Those Who Chose Shaming Over Science 

For those who didn’t panic and remained curious throughout the long two years of the (ongoing) ‘pandemic’, take a bow and enjoy this quality reflection by Author Gabrielle Bauer. Nothing in her story is dissimilar to how sceptics of climate alarm are smeared, vilified, othered, and cancelled. Exact same tactics employed.

“The urge to save humanity is almost always a
false-front for the urge to rule it.”
– H.L. Mencken

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely 
exercised for the good of its victims 
may be the most oppressive.”
– C. S. Lewis

“Collective fear stimulates herd instinct, 
and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not 
regarded as members of the herd.”
— Bertrand Russell

“Neither a man nor a crowd nor a nation 
can be trusted to act humanely or to think sanely 
under the influence of a great fear.”
— Bertrand Russell

From : Those Who Chose Shaming Over Science ⋆ Brownstone Institute

Those Who Chose Shaming Over Science

BY GABRIELLE BAUER  MARCH 14, 2022   PHILOSOPHYSOCIETY   6 MINUTE READ

For the first 62 years of my life, I don’t recall anyone calling me a selfish idiot, much less a sociopath or a mouth-breathing Trumptard. All that changed when Covid rolled in and I expressed, ever so gingerly, a few concerns about the lockdown policies. Here’s a sampling of what the keyboard warriors threw back at me:

  • Enjoy your sociopathy.
  • Go lick a pole and catch the virus.
  • Have fun choking on your own fluids in the ICU.
  • Name three loved ones that you’re ready to sacrifice to Covid. Do it now, coward.
  • You went to Harvard? Yeah, right, and I’m God. Last I checked, Harvard doesn’t accept troglodytes.

From the earliest days of the pandemic, something deep inside me—in my soul, if you will—recoiled from the political and public response to the virus. Nothing about it felt right or strong or true. This was not just an epidemiological crisis, but a societal one, so why were we listening exclusively to some select epidemiologists? Where were the mental health experts? The child development specialists? The historians? The economists? And why were our political leaders encouraging fear rather than calm?

The questions that troubled me the most had less to do with epidemiology than with ethics: Was it fair to require the greatest sacrifice from the youngest members of society, who stood to suffer the most from the restrictions? Should civil liberties simply disappear during a pandemic, or did we need to balance public safety with human rights? Unschooled in the ways of online warriors, I assumed the Internet would allow me to engage in “productive discussions” about these issues. So I hopped online, and the rest was hysteria.

Village idiot, flat earther, inbred trash, negative IQ… Let’s just say that my thin skin got the test of a lifetime. 

And it wasn’t just me: anyone who questioned the orthodoxy, whether expert or ordinary citizen, got a similar skinburn. In the words of one community physician, who for obvious reasons shall remain anonymous: “Many doctors including myself, along with virologists, epidemiologists and other scientists, advocated a targeted approach and a focus on the most vulnerable cohorts of patients, only to be dismissed as anti-science, tin foil hat kooks, conspiracy theorists, antivax and other equally colorful disparaging labels.”

Early in the game I decided I wouldn’t respond to such insults with more insults—not because I’m especially high-minded, but because mudslinging contests just leave me angry and it’s not fun to walk around angry all day. Instead, I took the shaming on the chin (and still walked around angry).

The Shame Game

The shaming impulse asserted itself right from the start of the pandemic. On Twitter, #covidiot began trending on the evening of March 22, 2020, and by the time the night was over, 3,000 tweets had coopted the hashtag to denounce poor public health practices. When CBS News posted a video of spring breakers partying in Miami, outraged citizens shared the students’ names in their social media networks, accompanied by such missives as “do not give these selfish dumbfucks beds and/or respirators.”

In the early days of the pandemic, when panic and confusion reigned, such indignation could perhaps be forgiven. But the shaming gained momentum and wove itself into the zeitgeist. Also: it didn’t work.

As noted by Harvard Medical School epidemiologist Julia Marcus, “shaming and blaming people is not the best way to get them to change their behavior and actually can be counterproductive because it makes people want to hide their behavior.” Along similar lines, Jan Balkus, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Washington, maintains that shaming can make it harder for people to “acknowledge situations where they may have encountered risk.”

If shaming “covidiots” for their behavior doesn’t accomplish much, you can be sure that shaming people for Wrongthink won’t change any minds. Instead, we heretics simply stop telling the shamers what we’re thinking. We nod and smile. We give them the match point and continue the debate in our own heads.

Gloves Off

For two years I’ve been that person. I’ve smiled politely while dodging insults. To put my interlocutors at ease, I’ve prefaced my heterodox opinions with disclaimers like “I dislike Trump as much as you do” or “For the record, I’m triple-vaxxed myself.”  

Just today, I’ll allow myself to drop the pandering and call it as I see it.

To everyone who dumped on me for questioning the shutdown of civilization and calling out the damage it inflicted on the young and the poor: you can take your shaming, your scientific posturing, your insufferable moralizing, and stuff it. Every day, new research knocks more air out of your smug pronouncements.

You told me that without lockdowns, Covid would have wiped out a third of the world, much as the Black Death decimated Europe in the 14th century. Instead, a Johns Hopkins meta-analysis concluded that lockdowns in Europe and the US reduced Covid-19 mortality by an average of 0.2%. 

What’s more, long before this study we had good evidence that anything less than a China-style door-welding lockdown wouldn’t do much good. In a 2006 paper, the WHO Writing Group affirmed that “mandatory case reporting and isolating patients during the influenza pandemic of 1918 did not stop virus transmission and were impractical.”

You told me that social interaction is a want, not a need. Well, yes. So is good food. In truth, social isolation kills. As reported in a September 2020 review article published in Cell, loneliness “may be the most potent threat to survival and longevity.” The article explains how social isolation lowers cognitive development, weakens the immune system, and puts people at risk of substance use disorders. And it’s not like we didn’t know this before Covid: in 2017, research by Brigham Young University professor Julianne Holt-Lunstad determined that social isolation accelerates mortality as much as smoking 15 cigarettes per day. Her findings splashed the pages of news outlets around the world. 

You told me we need not worry about the effects of Covid restrictions on children because kids are resilient—and besides, they had it much worse in the great wars. Meanwhile, the UK saw a 77% increasein pediatric referrals for such issues as self-harm and suicidal thoughts during a 6-month period in 2021, in relation to a similar stretch in 2019. And if that doesn’t shake you up, a World Bank analysis estimated that, in low-income countries, the economic contraction ensuing from lockdown policies led 1.76 children to lose their lives for every Covid fatality averted. 

You told me that vaccinated people don’t carry the virus, taking your cue from CDC director Rachel Walensky’s proclamation in early 2021, and we all know how well that aged.

You told me I had no business questioning what infectious disease experts were telling us to do. (I’m paraphrasing here. What you actually said was: “How about staying in your lane and shutting the eff up?”) I got my vindication from Dr. Stefanos Kales, another from Harvard Medical School, who warned of the “dangers of turning over public policy and public health recommendations to people who have had their careers exclusively focused on infectious disease” in a recent CNBC interview. “Public health is a balance,” he said. Indeed it is. In a 2001 book called Public Health Law: Power, Duty and Restraint, Lawrence Gostin argued for more systematic assessments of the risks and benefits of public health interventions and more robust protection of civil liberties. 

So yeah. I’m upset and your finger-wagging posse left me alienated enough that I had to go looking for new tribes, and in this quest I’ve been rather successful. I have found more kindred spirits than I could ever have imagined, in my city of Toronto and all over the world: doctors, nurses, scientists, farmers, musicians, and homemakers who share my distaste for your grandstanding. Epidemiologists, too. These fine folks have kept me from losing my mind.

So thank you. And get off my lawn.

Author

Gabrielle Bauer Gabrielle divides her time between writing books, articles, and clinical materials for health professionals. She has received six national awards for her health journalism. She has written two books—Tokyo, My Everest, co-winner of the Canada-Japan Book Prize, and Waltzing The Tango, finalist in the Edna Staebler creative nonfiction award—and is working on two more.READ MORE  

Those Who Chose Shaming Over Science ⋆ Brownstone Institute

•••

Covid-19 Related :


Shellenberger : The West’s Green Delusions Empowered Putin

In a Greenpeace action, a CO-2 sign stands in front of the Brandenburg Gate with flames coming out of it. (Jörg Carstensen via Getty Images)

We know only too well that war comes not when
the forces of freedom are strong,
but when they are weak.
It is then that tyrants are tempted.

– Ronald Reagan
Republican National Convention, July 17 1980

A superb article by @ShellenbergerMD on the root causes of Western weakness in the face of Russian aggression.

Michael Shellenberger

While we banned plastic straws, Russia drilled and doubled nuclear energy production.

How has Vladimir Putin—a man ruling a country with an economy smaller than that of Texas, with an average life expectancy 10 years lower than that of France—managed to launch an unprovoked full-scale assault on Ukraine?

There is a deep psychological, political and almost civilizational answer to that question: He wants Ukraine to be part of Russia more than the West wants it to be free. He is willing to risk tremendous loss of life and treasure to get it. There are serious limits to how much the U.S. and Europe are willing to do militarily. And Putin knows it.

Missing from that explanation, though, is a story about material reality and basic economics—two things that Putin seems to understand far better than his counterparts in the free world and especially in Europe. 

Putin knows that Europe produces 3.6 million barrels of oil a day but uses 15 million barrels of oil a day. Putin knows that Europe produces 230 billion cubic meters of natural gas a year but uses 560 billion cubic meters. He knows that Europe uses 950 million tons of coal a year but produces half that.

The former KGB agent knows Russia produces 11 million barrels of oil per day but only uses 3.4 million. He knows Russia now produces over 700 billion cubic meters of gas a year but only uses around 400 billion. Russia mines 800 million tons of coal each year but uses 300.

That’s how Russia ends up supplying about 20 percent of Europe’s oil, 40 percent of its gas, and 20 percent of its coal. 

The math is simple. A child could do it.

The reason Europe didn’t have a muscular deterrent threat to prevent Russian aggression—and in fact prevented the U.S. from getting allies to do more—is that it needs Putin’s oil and gas. 

The question is why. 

How is it possible that European countries, Germany especially, allowed themselves to become so dependent on an authoritarian country over the 30 years since the end of the Cold War? 

Here’s how: These countries are in the grips of a delusional ideology that makes them incapable of understanding the hard realities of energy production. Green ideology insists we don’t need nuclear and that we don’t need fracking. It insists that it’s just a matter of will and money to switch to all-renewables—and fast. It insists that we need“degrowth” of the economy, and that we face looming human “extinction.” (I would know. I myself was once a true believer.)

John Kerry, the United States’ climate envoy, perfectly captured the myopia of this view when he said, in the days before the war, that the Russian invasion of Ukraine “could have a profound negative impact on the climate, obviously. You have a war, and obviously you’re going to have massive emissions consequences to the war. But equally importantly, you’re going to lose people’s focus.”

But it was the West’s focus on healing the planet with “soft energy” renewables, and moving away from natural gas and nuclear, that allowed Putin to gain a stranglehold over Europe’s energy supply. 

As the West fell into a hypnotic trance about healing its relationship with nature, averting climate apocalypse and worshiping a teenager named Greta, Vladimir Putin made his moves.

While he expanded nuclear energy at home so Russia could export its precious oil and gas to Europe, Western governments spent their time and energy obsessing over “carbon footprints,” a term created by an advertising firm working for British Petroleum. They banned plastic straws because of a 9-year-old Canadian child’s science homework. They paid for hours of “climate anxiety” therapy

While Putin expanded Russia’s oil production, expanded natural gas production, and then doubled nuclear energy production to allow more exports of its precious gas, Europe, led by Germany, shut down its nuclear power plants, closed gas fields, and refused to develop more through advanced methods like fracking. 

The numbers tell the story best. In 2016, 30 percent of the natural gas consumed by the European Union came from Russia. In 2018, that figure jumped to 40 percent. By 2020, it was nearly 44 percent, and by early 2021, it was nearly 47 percent. 

For all his fawning over Putin, Donald Trump, back in 2018, defied diplomatic protocol to call out Germany publicly for its dependence on Moscow. “Germany, as far as I’m concerned, is captive to Russia because it’s getting so much of its energy from Russia,” Trump said. This prompted Germany’s then-chancellor, Angela Merkel, who had been widely praised in polite circles for being the last serious leader in the West, to say that her country “can make our own policies and make our own decisions.”

The result has been the worst global energy crisis since 1973, driving prices for electricity and gasoline higher around the world. It is a crisis, fundamentally, of inadequate supply. But the scarcity is entirely manufactured.

Europeans—led by figures like Greta Thunberg and European Green Party leaders, and supported by Americans like John Kerry—believed that a healthy relationship with the Earth requires making energy scarce. By turning to renewables, they would show the world how to live without harming the planet. But this was a pipe dream. You can’t power a whole grid with solar and wind, because the sun and the wind are inconstant, and currently existing batteries aren’t even cheap enough to store large quantities of electricity overnight, much less across whole seasons. 

In service to green ideology, they made the perfect the enemy of the good—and of Ukraine. 

Take Germany.

Green campaigns have succeeded in destroying German energy independence—they call it Energiewende, or “energy turnaround”—by successfully selling policymakers on a peculiar version of environmentalism. It calls climate change a near-term apocalyptic threat to human survival while turning up its nose at the technologies that can help address climate change most and soonest: nuclear and natural gas.

At the turn of the millennium, Germany’s electricity was around 30 percent nuclear-powered. But Germany has been sacking its reliable, inexpensive nuclear plants. (Thunberg called nuclear power “extremely dangerous, expensive, and time-consuming” despite the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change deeming it necessary and every major scientific review deeming nuclear the safest way to make reliable power.)

By 2020, Germany had reduced its nuclear share from 30 percent to 11 percent. Then, on the last day of 2021, Germany shut down half of its remaining six nuclear reactors. The other three are slated for shutdown at the end of this year. (Compare this to nextdoor France, which fulfills 70 percent of its electricity needs with carbon-free nuclear plants.)

Germany has also spent lavishly on weather-dependent renewables—to the tune of $36 billion a year—mainly solar panels and industrial wind turbines. But those have their problems. Solar panels have to go somewhere, and a solar plant in Europe needs 400 to 800 times more land than natural gas or nuclear plants to make the same amount of power. Farmland has to be cut apart to host solar. And solar energy is getting cheaper these days mainly because Europe’s supply of solar panels is produced by slave labor in concentration camps as part of China’s genocide against Uighur Muslims.

The upshot here is that you can’t spend enough on climate initiatives to fix things if you ignore nuclear and gas. Between 2015 and 2025, Germany’s efforts to green its energy production will have cost $580 billion. Yet despite this enormous investment, German electricity still costs 50 percent more than nuclear-friendly France’s, and generating it produces eight times more carbon emissions per unit. Plus, Germany is getting over a third of its energy from Russia.

Germany has trapped itself. It could burn more coal and undermine its commitment to reducing carbon emissions. Or it could use more natural gas, which generates half the carbon emissions of coal, but at the cost of dependence on imported Russian gas. Berlin was faced with a choice between unleashing the wrath of Putin on neighboring countries or inviting the wrath of Greta Thunberg. They chose Putin.

Because of these policy choices, Vladimir Putin could turn off the gas flows to Germany, and quickly threaten Germans’ ability to cook or stay warm. He or his successor will hold this power for every foreseeable winter barring big changes. It’s as if you knew that hackers had stolen your banking details, but you won’t change your password.

This is why Germany successfully begged the incoming Biden administration not to oppose a contentious new gas pipeline from Russia called Nord Stream 2. This cut against the priorities of green-minded governance: On day one of Biden’s presidency, one of the new administration’’s first acts was to shut down the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada to the U.S. in service to climate ideology. But Russia’s pipeline was too important to get the same treatment given how dependent Germany is on Russian imports. (Once Russia invaded, Germany was finally dragged into nixing Nord Stream 2, for now.) 

Naturally, when American sanctions on Russia’s biggest banks were finally announced in concert with European allies last week, they specifically exempted energy productsso Russia and Europe can keep doing that dirty business. A few voices called for what would really hit Russia where it hurts: cutting off energy imports. But what actually happened was that European energy utilities jumped to buy more contracts for the Russian oil and gas that flows through Ukraine. That’s because they have no other good options right now, after green activism’s attacks on nuclear and importing fracked gas from America. There’s no current plan for powering Europe that doesn’t involve buying from Putin.

We should take Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as a wake-up call. Standing up for Western civilization this time requires cheap, abundant, and reliable energy supplies produced at home or in allied nations. National security, economic growth, and sustainability requires greater reliance on nuclear and natural gas, and less on solar panels and wind turbines, which make electricity too expensive.

The first and most obvious thing that should be done is for President Biden to call on German Chancellor Scholz to restart the three nuclear reactors that Germany closed in December. A key step in the right direction came on Sunday when Vice-Chancellor Robert Habeck, the economy and climate minister, announced that Germany would at least consider stopping its phaseout of nuclear. If Germany turns these three on and cancels plans to turn off the three others, those six should produce enough electricity to replace 11 billion cubic meters of natural gas per year—an eighth of Germany’s current needs.

Second, we need concerted action led by Biden, Congress, and their Canadian counterparts to significantly expand oil and natural gas output from North America to ensure the energy security of our allies in Europe and Asia. North America is more energy-rich than anyone dreamed. Yes, it will be more expensive than Russian gas sent by pipeline. But it would mean Europe could address Putin’s war on Ukraine, rather than financing it.

Exporting gas by ship requires special terminals at ports to liquify (by cooling) natural gas; environmentalists oppose these terminals because of their ideological objection to any combustible fuel. So it’s a good sign that Chancellor Sholz announced plans on Sunday to build two of these terminals to receive North American gas, along with announcing major new military spending to counter Russia.

Third, the U.S. must stop shutting down nuclear plants and start building them. Every country should invest in next-generation nuclear fuel technology while recognizing that the current generation of light-water reactors are our best tool for creating energy at home, with no emissions, right now. What you’ve heard about waste is mostly pseudoscience. Storing used fuel rods is a trivial problem, already solved around the world by keeping them in steel and concrete cans. The more nuclear power we generate, the less oil and gas we have to burn. And the less the West will have to buy from Russia.

Putin’s relentless focus on energy reality has left him in a stronger position than he should ever have been allowed to find himself. It’s not too late for the rest of the West to save the world from tyrannical regimes that have been empowered by our own energy superstitions.

Michael Shellenberger

Best-selling author of “San Fransicko” (HarperCollins, 2021) “Apocalypse Never” (HarperCollins 2020) :: Time Magazine “Hero of Environment” :: Green Book Award winner :: Founder and President of Environmental Progress

The West’s Green Delusions Empowered Putin | Bari Weiss (Substack)

•••

Shellenberger related :


EPJ Scientific Study : There Is No ‘Climate Crisis’

INCONVENIENT study out of the esteemed EU Physical Journal Plus (EPJ) reaffirming that the “Climate Crisis” narrative is yet another deliberate and deceitful eco-slogan designed to frighten you into belief and compliance.

A critical assessment of extreme events trends in times of global warming | SpringerLink

Key quote: “…on the basis of observational data, the climate crisis that, according to many sources, we are experiencing today, is not evident yet.”

The latest global temp data from UAH / NASA satellites shows that “global warming” is not a “crisis” either. January anomaly indicating a mere 0.03°C rise in global temps above the 40 year average.

Latest Global Temps « Roy Spencer, PhD

EXTREME WEATHER related :

UAH / NASA Satellite Global Temperature related :


COVID-19 Vaccines : Three in four aged care deaths in NSW’s Delta outbreak were fully vaccinated, data shows

“The urge to save humanity is almost always a
false-front for the urge to rule it.”
– H.L. Mencken

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely
exercised for the good of its victims
may be the most oppressive.”
– C. S. Lewis

If the issue were less tragic, one might quip that the editor of Australia’s state-run media monolith was on holiday’s for the taxpayer funded ABC to even begin to think about running this story for the great unwashed to digest.

That aside, up to date NSW.gov data observing “36 of the 49 aged care residents that died after contracting Covid-19 during NSW’s Delta outbreak were fully vaccinated“, is not an isolated case or issue in terms of unexpected relationships between the fully vaccinated and the non vaccinated.

The UK Health Security Agency recently released data showing an overrepresentation of fully vaccinated people contracting Covid-19 over the non-vaccinated, especially in the over 30 year old cohort where actual risks begin.

Via Dr Jay Bhattacharya (Professor Stanford School of Medicine. MD, PhD) :

Screenshot : https://twitter.com/DrJBhattacharya/status/1447915204071800838?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1447915204071800838%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fclimatism.wordpress.com%2F

Source: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1023849/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_40.pdf…

Three in four aged care deaths in NSW’s Delta outbreak were fully vaccinated, data shows

By Amy Greenbank Posted 4h ago

Government data, released to the ABC, has revealed 36 of the 49 aged care residents that died after contracting COVID-19 during NSW’s Delta outbreak were fully vaccinated.

All had underlying health conditions or were in palliative care.

Until now, the overall number last year’s deaths in NSW aged care facilities had been reported weekly by the Federal Department of Health and their vaccination status occasionally mentioned in NSW Health daily updates, but no cumulative figure had been publicly released.

Professor Lee-Fay Low
Deaths from COVID among the elderly are lower this year compared to 2021, says Professor Low.(ABC News)

Professor Lee-Fay Low, who specialises in ageing and health at the University of Sydney, said it shows the elderly were still vulnerable.

“Last year, 33 percent of aged care residents that got COVID-19 died,” Professor Low said.

“This year, it’s come down to 14 per cent but it’s still a lot higher than the 0.4 per cent of Australians that die if they get COVID-19.”

When lockdown lifted in NSW on Monday, new health advice permitted aged care residents two fully vaccinated visitors a day and permission to leave their facilities to attend family gatherings.

Given community transmission of the virus was expected to rise as restrictions ease, Professor Low said residents and families should be asked what level of risk they were willing to accept.

“There’s a balance, if you’re trapped, locked in a home which can’t meet your needs for love and can’t see your grandchildren, how do you balance that against maybe a 14 per cent chance of dying if you get COVID?”

Professor Low was concerned that some aged care facilities were rejecting health advice and enforcing tighter restrictions without consulting families.

“Because it was so catastrophic last year when there was an outbreak in nursing homes, facilities are really scared to reopen, and I think we should shift that risk balance towards wellbeing a bit more.”

Vicki Dowling’s mother Lorna Willmott is a resident at Ashfield Baptist Homes in Sydney’s inner west.

“It’s time to move on,” Ms Dowling said.

“There’s risks in life with everything we do. There’s a risk when we get in the car and cross the road.”

Full article …

Three in four aged care deaths in NSW’s Delta outbreak were fully vaccinated, data shows – ABC News

•••

Covid-19 Related :


UNI QLD LAW PROF : Covid Hysteria Based on Lies, Propaganda and Ignorance

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely
exercised for the good of its victims
may be the most oppressive.”
– C. S. Lewis

“The urge to save humanity is almost always a
false-front for the urge to rule it.”
– H.L. Mencken

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
– H.L. Mencken

Superb piece from Prof. James Allan.

(5 min read)

Via The Australian

Covid hysteria based on lies, propaganda and ignorance

By James Allan

12:00AM OCTOBER 2, 2021

All the Covid hysteria around most of the democratic world, and especially in Britain, New York state, Canada and here in Australia, is driven by two main things. 

The first is that many people haven’t got a clue about what the relative risks are. Ask them what they think their chances of dying would be should they catch Covid and most get this massively wrong – a good few get the odds wrong by two orders of magnitude (answering 30 per cent when at most it’s about 0.3 per cent). And we’re talking about one’s chances of dying before being vaccinated.

Government propaganda – because there is no other way to describe it – has deliberately tried to scare people senseless and hence to distort their relative-risk assessments. That has been a clear and unmistakeable goal, including of all the daily press conferences with the breathless recitation of cases by politicians without an ounce of concern for freedom-­related issues, and by public-health types.

And for once, government seems to have got something right because its Covid scaremongering has been very successful.

The second problem has been all the models relied upon by the supine political class. It started with the Neil Ferguson modelling coming out of Imperial College in London and spread out from there.

No one in the press corps seems to care that Professor Ferguson has had an unbroken track record of massively wrong predictions with his models, prophesying things that came nowhere near reality. In 2002, his models predicted 50,000 people would likely die from exposure to BSE (mad cow disease). In the event there were 177 deaths.

In 2005, Ferguson predicted that up to 150 million could be killed from bird flu. By 2009, 282 people had died of it. Ferguson was also heavily involved in the modelling around Britain’s foot-and-mouth disease that led to a mass culling of 11 million sheep and cattle in 2001. That time his models predicted up to 150,000 humans would die. You guessed it. There were actually fewer than 200 deaths. And before Boris Johnson’s “Freedom Day” a couple months ago, when the British PM finally summoned up a backbone and ignored the public-health class of fearmongers, Ferguson and a small army of supposed experts (more than 1200 scientists and doctors, including the editor-in-chief of The Lancet) signed a letter predicting carnage if Boris went ahead. All their “this is a murderous, irresponsible opening up” predictions proved woefully wrong.

Ferguson, interviewed later about being off by such a huge margin, replied along the lines that it doesn’t bother him being wrong, as long as he is wrong in the right direction. Let that sink in for a moment. For him, and seemingly the vast preponderance of the modelling caste, the right direction is the one that massively overstates future bad outcomes.

A woman looks at a mural of a health worker with wings holding a globe on International Nurses Day in May. Picture: AFP

A woman looks at a mural of a health worker with wings holding a globe on International Nurses Day in May. Picture: AFP

You can keep your jobs no matter how badly off your predictions are, as long as you’re wrong in the overstated direction. Under-predict by even one death, though, and the fear is some pusillanimous politician will give you the axe.

That same attitude seems to be true of virtually all the modelling, including here in Australia. So many models have implausible assumptions built in, such as that no citizens left to their own devices would change any behaviour without the despotic, mailed fist of government ordering them to do so. You will try in vain to find a ­single model that ended up understating the bad outcomes it ­predicted.

So now turn to Sweden, with a population of just under 10 and half million. It never locked down at all. No small businesses were forced to close and so bankrupted (and no big businesses were thereby incredibly enriched and allowed to have bumper profits under the sort of crony capitalism that lockdowns deliver). Schools never closed. People were trusted to make smart calls. Oh wait, Sweden may have put a limit of 500 people at big events for a while. That was it.

According to the most recent data I can find, Sweden has had about 1.14 million Covid cases and 14,753 Covid deaths (a sizeable chunk of those happening early on in aged care, for which the overseeing epidemiologist, Professor Anders Tegnell, quickly admitted the country’s handling mistakes). Since May of this year Sweden has had one of the lowest rates of Covid in Europe. Its deaths per million across the whole pandemic are now low enough that the press no longer talks about Sweden. The lockdownistas do not want the country to do well.

Meanwhile, a number of British doctors are now predicting that deaths caused by the lockdowns themselves will end up outnumbering the saved Covid deaths by 10 or 20 to 1. And this in a world where the median age of Covid deaths is higher than the country’s average life expectancy for men and for women.

A woman walks through a field of white flags symbolising the lives lost to Covid-19 in the US. Picture: AFP
A woman walks through a field of white flags symbolising the lives lost to Covid-19 in the US. Picture: AFP

It’s a world where (according to the latest Stanford study) the survival rate for the unvaccinated for these age ranges is: 0-19 (99.9973 per cent); 20-29 (99.986 per cent); 30-39 (99.969 per cent); 40-49 (99.918 per cent); and the survival rate doesn’t drop below 99.7 per cent until you get to the over-70s.

In a world with that sort of risk of dying from Covid, if you are under 70 why would you care in the slightest if someone else chooses not to get vaccinated? You started with those great odds and improved them by getting vaccinated yourself. Give anyone under 75 a choice of whether to get Covid or cancer, heart disease or diabetes, and you’re an idiot if you don’t pick Covid.

The whole vaccine-passport mandate position (full disclosure, to have some hope of one day seeing my kids who live overseas I’m double-jabbed) is premised on people having no clue at all of their relative risks. Then add in a dollop of “take the worst imaginable outcome modelling”. Throw in a media and press corps that is either stupid or longs for the reincarnation of Pravda. Stir. And you have Australia, readers.

We’re not the world’s best handlers of Covid. From early on it was plain we were on a trajectory to be the world’s worst. And with every year that passes, that will become ever more obvious.

James Allan is Garrick professor of law at the University of Queensland.

Covid hysteria based on lies, propaganda and ignorance | The Australian

Covid-19 Related :


Global Warming Bombshell : Science Magazine Article Blows The Whistle On Climate Model Failure

“When the heart rules the head,
passion takes over reason.”

– Ortega y Gasset

“What gets us into trouble is not what we don’t know,
it’s what we know for sure that just ain’t so.”
– Mark Twain

“Blind trust in authority
is the greatest enemy of the truth.”

– Albert Einstein

“It’s like the boy who repeatedly cried wolf.
If I observe many successive forecast failures,
I may be unwilling to take future forecasts seriously.

– David C. Rode et al, Apocalypse now Communicating extreme forecasts, International Journal of Global Warming (2021)

“The ‘problem’ is not only that all of the expired forecasts were wrong,
but also that so many of them never
admitted to any uncertainty about the date.”

– David C. Rode et al, Apocalypse now Communicating extreme forecasts, International Journal of Global Warming (2021)

•••

Take a bow, climate realists!

They – the scientific ‘experts’, power-obsessed politicians, globalist elites, the useful idiots, and the UNreliables grifters were wrong, while you were right, all along.

The world recently witnessed how alarmist, Imperial College COVID-19 model predictions inspired mass-global-hysteria, leading to overreaching and draconian (global) government ‘health’ edicts with the resulting economic, social and mental health fallout arguably far worse than the disease itself.

Now, the world is finally being told the truth about the 32+ “cooked” UN IPCC climate models that have single-handedly driven the most egregious and costly pseudoscientific campaign of fear and alarmism ever perpetrated upon mankind.

Misguided climate hysteria that has failed time-and-time-again to match real-world evidence and observed data.

Relentless mainstream-media-driven hysteria, based on biased UN model predictions, has fuelled a relentless tidal wave of unhinged activism, devouring; every last respectable public institution, otherwise intelligent minds, and worst of all, the taxpayer’s hard-earned-money at a rate of 1.4 trillion dollars per year, or 4.5 billion dollars per day, according to a 2015 article by Climate Change Journal.

However, have cooler heads finally prevailed from, of all places, the head of the most ‘revered’ and influential of all the many taxpayer funded ‘climate’ institutions?

This weeks bombshell climate-model-mea-culpa delivered by none other than the head of NASA (GISS) Climate, Gavin Schmidt, a chief architect of global-climate-alarmism. 

Read it and weep, climate crazies.

(Climatism bolds)

Leading climate scientists conceded that models used to estimate how much the world will warm with rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are running too hot.

“It’s become clear over the last year or so that we can’t avoid this,” Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, told Science ­magazine.

The admission is seen as a significant development by scientists who argue that not enough attention has been paid to natural ­cycles in the earth’s climate.

It puts another question mark over the use of the most extreme scenarios generated by models, RCP8.5, to estimate what could be expected in a warming world.

The concession has been made on the eve of this month’s release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s report on the science of climate change.

That report, delayed a year ­because of Covid-19, is due to be released on Aug­ust 9 and will outline what can be expected with different levels of warming.

It will play a major role in ­preparations for the upcoming ­climate change summit in ­Glasgow, Scotland, in November.

A Science article published this week said climate scientists faced the alarming reality that “climate models that help them project the future have grown a little too alarmist”.

“Many of the world’s leading models are now projecting warming rates that most scientists, ­including the model makers themselves, believe are implausibly fast”, the article said.

“In advance of the UN report, scientists have scrambled to understand what went wrong and how to turn the models, which in other respects are more powerful and trustworthy than their predecessors, into useful guidance for policymakers.”

In the past, most models projected a “climate sensitivity” – the warming expected when atmospheric carbon dioxide is doubled over pre-industrial times – of ­between 2C and 4.5C.

Last year, a landmark paper that used documented factors including ongoing warming trends calculated a likely climate sensitivity of between 2.6C and 3.9C but many of the new models from leading centres showed warming of more than 5C – uncomfortably outside these bounds.

The models were also out of step with records of past climate.

According to Science, the IPCC team will probably use ­reality – the actual warming of the world over the past few decades – to constrain model projections.

The IPCC report is also likely to present the impacts of different amounts of warming – 2C, 3C, 4C – rather than saying how quickly those impacts will be felt.

Steve Sherwood from the UNSW Climate Change Research Centre said “while it is true some new climate models have surprising climate sensitivities and predict very high future warming, what doesn’t always come through is that most new models have sensitivity values within the range estimated from observations”.

“Those models still predict substantial future weather and climate changes due to carbon dioxide, similar to predictions made by the science community for many years,” Professor Sherwood said.

US climate scientist Judith Curry said the IPCC report would certainly discuss the problem with climate models: “The elephant in the room for the IPCC is they are heavily relying on RCP8.5 emissions scenarios, which are now widely regarded as implausible.”

Michael Asten, an expert reviewer of the IPCC’s AR6 report, said the admission that climate models were running hot was a significant concession.

GRAHAM LLOYD

ENVIRONMENT EDITOR

Graham Lloyd is a fearless reporter of all sides of the environment debate. A former night editor, chief editorial writer and deputy business editor with The Australian, Graham has held senior positions nationa… Read more

Via : Climate change: Science magazine article blows the whistle on model failure | The Australian

•••

See also :

Related :

CO2 Related :

SUN Related :


ROWAN DEAN : Prince Philip, Climate Sceptic, Already Spinning In His Grave

“When will common sense and good science prevail,
and what happens if does not do so fairly soon?”

– Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.

“You see gigantic wind turbines appearing all over the country,
but there is very little about the practical value of these monstrosities.”

– Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.

THE great Rowan Dean of Sky News “Outsiders” fame, details an extraordinary letter sent from Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, to author and geologist Ian Plimer back in 2018.

Via Spectator Australia :

Prince Philip was a climate change sceptic. In correspondence to Spectator Australia contributor and author Ian Plimer back in 2018, the Duke of Edinburgh not only compliments Professor Plimer on his most recent book, The Climate Change Delusion, but also praises his previous book ‘Heaven and Earth’, which similarly questioned the ‘missing science’ behind the global warming scam.

Furthermore, in the letter which Ian has kindly provided to The Spectator Australia, the late Prince — who was never one to mince his words — described the wind turbines now blotting the landscapes globally as ‘monstrosities’.

Here is the letter from Windsor castle, dated 29 April 2018:

What a great question. As we can see, Prince Philip, a Patron of the Royal Geographical Society admired the work and writing of geologist Ian Plimer. In fact, the Prince attempted to invite Professor Plimer to London to address the Royal Society of Artists (RSA) on the topic of climate change. That invitation was later rescinded by the mandarins at the Palace, as was documented by James Delingpole in the UK Telegraph at the time. As Delingpole wrote: 

Here’s part of the embarrassed kiss-off Prof Plimer received from the RSA’s chief executive:

I am afraid I am writing to you with some disappointing news regarding the Prince Philip Annual Lecture on 5 May.

As you well know, the debate around climate change has recently become highly politically charged, both globally and especially in your home country.  Equally, as I am sure you are aware, members of the Royal Family need to be scrupulous in avoiding any appearance of advocating or supporting a particular political stance.  The RSA’s charitable status also requires us to maintain absolute political independence in our programme of events and research events.

After discussion with Buckingham Palace, it is therefore with great regret that we must withdraw your invitation to give this year’s PrincePhilip Lecture.   The Duke of Edinburgh is personally disappointed as he read your book with great interest and was looking forward to hearing you speak, but I know that you will recognise that the now highly controversial debate surrounding this issue would make it inevitable that he was seen to be taking a particular position.

What is extraordinary about that letter is that as well as confirming the Prince’s admiration for the Professor, it points out that the Royal Family should have nothing to do with the politics of climate change. Yet today, a decade on, both future monarchs Prince Charles and Prince William, the former in particular in advocating the Great Reset and embracing Greta Thunberg, and the latter in his fondness for Sir David Attenborough, are in climate politics up to their eyeballs. 

Prince Philip, now that he’s finally in his grave, will surely spend a great deal of the years ahead spinning in it.

Prince Philip, climate sceptic, already spinning in his grave | The Spectator Australia.

(Climatism links and bolds, added)

Must Watch Outsiders :

Related :


PHYS.ORG SCIENTIST ON CLIMATE : “It’s Like The Boy Who Repeatedly Cried Wolf. If I Observe Successive Forecast Failures, I May Be Unwilling To Take Future Forecasts Seriously.”

“It’s like the boy who repeatedly cried wolf. If I observe many successive forecast failures, I may be unwilling to take future forecasts seriously.

“The ‘problem’ is not only that all of the expired forecasts were wrong, but also that so many of them never admitted to any uncertainty about the date.”

– David C. Rode et al, Apocalypse now Communicating extreme forecasts, International Journal of Global Warming (2021)

H/t @CogitoErgoSumAu

Every once in a while, ‘a few brave scientists’, driven by verifiable science, empirical data, and an endless supply of failed predictions, feel obliged to tell you a few home truths about ‘climate change’ and the failure of manufactured hysteria, all designed to scare you into submission.

This bothers them, naturally.

Article, via the ‘International Journal of Global Warming’

Via Phys.org :

For decades, climate change researchers and activists have used dramatic forecasts to attempt to influence public perception of the problem and as a call to action on climate change. These forecasts have frequently been for events that might be called “apocalyptic,” because they predict cataclysmic events resulting from climate change.

In a new paper published in the International Journal of Global Warming, Carnegie Mellon University’s David Rode and Paul Fischbeck argue that making such forecasts can be counterproductive. “Truly apocalyptic forecasts can only ever be observed in their failure—that is the world did not end as predicted,” says Rode, adjunct research faculty with the Carnegie Mellon Electricity Industry Center, “and observing a string of repeated apocalyptic forecast failures can undermine the public’s trust in the underlying science.”

Rode and Fischbeck, professor of Social & Decision Sciences and Engineering & Public Policy, collected 79 predictions of climate-caused apocalypse going back to the first Earth Day in 1970. With the passage of time, many of these forecasts have since expired; the dates have come and gone uneventfully. In fact, 48 (61%) of the predictions have already expired as of the end of 2020.

Fischbeck noted, “from a forecasting perspective, the ‘problem’ is not only that all of the expired forecasts were wrong, but also that so many of them never admitted to any uncertainty about the date. About 43% of the forecasts in our dataset made no mention of uncertainty.”

Full article …

More information: David C. Rode et al, Apocalypse now Communicating extreme forecasts, International Journal of Global Warming (2021). DOI: 10.1504/IJGW.2021.112896

Related :


NO GLOBAL WARMING : Global Temperature Now 0.01 Degrees Below Average

SOME might argue that the latest global temperature, as measured by x15 NASA/NOAA AMSU (advanced microwave sounding unit) satellites, measuring literally every square inch of the lower troposphere (the exact place where ‘man-made global warming’ is supposed to occur) might be an anomaly caused by the de-industrialisation experiment carried out during draconian COVID-19 lockdowns.

Not so, according to the UN’s own meteorological agency, the WMO.

They concluded that despite the draconian COVID-19 lockdowns that initiated the greatest de-industrialisation science experiment ever carried out in human history, CO₂ levels failed to drop…

Ergo, if CO₂ concentrations didn’t budge, at all, during the most comprehensive global science experiment ever undertaken in mankind’s history, then how do we know that they are even ‘ours’ to ‘bring down’?

NOAA current data reveals that global CO₂ levels are higher now, not lower, than at the same period in 2020.

Global Monitoring Laboratory – Carbon Cycle Greenhouse Gases | NOAA

So, if CO₂ levels are naturally increasing, then why is the global atmospheric temperature, according to NASA’s own MSU satellites, now below the 40 year average?

LATEST NASA/NOAA SATELLITE, GLOBAL TEMPERATURE ANOMALY

Via Dr. Roy Spencer

UAH Global Temperature Update for March 2021: -0.01 deg. C « Roy Spencer, PhD

April 2nd, 2021 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for March, 2021 was -0.01 deg. C, down substantially from the February, 2021 value of +0.20 deg. C.

REMINDER: We have changed the 30-year averaging period from which we compute anomalies to 1991-2020, from the old period 1981-2010. This change does not affect the temperature trends.

Right on time, the maximum impact from the current La Nina is finally being felt on global tropospheric temperatures. The global average oceanic tropospheric temperature anomaly is -0.07 deg. C, the lowest since November 2013. The tropical (20N-20S) departure from average (-0.29 deg. C) is the coolest since June of 2012. Australia is the coolest (-0.79 deg. C) since August 2014. The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.14 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land). UAH Global Temperature Update for March 2021: -0.01 deg. C « Roy Spencer, PhD

COMMENT from Andrew Bolt, on the money, again …

After decades of alarmism about global warming frying the planet, the latest UAH satellite measures show warming of 0.01 [below] the average at the end of last century. No warming at all. And nothing that could cause all the catastrophes that have been claimed. You’ve heard this news on the ABC, right? No?

Background on AMSU (UAH/RSS data) satellites:

NASA/NOAA AMSU ATMOSPHERIC SATELLITES

NASA’s 15 MSU and AMSU satellites generate the RSS and UAH datasets, which measure the average temperature of every cubic inch of the lower troposphere, the exact place where global warming climate change theory is meant to occur.

UAH (University Alabama Huntsville) satellite data set run by Dr. John R. Christy – Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville, and Roy Spencer Ph.D. – Principal Research Scientist at UAH.

Via : THE Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming Scam | Climatism

See also :


CLIMATE : New Discoveries That Change ‘Settled Science’ Based Climate and Energy Perspectives

“The polar bear as an icon for climate change is dead
because the distorted predictions made by
polar bear specialists were wrong.”

“This is a lesson for researchers in other areas
who have failed to stop the invasion of 
politics into their science.”

– Dr Susan Crockford

Mr. Art Krugler, a leading geothermal engineer and author, along with Vijay Jayaraj, a Climate Researcher who graduated from the University of East Anglia, proposes an interesting perspective into the current phase of the climatic system based around uranium ore deposits.

The authors note, “The recent cooling stands in stark contrast to the alarmist models’ predictions, which predicted progressively warmer temperatures because of the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas concentration.”

While society is forced to only accept the arbitrary value of trace gas, and plant food carbon dioxide as the “climate control knob”, such new perspectives on the complex machinations of our ‘global’ atmosphere, perhaps, heighten the need to stop and pause, in the better interests of science, nature, and the ‘sustainability’ of the human existence.

For “shutting down Nuclear and Coal plants, and installing more renewables and gas-fired turbines will not benefit the world. Renewables, despite the global fanfare, are incapable of providing reliable and affordable electricity. Not having power for several days would be a devastating catastrophe. At present, there are no cheap batteries or even a high-volume source of batteries that can store energy generated by renewables”.

Read on …

New Discoveries that Change “Settled Science” based Climate and Energy Perspectives 

By Art Krugler with Vijay Jayaraj 

Polar bears had been at the center of the debate surrounding climate change. In my book “POLAR BEARS in the HOT TUB”, I addressed the claims about how the global temperature change was impacting Polar Bears and what caused these changes in temperature. 

I explained that the rate at which CO2 was increasing depended on the hydrogen content of fossil fuels and further that there was no connection between CO2 concentration and temperature rise or energy use. 

In this, the book’s sequel, I use five data sets to identify the energy source behind the increase in global temperatures since 1980 and the reason for subsequent cooling in recent years. 

The sequel is based on five key data sets: 

1. A NOAA global temperature map (2013) showing warm and cool areas on the planet. 

2. A NOAA global temperature map (2017) identifying alarming temperature “Hot Spots” at geographical locations, especially within the Arctic Circle. 

3. A 2020 global temperature map showing the absence of most of those hot spots, especially Arctic areas. 

4. The data, discovered by Krugler in 2020, which shows that all of the global hot spots were located above deposits of uranium ore. 

5. Historical data that shows low sun spot activity is correlated with mini-ice-ages and major sun spot activity correlates with warming global periods, thus connecting the uranium deposit activity to sunspot activity. 

These five new perspectives must alter Global Energy Reports and Policies that have been against the use of fossil fuel.

Here is why.

Disappearance of Existing Hotspots: CO2 Not the Primary Driver of Temperatures 

The first data in the book reaffirms one of the most common faults that many climate scientists have been using: CO2 cannot be the primary driver of global average temperatures. 

Global temperature maps (for 2016 and 2020) are available from NOAA showing hot areas and colder areas.

NOAA Global Temperature Map – for year 2017

Note the absence of large red [hot] areas, and the many blue [colder] areas appearing in the latest [2020] map.

This cooling stands in stark contrast to the alarmist models’ predictions, which predicted progressively warmer temperatures because of the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas concentration. 

The irrefragable connection between Uranium Ore and Thermal Hot spots demonstrates that Uranium ore deposits are the Primary Driver of Global Warming. 

The fifth set of data reveals groundbreaking insights into the totally ignored correlation between Uranium ore deposits and thermal hot spots in regions across the globe. A table showing the location and the amount of the top 10 of uranium ore deposits worldwide is given below. 

URANIUM ORE DEPOSITS – TOP 10 as on 12/20/2020
RANKCOUNTRY2015 Reserves  in TonnesPercent of Total Reserves
1 Australia178080024.0
2 Kazakhstan94160012.7
3 Canada7036009.5
4 Namibia4630006.2
5 South Africa4493006.1
6 Niger4113005.5
7 Russia3952005.3
8 Brazil2768003.7
9 China2725003.7
10 Greenland2280003.1

Surprisingly, each of the uranium ore deposits is located beneath a “hot spot”. The data suggests that the warming since 1980 must have been caused by the nuclear reactions in the uranium ore deposits, rather than the current popular theory that blames the Greenhouse Gas blankets. 

It is also very important to note that hotspots have disappeared or cooled down considerably during the last 5 years. If these hot spots continue to cool in the future, then the world temperatures will not increase. Instead we would witness a drop-in temperature. 

However, there is another critical correlation that determines the future of global average temperature: Sunspots. 

Sunspot Activity and Global Temperature 

Scientific data prove that the past two mini ice ages correlated with the absence of sunspots and the warmer periods in recent millennia correlated with an increase in sunspot activity.

Average yearly sunspot numbers –

Graph of average yearly sunspot numbers showing the 11-year solar cycle. Image Credit and Source: Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. 

Image Source: https://abruptearthchanges.com/2019/06/14/the-next-grand-solar-minimum-has-very-likely-begun-nasa-predicts-lowest-solar-cycle-in-200-years/ 

The increase in sunspot activity also correlated with the global warming that began in the 1980s. Prior to the 1980s, there was no major increase in temperatures despite 200 years of Industrialization and high atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide. Sunspots are now at very low levels and cooling is happening, as observed from the global temperature maps above. 

According to commentators, the next Cycle 25 is likely to be slightly smaller than Cycle 24 and much lower than the maximum annual sunspot number of 250). 

Implications for Energy Policy 

Given the non-correlation between CO2 and global temperatures, economies can now shift towards an energy policy that is more fossil friendly as other sources are developed.

Shutting down Nuclear and Coal plants, and installing more renewables and gas fired turbines will not benefit the world. Renewables, despite the global fanfare, are incapable of providing reliable and affordable electricity.  Not having power for several days would be a devastating catastrophe.  At present, there are no cheap batteries or even a high-volume source of batteries that can store energy generated by renewables. 

This requires operating gas turbines to negate the disruptions in renewable generation. It also requires maintaining the supply chain of natural gas from gas well, through gas purification to remove sulphur, to compressors, to pipelines and to gas storage. 

Moreover, contrary to popular belief, this policy will continue to drive CO2 levels higher and even worse, increase the cost of power and everything else in society. All efforts to reduce CO2 levels to save our planet are ineffective, costly and counterproductive. 

Keeping hydrocarbons in the ground or raising the cost of hydrocarbons will have serious consequences. For example, there is no substitute source (apart form Hydrocarbons) for asphalt for roads, roofs, polyester for clothes, carpets, polyester fiber for tire sidewalls, graphite fiber for lightweight electric cars or for the more than 5000 other products that we depend on an everyday basis. All these are derived from hydrocarbons. 

Coal may not be KING but it can be a SAVIOR with no negative factors. Coal, with acid gases removed from the stack gas, provides reliable power from local fuel and also CO2 at ground level for increased production of food from land and sea.

Developing economies, and even some developed economies, will experience immediate and adverse consequences if they shift away from hydrocarbons. The most logical analysis reveals that CO2 and greenhouse gases are not the primary drivers of global temperatures. 

With the advent of these new findings on Uranium ore’s correlation with temperature hotspots, it is time policy makers and decision-making institutions pay attention to the simplicity of the climate system and stop restricting themselves to the narrow theory of fossil fuel driven global warming. 

About the Author: Mr. Art Krugler is a leading geothermal engineer who has directed design and construction work on binary and flash steam plants in California, Nevada, Utah and Texas, and has contributed to many of the plants in the United States & internationally. He is responsible for 105 MW of co-generation power in Southern California and is a licensed chemical and mechanical engineer in five states.His book Polar Bears in the Hot Tub exposed the lies about the global warming movement and the state of climate reality. This article was co-authored with the help of Vijay Jayaraj, an environmental researcher. 

More from Vijay :

Related :