Clover Leaf Chronicles

Reexamining Climate Science and Lab-Grown Foods

• Lidia • Season 1 • Episode 3

Share episode

Send us a text

The episode dives into the controversies surrounding climate change, focusing on the myths surrounding methane emissions and the perceived dangers of cow farming. Lydia Lopinto critiques the mainstream climate narrative, suggesting the need for a more comprehensive understanding of environmental science. 

• Discussion of the book "Farting Cows and Melting Ice" 
• Insights into methane’s role in climate change 
• Examining the lifecycle and impact of methane vs. carbon dioxide 
• The environmental consequences of artificial meat production 
• The political implications of climate change narratives 
• Exploring the economics of pollution credits and their impact 
• Urging listeners to investigate scientific research independently 
• Addressing the complexities of meat consumption and climate policy

Support the show

Speaker 1:

Hi everybody. This is Lydia again. Today I'm doing two podcasts because we're going to have the holidays and I'm going to be too busy to do any more podcasts, but I wanted to do a podcast about my best-selling book. Now I have to say this is my best-selling book. It's selling like crazy in the UK and it's called Farting Cows and Melting Eyes. Now, I have to warn you that I did publish this book under a different name and it had different content, but I rewrote it because the name it was too scientific and it only attracted a small audience. But now, with this new name, it has become quite popular. Okay, so Farting Cows and Melting Ice is a catchy name and it's the great climate panic debunked. And why is it selling in the UK? Well, first of all, I'm advertising in the UK through Amazon and I seem to sell a lot of copies of it.

Speaker 1:

Apparently, in the UK, the climate regulations are killing these people. They're really so upset and so they buy the book. Well, we talked about the woke agenda, and the climate change is sort of like the woke agenda. It's another manufactured crisis by the left. The Green New Deal is based on climate change. It was written by AOC and she, I don't think, took a chemical engineering course like I did. I don't think she's a chemical engineer. I don't think she understands climate change, or if it's true or not. She wrote what she thought were the problems. Okay, unfortunately, the problems are not what they seem. So we can dig into the nitty gritty, but overall, all I can remember is Mr Trump saying 2016, and now in his new and I know a lot of people hate Trump, I don't necessarily vote for him, but he did say it was a hoax and I wanted to find out if he was right. So I did the research. I never really just dismissed some statements and I wanted to find out if he was right, so I did the research. I never really just dismiss some statements. I like to do research, I'm an engineer. So I said, well, there must be some scientific basis for that statement. And sure enough, I found it Okay. Sure enough, I found it Okay Right now, in climate change and melting ice my new name for the book to get sales.

Speaker 1:

Let's talk about methane, cows and carbon dioxide. These are the key issues in climate change. People throw these terms around, but the majority of people don't know what they're talking about. Let's talk about methane. That is a weight, uh, four, four hydrogens, so it's a pretty heavy molecule. It's got one carbon and four hydrogens.

Speaker 1:

Okay, so this is what you use to run your stove. Okay, so if you have a gas stove or a gas dryer, like I do, you are burning methane with oxygen to create carbon dioxide in water, and that's how you get your heat, because when you burn the methane, it generates heat. Okay, so it's a fuel, and it generates heat okay, so it's a fuel. What happens to the carbon dioxide Once you generate this heat? It goes into plants. It becomes part of the next plant. It's absorbed by the plants in the process called photosynthesis. It's absorbed by the plants in the process called photosynthesis, and that carbon dioxide now becomes the carbohydrates that you eat. So it's a really neat system that nature, or God, has created. It's all cyclical and it all works. Okay.

Speaker 1:

This idea that methane is our enemy and we need to reduce it is just not right. Okay, let's look at what is the concentration of methane. They're claiming it's 0.000018%, so let's put that into perspective. It's like finding two red grains of sand on an entire beach. Why is it so low? Because it oxidizes in the atmosphere. It doesn't last very long. It starts oxidizing with the sun and everything, and so it disappears pretty much as soon as it goes into the atmosphere. So those two little red grains of sand is what's left over.

Speaker 1:

And now let's look at where does methane come from? It doesn't come from cow farts, as indicated in my book. That was just a joke. It's a burp. In my book, that was just a joke it's a burp. When a cow digests grass, it does this by a process which is the same type of process as your compost pile. So if you compost anything, if you do composting of your leaves or anything, and it's at the bottom of the pile, you're going to get methane. Okay. Where oxygen is not there, then as the stuff goes up through the compost pile, it's going to oxidize and it'll become carbon dioxide, okay, okay. So that's a process that also happens in swamps. If you have a swamp or a wetlands everywhere there's a wetland at the bottom you're going to have methane. As it comes up, it's going to turn into carbon dioxide, okay, and that's why you can find methane in the earth. That's been trapped for millions of years as swamp lands settled and the methane never came out. Okay, so it's still there and then we're using it ourselves. We're using methane that's in the earth already. It's in the earth already it's in the earth If we don't use it.

Speaker 1:

By banning it, you're not going to stop the earth from making methane. Methane is a natural process. It is made from plants. When the leaves drop in the compost or there's a swamp, the methane is created all of the time. It represents 30 percent of global emissions and it does come up and it does oxidize on its own. So to stop burning methane, you're not really going to change much. 30% of global emissions come from wetlands and not from agriculture.

Speaker 1:

Now, if we didn't have cows, what are we going to have Wild animals? Right, if they are herbivores, these animals are going to also create methane. You yourself create methane when you breathe, when you digest food. A vegetable is creating methane in their stomach and in it. It's just part of the natural process of decomposition. So you're not going to stop methane from being created at all and it's always going to continue to be created, even if you stop burning it. It's going to be more of it, of course, because nothing's going to burn it down by burning it, what are you doing? You're creating carbon dioxide. What is this carbon dioxide and how bad is it? Okay, so let's look at.

Speaker 1:

Methane has a short lifespan of about 10 years in the atmosphere, unlike carbon dioxide, which can linger for centuries. It oxidizes into carbon dioxide in water, making its long-term impact for less significant than often portrayed. So the cows frequently targeted as major climate villains are not really the problem. Policies to reduce methane emissions from cows often push lab-grown meats in plant-based diets, despite their significant energy demands and environmental trade-offs. So you're going to eat a plant-based diet. You're going to create methane yourself. Okay, the cow is creating methane from the plants and you're going to create methane from the plants. There is nothing to stop the methane from being created. If you're going to protect wetlands and you're not going to get rid of them or pave them over, they're going to continue to make methane from the leftover materials that die off into the swamp and they're going to continue to grow and the methane will accumulate at the bottom.

Speaker 1:

It's being created right now in all of our garbage piles that we have all over the planet. Every time you have a landfill, guess what? You have? Methane, because underneath the landfill there's no oxygen. So you end up making methane. And what do you do with the methane? You vent it out or you burn it into carbon dioxide. So, considering the fact that we create so much carbon dioxide, considering the fact that we create so much carbon dioxide the carbon dioxide on Earth is 0.04%, 0.04% or 300 parts per million and the fact that we have created some extra carbon dioxide, we think because there's no evidence that we've created more Okay, the fact that we've done that has actually greened the planet more. Okay, so that has increased the greening by 31% since 1982. Increased the greening by 31% since 1982. It says also that in the pre-Cambrian period, levels reached 4,000 parts per million in biodiversity flourished. Right now it's 380 parts per million.

Speaker 1:

Now, the data they claim is coming from the. Okay, so the data that they say is coming from the ice core. So, in other words, they went into the ice cores in Greenland, I think. They bore down and they got ice and there's movies of this and inside the ice they figured out how long ago this ice was made and from there they were able to go with a little needle into a bubble and see that that carbon dioxide was less than it is today by about. Well, if it's 380 parts per million. Today it might have been 300 or 290. So it's a very small difference. Okay, this is all the climate change is about. Okay, they've done Warsaw rings from wood, they've done all kinds of studies, all right. Unfortunately, the recent data that I exposed here in this report shows that those bubbles measurements may be incorrect because they found out that if there was carbon dioxide a couple of thousand years ago, it probably migrated out, because carbon dioxide molecules are small and they go through ice crystals, which are pretty large. So it's like an ant going through the Holland Tunnel. I mean, what's the Holland Tunnel to an ant? Nothing. It just goes right through. Ice is a crystal, it has voids in it and over time the carbon dioxide moves away. So this is recent data that I.

Speaker 1:

I show you the references and everything, every single chapter in my book, and it goes through a lot of research. It lists all the scientists, lots and lots of scientists, that are in disagreement with climate change in their research reports. It also talks about media manipulation, because they want to push the Green New Deal narrative out. They manipulate the search engines and the media to suppress information that would counteract the climate change data and they also play games with the people that disagree with them and they won't publish their papers or they'll threaten their careers or they'll blackball them. This is fascism. This is climate fascism, and it's not necessarily a scientific conversation. It's gotten so political that there's no science left in this narrative. The left is gone because the few people that continued the research and changed their opinions based on new data they suppressed those. So they don't care that there's new data that shows that maybe we were wrong. They don't care. They want to push their agenda agenda the fact that methane is bad, and I've heard such nonsense as an engineer and a chemist about methane that I couldn't believe, as if these people have never taken a chemistry course.

Speaker 1:

Course, I've heard things that it produces more carbon dioxide than a hydrocarbon. Well, methane has four hydrogens and a hydrocarbon could have 12 or 15. So I don't think it does you know? You just have to know some chemistry to know that's a wrong statement. So it's full of people talking away in wrong statements and the real scientists doing the real research telling you the truth they're suppressed.

Speaker 1:

So climate change has become such a profitable enterprise to sell you on these sustainable things like windmills and solar panels and everything else that it's become political because they want to make money off these items, and they people are paying more for windmills and solar panels than they would pay for oil or methane. When methane would have been a perfect, it would be a perfect fuel for America because it's better than burning oil and it's still a good option. It doesn't produce as much carbon dioxide as oil or wood and it's a good option for cars even because it's relatively clean, generating only water and carbon dioxide but no pollutants, and it has been used since World War II as a fuel for cars even. But this whole narrative about methane is so completely wrong that it has to be motivated by politics, because it's trying to manipulate people into buying into the fact that methane is bad and batteries are better, or methane is bad and windmills are better, or methane is bad and grass is better, if they don't tell you the truth. So just remember 1.7 parts per million methane molecules in the air. Two red grains of sand on a beach is the methane that's in the air, and for that they want to kill the um meat industry. They want to kill and they want to put you on eating manufactured meat which, by the way, produced this the same amount of gases, because it's a similar process inside that kettle where they create the meat, they grow the meat, and I have another report on artificial meat that I started writing it.

Speaker 1:

But after I found out a lot about artificial meat I got nauseous and I put that project aside for a while because it's nauseating. As a chemical engineer, having worked in food companies, having worked on designs for pharmaceutical companies, I've designed sewage treatment plants, I've designed almost every kind of chemical engineering process. I spent about, I would say, about 14 years as a chemical engineer before I became a chemical, a technical writer, as a chemical engineer, before I became a chemical, a technical writer. But I mean, some of the stuff I worked on was pretty nauseating. I mean, definitely the wastewater treatment plants I had to visit. They were not pretty and they didn't smell good either. But when I read about growing your own meat in a kettle, I was totally nauseated because it's so gross. It is gross even for me. And the other thing that I didn't like was the fact that oh my God, a cow.

Speaker 1:

God gave it an immune system. Okay, we all have an immune system that keeps us alive, because if we didn't have an immune system we'd die immediately from all the bacteria, molds and everything else that is trying to kill us bacteria, molds and everything else that is trying to kill us. So the immune system works by itself to fight anything that comes to attack on a cellular level. It's all programmed into your genes. Guess what the kettle in the lab does not have? It does not have a natural immune system.

Speaker 1:

They don't have that technology yet. They don't know how to do that yet. All they're doing is growing the cells. Okay, so they grow the cells in a pot. It's growing in the medium. It's alive. It's growing mess, muscle. You're growing a steak, basically. Okay. They later kind of press it together with a 3D printer and they make what's something that looks like a steak, gross as it might seem. Okay, so it is meat, but there's no immune system. So it is meat, but there's no immune system.

Speaker 1:

So in order to make sure there are no bacteria and no molds in there or viruses, there is a tremendous amount of testing that needs to take place, and if one batch gets messed up with a virus, they have to throw out the whole batch. Now you've got to dispose of this batch contaminated batch. Where are you going to put all this meat full of bacteria, oh, in the sewer. That's not good, okay. Okay. The environmental problems created by such a process are meat that is full of bacteria or some sort of virus into the landfill. This needs to be completely disinfected and this will be a very disgusting chemical process to disinfect that meat, very disgusting chemical process to disinfect that meat, separate it from the liquid and dispose it properly. This is like disposing of nuclear waste.

Speaker 1:

I mean, these viruses could be really serious, while if you have a cow and it has an immune system and it's killing this virus or bacteria before it even becomes a problem or else it dies, and if it dies then you bury it or you dispose of it. But most of the time you've you've even boosted his immune system by giving the cow some sort of vaccine or some medicine to keep it from getting viruses. But with these batches of meat that they're growing, oh my God, there's millions of viruses and bacteria that exist in the world that they have no immune system to fight. I don't see how they can possibly control that process. I wouldn't want to work in a factory like that because you are at risk of being contaminated by a virus or a bacteria that grows in the pot. You're cooking over there, you know, and it's very dangerous. I wouldn't want to work there, but they're doing it and they think they have it under control.

Speaker 1:

But then they thought that the mad cow disease wasn't going to happen in the UK until it happened and they had to basically kill 100,000 cows because they had fed the cows a feed that contained animal materials. That contained animal materials and it produced a protein that was not a toxin, it was a protein that destroyed you. Okay, so you can't fool around with Mother Nature. If Mother Nature made the cow a herbivore, you don't feed it meat. It didn't work out. They had to destroy 100,000 cows.

Speaker 1:

I'm just waiting for the other shoe to fall and see when are they going to find out that these meat-producing reactors are going to be so contaminated that they're going to have to basically nuke the whole plant because there's going to be some deadly bacteria in there that could get into the population. So I really don't like what this meat production is, and the more I find out about it, the worse it is. So that report is halfway done. That report nauseated me and started worrying me and I started looking at labels to see if it had artificial meat I couldn't eat. But I don't want to ruin your holiday with that report. But the farting cows and melting ice report is much better. It's done with a humor in it because as we are moving into the new administration and they seem to be a lot less convinced that the climate change is a real thing I mean, at least Mr Trump doesn't believe in it. I don't know about the rest of the people, but I have a feeling that the climate change narrative is going to change with this new administration because, first of all, the data is already there. If I was able to find it on using search engines and extracting it from research papers I have a search engine that goes into research papers, okay. So if I was able to find it, anybody can find it. The research is already there. It's been there for a long time. That politics has been keeping it alive because they have.

Speaker 1:

Obviously, climate change is making them money. There's a whole chapter in the book about how they make money from pollution credits and I worked in that industry of the pollution credit trading in a company called Sempra at that point and I trained the programmers on how to program pollution credits trading and how they were supposed to approach that, and so I knew a little bit about it and I found out also some nauseating things about how people have been profiting from these pollution credits. And it's basically the right to pollute. I know it seems crazy, but it is the right to pollute. You buy a pollution credit and it allows you to pollute so much and you buy that right from somebody else and these are trading commodities. Okay, it explains it more in the book about how that works. But climate change how can you believe in climate change and trade pollution credits? I guess Al Gore did a lot of that, you know.

Speaker 1:

So everything that you see, all this narrative and the fact that they suppress information to keep their narrative going, only points to one thing the minute they're trying to manipulate data, suppress information, shadow ban people, the minute they try to do that, you know that we're dealing with a hoax. You know that there's nothing true about it, because otherwise they wouldn't try to suppress the truth. They're only trying to suppress the lies. They're only trying to keep up their lies by suppressing the truth. That's what I meant to say. So this book is very comprehensive. It has every chapter has about 12 different references.

Speaker 1:

You can go to original papers written by scientists. You also have a list of I think I have 50 scientists that have debunked parts of the climate change narrative and have been suppressed. They're there but they just don't give them. You really have to find them in the. They don't get any press but they do have their papers out, but the press doesn't really pick up on those. So you have the press which is really an arm of the Democratic Party right now, which reports only on things that they want to push. So that's called the mainstream media, except for maybe Fox. So that's called the mainstream media, except for maybe Fox. I'm not sure, but I think most of them are a Democratic I guess arms of the Democratic Party in the US. So you can go to outside newspapers that are still news, that they still present the news, and you can find those and it can be translated automatically, and then you can read those articles and Translate it automatically, and then you can read those articles and I use AI to translate it does an excellent job, by the way by anyone that does not believe in it. I'll have another podcast about AI and some of the insanity that I've heard from people who don't know anything about AI, but I'll have to set some people straight as to what this is. But this is not the podcast. This book is the result of a lot of research into research papers published by scientists who have basically debunked some of the narratives of climate change. Of course, it also talks about real climate change.

Speaker 1:

Yes, we have climate change, but it may not be due to the reasons they say it is. It's climate change. We have ice ages, we have all kinds of things that are changing the planet. The planet is warming and then the planet will cool off. In fact, I think we're in a cooling period right now because, if you look at the charts, it was much warmer before. So it all depends on the time Instantaneously in our lifetimes, which are short compared to the life of the planet. We're not gonna make any changes by reducing or increasing what we burn for fuel. Okay, we're not going to make a huge difference because the planet has been here a long time and we're just a bleep in its lifetime a bleep, so it's all propaganda.

Speaker 1:

And one of the things I do agree with is in the electric cars, because the issue is not so much carbon dioxide with the cars, but it's the pollutants, even if you have a good filter in your car, you still are emitting noxious pollutants, and so in cities where you have a lot of cars and vehicles, electric cars can contribute to reducing the pollution in the city itself. So that can be very helpful, but it's not because of climate change. It's because when you burn a fuel inside a car, you are emitting pollutants, but the carbon dioxide hasn't gone up significantly, and we have created more plants, and we can do even better by setting up buildings that are green. With green plants growing off of them, we can do a lot of things. So, yeah, we can make a city green, and they are doing that in other parts of the world.

Speaker 1:

So there is some climate change, yes, and there may be different temperatures around cities than there are in Iceland, and there may be different concentrations of carbon dioxide and oxygen in different parts of the world. If you're in a forest, you might actually have too much oxygen and this might fuel a forest fire, but in the city, there may be more carbon dioxide because you're burning a lot of fuel and it's all concentrated in one location. Okay, so it is a good idea to stop burning gasoline inside a city. Okay it, it really would make a difference in the quality of life of people breathing the air. Okay, so let's look at it from the real point of view of what. It's not the carbon dioxide or the methane, but it's actually the pollutants that you breathe. So some changes are necessary. But getting rid of cows and going to artificially grown meat is nauseating to even think about it and dangerous as hell. Okay, to end all oil production and just switch to windmills is dumb, because there's no way you're ever going to equal the energy capacity of burning fuel at this point. And there are many, many other issues. But this is a start to realizing that what are the things that are wrong with this climate change agenda and what things make sense, and realizing that the people making these decisions don't have any science degrees whatsoever.

Speaker 1:

There was a group of people that were questioned. There were people that are making legislation. They asked them what's the concentration of methane in the air and or carbon dioxide? They said the carbon dioxide in the air was 30%. The oxygen is 16%, just to give you an idea. The rest is nitrogen, and if we had 30% carbon dioxide, I think we'd all be dead. I don't know. Some said 5%, but nobody knew that it was 0.05%. In other words, they just had no idea of what the concentration of carbon dioxide in the air was or the concentration of methane. They had no clue. And these are people making decisions to at least have a chemistry degree and know what the molecular structure of carbon dioxide, oxygen, nitrogen and the atmosphere and composition is. Why do we have these people with no degrees in science making legislation about climate change when they don't even know what the concentration of carbon dioxide in the air is and they think it's 5% or 30%? These are people that have no business working on legislation like this. So, anyway, I'm going to leave you now, but listen.

Speaker 1:

Start by looking at my report. I know it sounds funny. I do have two versions of the report. One is more scientific than the other. This one is more tongue-in-cheek, so this is for the people that may not be so scientifically minded. This actually does have even more.

Speaker 1:

When I rewrote this, I had even more references that I think you'll really enjoy. If you're writing any information on climate change, this is the perfect report to start with. You can go to the references and read up. It's $25. You have to look up. You just type farting cows and melting ice on Amazon and you find it. You can also go to my website at cloverleafpub and um, or you just search Lydia Lopinto on Amazon and you'll find all my publications. Uh, thank you very much for your time.

Speaker 1:

And uh, take a look. I mean, obviously a lot of people in the UK are buying this report, so they must really be in trouble over there. I don't know what's going on in the UK. I was surprised that they were buying it at such. I sell like two or three a day of these over there. You know Australia is buying them. The US they're still under the fog of the mainstream media and the information is so suppressed by the left that they have no idea what's going on. But the UK people have realized that they need to do something, so they're looking into it. So, anyway, take a look at this report. I think you will find there's a lot of good information in there. You can go ahead and follow all the rabbit holes and find out all the information from the scientists and make up your own minds. Like I said, there is climate change. It's just not because of the reasons they say, and things are not as bad as you might think as well. Okay, thank you very much and good night.