CLINTEL President Calls For Engineers To Lead Us Out Of The Energy Mess

“Engineers have always played a leading role in the development of powerful adaptation technology. Engineering education should therefore stay far away from ideology-driven computer models. These models steer them in the wrong direction. That is my message to the Academies of Engineering and the Universities of Technology.”

I’ll take the undeniable power, safety and consistency of technical-based decisions made through reason, data and the scientific method (engineering) over politics, ideology, UN climate models and fact-free emotions any day.

PA Pundits - International

By David Wojick, Ph.D. ~

Professor Guus Berkhout has published a challenge to the engineering community, to step up and make the Western energy transition work. He emphasizes that reliable and affordable energy is the key to future prosperity and well-being. So, if the transition fails then the Western world will fall back into poor economies without any power and authority. His opening call is pointed and clear:

Experienced Engineers must take the lead in the Energy Transition. Green politicians made a big mess of the energy transition and climate scientists encouraged them with their computer models. Putin and Xi JinPing must have watched the self-destruction of the Western World with utter amazement and gratitude. Experienced engineers must pick up the pieces soonest.”

Berkhout says there are actually three distinct challenges, all engineering intensive. One is developing the technology needed for adaptation to climate change, whatever the cause of…

View original post 645 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 :


Protección contra el coronavirus / Coronavirus protection

Trust the experts™️

Behold the insanity:

This video is a sad testament to the power that public health has to induce panic and then tell noble lies about how to mitigate that fear. Imagine instead if public health had recognized who was most vulnerable (primarily the elderly), and poured resources into protecting them.

🎥 👉 https://twitter.com/prof_freedom/status/1491373716999409666/video/1

See more…

El espacio de Chus

Protección contra el coronavirus

View original post


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 :


Perspective : Look Up Your Risk of Dying of COVID-19

“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

When the 24-hour mainstream media ‘news’ cycle is intentionally geared to keep you fixated through mechanisms of fear, hysteria and alarm it is perhaps beneficial to be grounded, often, by good old fashioned hard data.

CDC and Stanford University data demonstrating the actual risk of death by Covid may be one way to help defend against the merciless attack on reason, sanity and calm by Covid-19 power-hungry politicians and compliant mainstream media.

Some much needed perspective here via Rational Ground :

(US Covid-19 data via CDC / Stanford)

Perspective: Look Up Your Risk of Dying of COVID-19

Get some perspective folks. Our good friend Phil Kerpen has updated the COVID-19 mortality tables by age – specific age actually! So look up your own risk between you and your peers below.

  • First, find your age on the chart on column #1.
  • Second column: how many people your age have died of COVID-19 since January 2020
  • Third column: the number of people in the U.S. who are that age.
  • Fourth column: the % of the people that age who have died of COVID.


If you’re 49 there have been 3,965 49-yr-olds who have died of COVID-19. There are over 4.3 million 49-yr-olds olds – which means that 0.085% of 49 year olds have died of COVID. As I always note, if you are over the age of 65 strongly consider getting vaccinated as there is acute risk to you. Under the age of 45 there is a near zero statistical risk of mortality. Otherwise – your choice but stay informed!

You might also choose to look up how many people your age have died of ANYTHING since January 2020 and how that gives you perspective on COVID-19 deaths.

Lastly, consider the types of deaths which occur at these ratios. We’ve mapped these to mortality risks provided by insurance companies for comparison.

And of course we provide some perspective on age comparisons. The median age of death of a COVID-19 victim is about 80 years old. The risk tables show that for every 20 years below 80 your risk decreases by 10x. So if you are 60 your risk is 10x lower than that of an 80 year old. If you are 40 your risk is 100x lower and if you are 20 your risk is 1000x (ONE THOUSAND!) times lower than an 80 year old.

Rational Ground – Clear Reasoning on National Policy for COVID-19 » Perspective: Look Up Your Risk of Dying of COVID-19

•••

Related :


COVID-19 : The Authoritarian Left’s Overt ‘Denial of Science’ In A Single Tweet

“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

At some point, the majority will conclude that the Left’s pet, and intentionally emotional causes; climate, Covid, race, gender etc., have absolutely nothing to do with the subject and the people involved, rather, about the clever, tactful and intentional use of highly emotive issues designed to divide and polarise the masses (you and I), in order for absolute power and control by them (the elites).

This simple tweet via VP Harris, perhaps an insightful example.

“Protecting the vaccinated…”

Huh?

Think about it. If the vaccine works, as they assure us that it does – with anyone who dares question efficacy; punished, silenced and cancelled accordingly – then how can the unvaccinated possibly pose a threat to the vaccinated? 

Who then are the real “science deniers”?

What exactly is the risk to the vaccinated from the unvaccinated? 

Your ruling class, Jo Biden, Kamala Harris, CDC, AMA, Scott Morrison, mainstream media et al., will not tell you. 

Why? Because they’re lying to you.

No one knows. There is no answer. 

The entire; vaccine, mask, lockdown argument by ‘science’, for your ‘protection’, is transparently absurd. 

And once you realise that, you realise that none of the endless talking about “public health”, at this point, is really about “public health”.

If it was about “public health”, everyone pushing the vaccine so feverishly would simply make the vaccines available to the infirm, the elderly-infirm, to high risk categories, and anyone else who wanted it, then celebrate, and leave it there.  

But that’s not what it’s about.

It’s about power. 

Forcing you to accept something without complaint is the whole point of the exercise. It’s a form of sadomasochism — dominance and submission. 

It’s all about power, obviously. Power, either newly found, or conveniently manipulated and maintained.

If they can make you take experimental medicine that you don’t want, or need, then they’ve won. They then own you. You belong to them. 

Things are certainly moving fast, and they are heading in a specific direction. 

Which direction? 

You be the judge.

(That is, if you’re still even allowed to formulate thought or opinion, less be cancelled or fined, under the statute of ‘forbidden’).

Related :


Corona Perspectives From Swiss Policy Research

In times of collective moral panic and peak hysteria – manufactured for political power, or otherwise – it may be useful to refer to the sage quotes of cooler heads gone by

“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

If all else fails, simply refer to hard, unadulterated, scientific data…

Science Matters

Swiss Policy Research has been tracking the Covid pandemic and provides a number of graphics that put the experience into historical perspective.  Below are a selection from what is on offer at their website Facts about Covid-19

Sweden: Mortality Since 1835

US: Monthly Mortality in Deaths per Million since 1900

Monthly Covid Deaths in Germany bottom right corner.

Ivermectin vs. Covid19

View original post


ALARMISTS U-TURN : Scientists Confirm Great Barrier Reef Is Recovering From Bleaching, Again

December 11, 2018, GBR post update.

Wednesday, June 23, 2021 :

At this point, we perhaps need to stop and ask ourselves the awkward, yet obvious question, ‘what else does the mainstream-media feverishly lie to us about, every day, every hour, every minute on ‘climate change’, specifically, in this case, The Great Barrier Reef? And, for what purpose, which agenda, whose ideology?’

A remarkable example of media and academic deceit unfolding before your very own eyes, in the case of Ridd Vs James Cook Universirty Vs Academic Freedom (Truth) Vs the survival of enquiry (the survival of human civilisation).

Via GWPF :

Peter Ridd: Great Barrier Reef ‘has completely recovered’ from 2016 bleaching event

Date: 22/06/21 Sky News Australia

Physicist and author Peter Ridd says just about every area of the Great Barrier Reef – according to the statistics – “has completely recovered” since the 2016 bleaching event and is in “no danger”.

(Click to watch)

screen-shot-2021-06-23-at-11.46.46-1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06ufwX7qT5g

“The area which was hit by the 2016 bleaching has completely recovered; every area except one has got above average coral cover, some at near-record levels… so actually the statistics make it look wonderful,” he said.

“Our untrustworthy science institutions have now given the Chinese the ammunition to beat us with. We need audits of our own scientists so we can’t be crucified with our own work.

“If climate change is going to affect the Great Barrier Reef, it’s going to affect all the reefs of the world, but they’re only picking on Australia because they don’t like our climate policy – it’s just a political stunt that has been fuelled by our own untrustworthy science institutions.”

https://www.thegwpf.com/great-barrier-reef-has-completely-recovered-from-2016-bleaching-event/

Climatism

GREAT BARRIER REEF RECOVERY - CLIMATISM GREAT Barrier Reef Recovery – Climatism


WE need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public’s imagination…
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest.

– Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports

***

H/t GWPF

REMEMBER when climate ‘scientists’ said Corals on Great Barrier Reef will never be the same after back-to-back heat waves

corals-on-great-barrier-reef-will-never-be-the-same-after-back-to-back-heat-waves-scientists-say
Corals on Great Barrier Reef will never be the same after back-to-back heat waves, scientists say | LA Times

*

REMEMBER when climate ‘scientists’ said “Global warming has changed the Great Barrier Reef ‘forever’ …

Global warming has changed the Great Barrier Reef ‘forever,_ scientists say | The Washington PostGlobal warming has changed the Great Barrier Reef ‘forever,’ scientists say | The Washington…

View original post 2,259 more words


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 :