Peer-Reviewed Study: No Positive Trends In Extreme Weather Found

“In conclusion on the basis of observational data, the climate crisis that, according to many sources, we are experiencing today, is not evident yet” (Alimonti et al., 2022).

Alimonti, G., Mariani, L., Prodi, F., & Ricci, R. A. (2022). A critical assessment of extreme events trends in times of global warming. The European Physical Journal Plus 137(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjp/s13360-021-02243-9

Related :
EPJ Scientific Study : There Is No ‘Climate Crisis’ | Climatism

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

image

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-59105963

The silly man apparently does not realise that extreme weather has always been the norm!

A month before he wrote that article, the following paper was published:

image

image

View original post 91 more words


Peer-Reviewed Study : Covid Jabs Mess With Your Blood

Frightening study out of the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research August 2022 documenting abnormal changes to blood cells following mRNA (Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna) ‘vaccination’.

The Italian, peer-reviewed study found a staggering 94 percent of vaccinated patients with subsequent abnormal blood issues.

Science Matters

Figure 1. These photos are at 40x magnification. At the left side, (a) shows the blood condition of the patient before the inoculation. The right side image, (b) shows the same person’s blood one month after the first dose of Pfizer mRNA “vaccine”. Particles can be seen among the red blood cells which are strongly conglobated around the exogenous particles; the agglomeration is believed to reflect a reduction in zeta potential adversely affecting the normal colloidal distribution of erythrocytes as seen at the left. The red blood cells at the right (b) are no longer spherical and are clumping as in coagulation and clotting.

Source:  Dark-Field Microscopic Analysis on the Blood of 1,006 Symptomatic Persons After Anti-COVID mRNA Injections from Pfizer/BioNtech or Moderna,  International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research in August 2022.

Report on study from Jennifer Margulis and Joe Wang at Epoch Times Peer-Reviewed: 94 Percent…

View original post 1,521 more words


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 :


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 :


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 :


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 :


NEW STUDY : Greta Can See CO2 Where Science Can’t

“Action must be powerful and wide-ranging.
After all, the climate crisis is not just about the environment.
It is a crisis of human rights, of justice, and of political will.
Colonial, racist, and patriarchal systems of oppression have created and fueled it.

We need to dismantle them all.”
– GretaThunberg™️

“Play silly games, expect silly prizes!”
– Dan Bongino

H/t @Kenneth72712993

CONTRARY to popular (mainstream media) belief, CO₂ is an odourless, *invisible* trace gas and, thankfully, there are still many brave climate scientists who prioritise the scientific method, real-world observation and empirical evidence over U.N. climate models, fame, career advancement, politics, ideology and activism.

GretaThunberg™️ 2019 :

Via : Climate Activist Greta Thunberg Can See Invisible CO2 – Ananova

Climate Science 2020/21 :

Recent warming in Europe/Poland is explained by a 2 W/m²/decade increase in incoming solar radiation (sunshine duration) due to the declining cloud cover since 1980.

CO₂ isn’t mentioned as a factor affecting climate …

https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/joc.6609
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-021-03570-8

Related :

CO2 Related :

SUN Related :


EVERY Crisis Becomes A Religion If It Lasts Long Enough

“Watch for the moment when you’re told ‘science’ means
not asking questions, defying dogma, or challenging ‘consensus’.
That is the literal definition of faith, not science.”

– John Hayward

AN epic Twitter thread by journalist John Hayward that has been circulating the internet for good reason. It is a thoughtful, timely and magnificent piece of writing and cultural insight unpacked here for you to ponder.

Enjoy…

One factor in that transformation is the Beautiful Theory phenomenon: the power elite insists its remedies are logical and politically correct so they MUST work, even if the actual evidence shows they obviously don’t.

When Beautiful Theories crash into hard, cold reality and shatter, faith is the glue used by the elites to put their precious ideas back together. They need MILITANT faith to get the job done: true believers eager to crush doubt and compel obedience by making war on the infidels.

Some are swept into the faith because they desperately crave a sense of control over the crisis. They need to believe Something Can Be Done, and they’d rather invest their faith in debunked Beautiful Theories than have no faith at all. Faith is a coin that demands to be spent.

Some crave social approval, and the purveyors of Beautiful Theories have immense political, economic, and cultural power to make their faith seem fashionable. Virtue signalling is such a plague in modern society because the signals are pre-packaged and made very easy to send.

Some aren’t even hoping they can assert control over a crisis by converting to its religion. They’ll settle for just having some MEANING, some simplicity, a sense that the righteous will fare better than the unbelievers, that virtue will be rewarded while sin is punished.

That’s a very common impulse with the Church of Covid, since the Beautiful Theories were so very obviously wrong. There isn’t much left of the faith except the visceral communal satisfaction of hoping unbelievers will be punished for their blasphemies with sickness and death.

That sort of thing happens with all of the crisis religions, although not usually as quickly and obviously as with the Church of Covid. Look at the endless stream of movies about how the world became an apocalyptic hellscape because people didn’t believe in global warming.

The last resort of every crisis religion, the last thing that puts asses in the pews, is that addiction to misery porn, the collective hope that unbelievers will suffer someday, and everyone will admit the True Faith was right all along as Judgement Day crashes down upon them.

The elite will never have the humility to admit they were wrong, and they’ll never give up on politically or financially profitable “solutions” even when they obviously don’t solve the problem. Founding a crisis religion means they never have to say they’re sorry.

That applies to some very longstanding crises, like the War on Poverty, whose nostrums long ago transformed into fantastically expensive articles of religious faith even as mountains of data accumulated that proved they were utter failures, and often made the problems WORSE.

You can look for some telltale signs of a crisis transforming into a religion. The most obvious one is when the high priests tell you the “war” you’ve been drafted into will never end. They become very angry when asked to define success or failure, or lay out exit strategies.

Watch for the moment when you’re told “science” means not asking questions, defying dogma, or challenging “consensus.” That is the literal definition of faith, not science.

Always keep an eye out for Moving Goalposts, which are the signature miracle of crisis religions, their version of parting the waters or loaves and fishes. Crisis religions work very hard to make their faith unfalsifiable by constantly changing the standards of evidence.

Check to see if certain people are accumulating huge amounts of money and power from a crisis. That’s a pretty good sign it’s turning into a religion. A crisis should be solved as quickly and efficiently as possible. Don’t let it fester long enough to become a special interest.

Above all, look for the whiff of ARROGANCE to develop around a crisis. Wise religions and effective crisis managers have something in common: a sense of humility. Crisis religions are militant faiths that quickly become arrogant, smug, and totalitarian.

Dedicated people who truly want to solve a problem will look for evidence their analysis is wrong, or their policies aren’t working, and make adjustments as quickly as possible, no matter the cost or embarrassment to themselves. This is humility.

Crisis religions are arrogant. They reject criticism, insist their Beautiful Theories MUST be right because they’re ideologically pure – they fit snugly into a worldview that must not be challenged. Their plans only fail because their commands were disobeyed or sabotaged.

The high priests of a crisis religion see devils everywhere, leering at them from the rubble of every failure. Only sin can explain why their Beautiful Theories are tarnished. Failure never THEIR fault, so it must be YOURS. They find your lack of faith disturbing.

And you know what? A LOT of people want to see the world that way, including a great many self-described atheists. They hunger for the comfort of faith and the vibrant energy of militancy. They want to be right, and they want the wrong to suffer for their folly.

Conservatives think religious faith in the State is terrifying and wonder why so many embrace it. It’s because uncertainty is much more frightening. A simple false story is better than a complex true one, and with enough faith, maybe we can force the simple story to be true.

H/t “Every Crisis Becomes a Religion If it Lasts Long Enough” | Tapnewswire

***

Related :


Study Suggests No More CO2 Warming

Solid CO2 science by even more solid scientists that you will-not-see published anywhere on the climate-theory-obsessed mainstream media.

Why? Because, man-made ‘global warming’ aka ‘climate change’ was never about “saving the planet” or the “environment”, rather the ultimate power grab for Malthusians and deep-green misanthropic global elites since, at least, the 1970’s.

Their initial, and ongoing agenda to demonise invisible trace gas, and plant food Carbon Dioxide — the byproduct of 90+% of all global (real) energy output — in order to control ALL industry, sovereign nations and the lives, livelihoods and freedoms of every human on the planet.

Control CO2, and you control the world.

PA Pundits - International

By David Wojick, Ph.D. ~

Precision research by physicists William Happer and William van Wijngaarden has determined that the present levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and water vapor are almost completely saturated. In radiation physics the technical term “saturated” implies that adding more molecules will not cause more warming.

In plain language this means that from now on our emissions from burning fossil fuels could have little or no further impact on global warming. There would be no climate emergency.  No threat at all. We could emit as much CO2 as we like; with no effect.

This astounding finding resolves a huge uncertainty that has plagued climate science for over a century. How should saturation be measured and what is its extent with regard to the primary greenhouse gases?

In radiation physics the term “saturation” is nothing like the simple thing we call saturation in ordinary…

View original post 636 more words