detriment of others.
As a dissipative biological energy structure or "homeostatic" entity we must understand which camps we must choose so as not to end up in the archives of history ... : roll:



"In our country, it is they (the ecologists editor's note) who have so far largely won the battle for ideas. They have succeeded in imposing a real law of silence, an ecological omertá.
One thing is certain Christian Gerondeau would be a poor sociologist!
According to him the environmentalists would have won the fight of ideas? It's completely wrong ... : Lol:
In fact, the economic system has used the ecological discourse as a screen to anesthetize the popular masses and thus avoid any paradigm shift ... and to the greening of activities to the detrimental to life on earth.
It is an old method, it was used with feminism: to defend the rights of women in order to transform them into economic agents, to fight racism in order to buy social peace in "difficult neighborhoods" and to transform immigrant populations .... as an economic agent ... in short, the idea is always the same! Used a humanist sex cache in the idea of ​​masking the maneuvers allowing the economic system to gain all sectors of life.
2 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
User avatar
chatelot16
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6960
Registration: 11/11/07, 17:33
Location: Angouleme
x 264

Re: Ecology, the big scam. The book not to read.




by chatelot16 » 21/01/18, 19:11

we can read it ... but what is a pity is to pay it! give money to anyone who writes anything is too bad ....

and this is the serious problem of the book system ... you have to pay to buy the book before seeing what it's worth ... and when you see that it's worthless it's too late we've already paid

the free publication on the internet has an advantage! everyone can read first, and then show if he agrees

but something very important is missing! a method of publication allowing readers to reward the author after reading ... because unfortunately when something is published for free no one thinks to pay even when he is happy
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Media & News: TV shows, reports, books, news ..."

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 249 guests