Bumper collection of "Climate Change" FAILS, all in one place.


Its all here: lies; fraud; censorship; bogus 
predictions; failed models & even doomsday cultism.


Index
1) Epic Failed Predictions going back over 50 years
2) Fraud and data fudging
3) Misleading "Greenhouse" model
4) Failed science &  models
5) Fundamental flaw in the premise


1.)  Failed Predictions going back over 50 years. 

Get a load of these...

1970: Ice age by 2000

1971: ‘New Ice Age Coming’

1972: New ice age by 2070
1974: ‘New Ice Age Coming Fast’
Source: The Guardian, January 29, 1974
1974: ‘Another Ice Age?’ 

Sources: Headline
NASA Data | Graph
1976: ‘The Cooling’



Associated Press, September 6, 1990
1978: ‘No End in Sight’ to 30-Year Cooling Trend

Source: New York Times, January 5, 1978
But according to NASA satellite data there is a slight warming trend since 1979.

Source: DrRoySpencer.com


Trailer for a global cooling feature presented by Leonard Nimoy (Spock)

Evidence of the robust cooling concensus has almost been scrubbed by google. here is some background:

1988: Washington DC days over 90F to from 35 to 85

But the number of hot days in the DC area peaked in 1911, and have been declining ever since.

Source: RealClimateScience.com


1988: Maldives completely under water in 30 years

1989: Rising seas to ‘obliterate’ nations by 2000

Source: Associated Press, June 30, 1989

1989: New York City’s West Side Highway underwater by 2019

1995 to Present: Climate Model Failure

Source: CEI.org

2000: ‘Children won’t know what snow is.’


Source: The Independent, March 20, 2000


2004: Britain to have Siberian climate by 2020

Source: The Guardian, February 21, 2004

2008: We are toast! 
(Arctic will be ice-free by 2018)


2008: Al Gore warns of ice-free Arctic by 2013..
But… it’s still there.

Source: WattsUpWithThat.com, December 16, 2018


Germany’s Die Welt: “Ice-free By 2013"
In 2007, German online national daily Die Welt here warned that “a team of international climate scientists and researchers at NASA claimed the Arctic summer would be ice-free already in 2013.
According to Die Welt, NASA’s “climate expert” Wieslaw Maslowski of the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey made the claim at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union.
Spiegel: sailboats in an open Arctic in 2008
While in Germany, onn June 27, 2008, Der Spiegel cited scientists when it reported outrageously that the Arctic was “melting at a brutal speed”.
The German flagship weekly also quoted researcher Olav Orheim of the Norwegian Research Council: “Already last October I was predicting that the Arctic could be ice-free this summer” and “In August or September we will be seeing people cruising in sailboats up there.”
Seth Borenstein: planet has passed “an ominous tipping point”
On December 12, 2007, the AP’s Seth Borenstein reported at National Geographic that scientists were saying that the planet had “passed an ominous tipping point.” and that the Arctic was “screaming” as if it were in its death throes.
NASA’s Jay Zwally: Nearly ice-free by end of summer 2012.
NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally was also cited by the National Geographic, which reported: “…after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: ‘At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions’.”
John Kerry: Ice-free in 2013, not 2050
On October 16, 2009, Senator John Kerry at the Huffington Post here called climate change a “national security threat” and wrote:
It is already upon us and its effects are being felt worldwide, right now. Scientists project that the Arctic will be ice-free in the summer of 2013. Not in 2050, but four years from now.”

Al Gore warned in 2007, 2008 and 2009
At about the same time, climate crusader Al Gore also preached of an imminent Arctic sea ice doomsday. The New American here wrote:
In 2007, 2008 and 2009, Gore publicly and very hysterically warned that the North Pole would be ‘ice-free’ by around 2013 because of alleged ‘man-made global warming.’ Citing ‘climate’ experts, the government-funded BBC hyped the mass hysteria, running a now-embarrassing article under the headline: ‘Arctic summers ice-free ‘by 2013’.’ Other establishment media outlets did the same"

2009: Prince Charles says only 8 years to save the planet

2009: UK prime minister stupidly says we had 50 days to ‘save the planet from catastrophe’

Source: The Independent: October 20, 2009
2009: Arctic ice-free by 2014

Source: USA Today, December 14, 2009

2013: Arctic ice-free by 2015


The paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02550-9 (open access)
Gas hydrate dissociation off Svalbard induced by isostatic rebound rather than global warming
Abstract
Methane seepage from the upper continental slopes of Western Svalbard has previously been attributed to gas hydrate dissociation induced by anthropogenic warming of ambient bottom waters. Here we show that sediment cores drilled off Prins Karls Foreland contain freshwater from dissociating hydrates. However, our modeling indicates that the observed pore water freshening began around 8 ka BP when the rate of isostatic uplift outpaced eustatic seat level rise. The resultant local shallowing and lowering of hydrostatic pressure forced gas hydrate dissociation and dissolved chloride depletions consistent with our geochemical analysis. Hence, we propose that hydrate dissociation was triggered by postglacial isostatic rebound rather than anthropogenic warming. Furthermore, we show that methane fluxes from dissociating hydrates were considerably smaller than present methane seepage rates implying that gas hydrates were not a major source of methane to the oceans, but rather acted as a dynamic seal, regulating methane release from deep geological reservoirs.

2013: Navy throws its hat into the ring. Boldly predicts an Arctic that is ice-free by 2016

Source: The Guardian, December 9, 2013

2014: French FM somehow knew - Only 500 days before ‘climate chaos’

But…

Sources: Washington Examiner


HERE you will find a very funny comparison of alarmist media reports on scientific data relating to warming, represented as facts that are not as easy to disprove. The secret here here was to compare the claims against each other. I found they directly contradict each other and it follows logically (and hysterically) that such direct, intractable logical conflicts must render in each case at least one (possibly both) of the claims impossible.


Other tools you can use to empower yourself include using the the internet pages archive called the Way Back Machine at Archive.org to source older versions of current websites or media reports that have been insidiously altered or even scrubbed from the internet. I'm afraid its gotten to be as serious as it sounds.

It gets even worse I'm afraid. The same powerful special interests in partnership with the "Big Tech" Silicon Valley Oligarchy have even begun putting pressure on the archiving sites to remove historical content in an attempt to remove any evidence of such discourse having ever occurred. I have been commentating on this problem for long enough to have built-up quite an extensive archive myself of academic papers, media reports, press releases and scientific studies considered dangerous the the consensus narrative of the sanitised establishment looking to completely fabricate a version of history.

I will also post direct historical first hand accounts of weather, crop yields and other related topics going back as far as the middle ages.

I have also written about how the role of CO2 in the temperatures of Venus has been quite obviously deliberately misrepresented.

________________________________________. 

___________________________________________________________

                                     Part 2  

 2.) Fraud and data fudging  
This is a sample of a vast and sprawling fraud whose consequences raise it's profile to "Crime Against Humanity "

ABOVE: LOOK AT THE NONSENSE CLAIM THAT EVERYWHERE IS WARMING FASTER THAN EVERYWHERE ELSE
Hiding the Medieval warm period:

Wikipedia deletes descenting scientists:
This is sad! NOAA (NASA) has one upped their data fraud. https://earth.nullschool.net/…

Hiding 50 years of Australian hot days:







What are the leading excuses for data tampering? 


Mann. 

More examples of tampering with historical data:



MORE »
Posted by on
Index , ,

VAERS Update on adverse effects of the ¢0√¡d √a¢¢¡ne

 


Consider this a quick update on my more involved post after 2 of VAERS stats. Its concerning but necessary to bear in mind the estimation that only 6% of adverse reactions are actually reported.

In loosely related noteworthy news, a murder trial in India has been opened, involving Bill Gates
https://indianbarassociation.in/worlds-first-vaccine-murder-case-against-bill-gates-adar-poonawalla-filed-in-indias-high-court/

Thanks to Peter Stallinga of Stallinga.org

The same thing we saw in Europe happens in the United States. In Europe the EudraVigilance adverse-side-effects monitoring hinted at about 500 thousand vaccination deaths in Europe. (With 500 million inhabitants that is one in 1000 or 0.1% of the population). In the US, the VAERS reported 19249 official vaccination deaths. With 6% reporting this implies 320 thousand deaths. (On a population of 333 million this is again 0.1% of the population culled by the vaccine). 

People with corona tunnel-vision will not see these deaths as we know from psychology (see videos of Mattias Desmet). But | want to communicate to the others: 

- The sacrifice of how many innocent human lives do you think is acceptable in the combat of the virus? 1, 10, 100, 1000 ... ? 

- Do you see that these people are in all age cohorts? CoFlu19 kills people of 83 years age on average (compared to 83 years of other causes; ergo CoFlu19 does not take away much life), while the vaccine kills on average much younger people. Some in the prime of their lives. 

'T is a sad world. Exactly what Dostoevsky wrote. A great sadness on Earth. History repeating. The way it goes, in Europe, in twelve years, how many deaths by human hand will we have ... ? ss 

Posted by on
Index , ,

The PCR test results ARE meaningless. Here's why.



 The whole world relies on RT-PCR to “diagnose” Sars-Cov-2 infection, the science is clear: they are not fit for purpose

From Torsten Engelbrecht and Konstantin Demeter

Lockdowns and hygienic measures around the world are based on numbers of cases and mortality rates created by the so-called SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests used to identify “positive” patients, whereby “positive” is usually equated with “infected.”

But looking closely at the facts, the conclusion is that these PCR tests are meaningless as a diagnostic tool to determine an alleged infection by a supposedly new virus called SARS-CoV-2.

UNFOUNDED “TEST, TEST, TEST,…” MANTRA

At the media briefing on COVID-19 on March 16, 2020, the WHO Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said:

We have a simple message for all countries: test, test, test.”

The message was spread through headlines around the world, for instance by Reuters and the BBC.

Still on the 3 of May, the moderator of the heute journal — one of the most important news magazines on German television— was passing the mantra of the corona dogma on to his audience with the admonishing words:

Test, test, test—that is the credo at the moment, and it is the only way to really understand how much the coronavirus is spreading.”

This indicates that the belief in the validity of the PCR tests is so strong that it equals a religion that tolerates virtually no contradiction.

But it is well known that religions are about faith and not about scientific facts. And as Walter Lippmann, the two-time Pulitzer Prize winner and perhaps the most influential journalist of the 20th century said: “Where all think alike, no one thinks very much.”

So to start, it is very remarkable that Kary Mullis himself, the inventor of the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) technology, did not think alike. His invention got him the Nobel prize in chemistry in 1993.

Unfortunately, Mullis passed away last year at the age of 74, but there is no doubt that the biochemist regarded the PCR as inappropriate to detect a viral infection.

The reason is that the intended use of the PCR was, and still is, to apply it as a manufacturing technique, being able to replicate DNA sequences millions and billions of times, and not as a diagnostic tool to detect viruses.

How declaring virus pandemics based on PCR tests can end in disaster was described by Gina Kolata in her 2007 New York Times article Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t.

LACK OF A VALID GOLD STANDARD

Moreover, it is worth mentioning that the PCR tests used to identify so-called COVID-19 patients presumably infected by what is called SARS-CoV-2 do not have a valid gold standard to compare them with.

This is a fundamental point. Tests need to be evaluated to determine their preciseness — strictly speaking their “sensitivity”[1] and “specificity” — by comparison with a “gold standard,” meaning the most accurate method available.

As an example, for a pregnancy test the gold standard would be the pregnancy itself. But as Australian infectious diseases specialist Sanjaya Senanayake, for example, stated in an ABC TV interview in an answer to the question “How accurate is the [COVID-19] testing?”:

If we had a new test for picking up [the bacterium] golden staph in blood, we’ve already got blood cultures, that’s our gold standard we’ve been using for decades, and we could match this new test against that. But for COVID-19 we don’t have a gold standard test.”

Jessica C. Watson from Bristol University confirms this. In her paper “Interpreting a COVID-19 test result”, published recently in The British Medical Journal, she writes that there is a “lack of such a clear-cut ‘gold-standard’ for COVID-19 testing.”

But instead of classifying the tests as unsuitable for SARS-CoV-2 detection and COVID-19 diagnosis, or instead of pointing out that only a virus, proven through isolation and purification, can be a solid gold standard, Watson claims in all seriousness that, “pragmatically” COVID-19 diagnosis itself, remarkably including PCR testing itself, “may be the best available ‘gold standard’.” But this is not scientifically sound.

Apart from the fact that it is downright absurd to take the PCR test itself as part of the gold standard to evaluate the PCR test, there are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19, as even people such as Thomas Löscher, former head of the Department of Infection and Tropical Medicine at the University of Munich and member of the Federal Association of German Internists, conceded to us[2].

And if there are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19, COVID-19 diagnosis — contrary to Watson’s statement — cannot be suitable for serving as a valid gold standard.

In addition, “experts” such as Watson overlook the fact that only virus isolation, i.e. an unequivocal virus proof, can be the gold standard.

That is why I asked Watson how COVID-19 diagnosis “may be the best available gold standard,” if there are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19, and also whether the virus itself, that is virus isolation, wouldn’t be the best available/possible gold standard. But she hasn’t answered these questions yet – despite multiple requests. And she has not yet responded to our rapid response post on her article in which we address exactly the same points, either, though she wrote us on June 2nd: “I will try to post a reply later this week when I have a chance.”

NO PROOF FOR THE RNA BEING OF VIRAL ORIGIN

Now the question is: What is required first for virus isolation/proof? We need to know where the RNA for which the PCR tests are calibrated comes from.

As textbooks (e.g., White/Fenner. Medical Virology, 1986, p. 9) as well as leading virus researchers such as Luc Montagnier or Dominic Dwyer state, particle purification — i.e. the separation of an object from everything else that is not that object, as for instance Nobel laureate Marie Curie purified 100 mg of radium chloride in 1898 by extracting it from tons of pitchblende — is an essential pre-requisite for proving the existence of a virus, and thus to prove that the RNA from the particle in question comes from a new virus.

The reason for this is that PCR is extremely sensitive, which means it can detect even the smallest pieces of DNA or RNA — but it cannot determine where these particles came from. That has to be determined beforehand.

And because the PCR tests are calibrated for gene sequences (in this case RNA sequences because SARS-CoV-2 is believed to be a RNA virus), we have to know that these gene snippets are part of the looked-for virus. And to know that, correct isolation and purification of the presumed virus has to be executed.

Hence, we have asked the science teams of the relevant papers which are referred to in the context of SARS-CoV-2 for proof whether the electron-microscopic shots depicted in their in vitro experiments show purified viruses.

But not a single team could answer that question with “yes” — and NB., nobody said purification was not a necessary step. We only got answers like “No, we did not obtain an electron micrograph showing the degree of purification” (see below).

Study 1: Leo L. M. Poon; Malik Peiris. “Emergence of a novel human coronavirus threatening human health” Nature Medicine, March 2020
Replying Author: Malik Peiris
Date: May 12, 2020
Answer: “The image is the virus budding from an infected cell. It is not purified virus.”

Study 2: Myung-Guk Han et al. “Identification of Coronavirus Isolated from a Patient in Korea with COVID-19”, Osong Public Health and Research Perspectives, February 2020
Replying Author: Myung-Guk Han
Date: May 6, 2020
Answer: “We could not estimate the degree of purification because we do not purify and concentrate the virus cultured in cells.”

Study 3: Wan Beom Park et al. “Virus Isolation from the First Patient with SARS-CoV-2 in Korea”, Journal of Korean Medical Science, February 24, 2020
Replying Author: Wan Beom Park
Date: March 19, 2020
Answer: “We did not obtain an electron micrograph showing the degree of purification.”

Study 4: Na Zhu et al., “A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China”, 2019, New England Journal of Medicine, February 20, 2020
Replying Author: Wenjie Tan
Date: March 18, 2020
Answer: “[We show] an image of sedimented virus particles, not purified ones.”

For more read the article here.


Or click HERE for the homepage of this site.


Posted by on
Index ,

Curtis Press: Publishing science that challenges the consensus narrative.



Its refreshing that not every publisher is the same. There are some that service the needs of those looking for fresh thinking outside of consensus science monopolies. Its quite new and niche, so give them some support, or make contact if you have been thinking about publishing yourself. I'll give two examples of books they publish, each as a synopsis.

Founded by Neil Shuttlewood, a Bachelor of Environmental Science from the University of East Anglia, UK, Curtis Press distributes new ideas in science, new concepts that might surmount the scientific cul-de-sac that currently prevails in many fields of science.

Why publish with them?

Because they claim to build relationships with all of their authors and offer a publishing experience that is second to none. It would appear they offer one of the most generous publishing contracts, emphasizing the science, not the profit. They distribute their books and ebooks globally via a network of distributors and independent sellers and offer tailored publicity to projects they feel would benefit from such an undertaking.

Here is their Become an Author page to find out how you can send a proposal. 


The Nature of the Atom: An Introduction to the Structured Atom Model

by J. E. Kaal, J. A. Sorensen, A. Otte, and J. G. Emming

This body of work removes any motivation to worry about Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle and seriously undermines the need for the restrictions of quantum mechanics that lead to all sorts of counterintuitive errors … it is therefore paradigm shattering. This is the stuff from which Nobel Prizes ought to come. Professor D. Scott

This book is the result of an international research team pursuing the intuitive notion that the atomic nucleus should have structural properties. Starting with a few logical assumptions, they discovered that many properties of the atom and the nucleus can be explained rationally without resorting to quantum mechanics or the limiting dogmas about the nucleus that dominate current physics. Using feedback from known

experimental data, they identified several organizational principles that nature appears to use for constructing the elements, sometimes in unexpected ways. There are two assumptions underlying the Structured Atom Model (SAM). First, by replacing the neutron with a proton–electron pair, an electrostatic attractive force is reintroduced into the nucleus. The electrons acting as “glue” between the protons. Second, that “spherical dense packing” gives the nucleus its fractal shape—one of several organizational drivers in the buildup of the nucleus; other drivers being recurring substructures called “endings” and “nuclets .” A SAM nucleus is constructed using these substructures in various combinations. The result is a new periodic table that hints at several missing elements most of which are suspected to be unstable, but probably not all.

What emerges is nothing less than a new paradigm for thinking about the nucleus and physics. In SAM, several known nuclear phenomena follow directly from the structural configuration of the nucleus, including nuclear instability, radioactivity/radioactive decay, the asymmetrical breakup of fission products, and the various nuclear decay schemes. In addition, the team discovered an unrecognized store of energy that may very well be responsible for Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR).


Nonscience Returns

by Brian J. Ford

The original Nonscience dates from 1971, and it caused a

sensation. It was translated, featured on television, and

widely reviewed. To celebrate its fiftieth birthday it is

republished, with updates to show how its predictions came

true.

This extraordinary book reveals a world dominated by

Experts. For these all-powerful people, public image and

media exposure are all that matters. Scientists, eager to

discover the truth, have been superseded by Experts who

use confusing language to dominate us and lay claim to

colossal grants. Integrity and objectivity are gone;

opportunism and duplicity reign.

With the internet, there’s no need for schools–they’ve

become a state-funded baby-sitting service for working

parents. Why do youngsters go to university? Not to broaden

their minds, but to stay up all night, get drunk, and get laid. Going to uni is the most painless way of

leaving home, and teenagers then borrow huge sums of money to fund the university. A university

chief can earn five times as much as the Prime Minister.

Experts rule the banks and, when the system collapsed, government bailed them out so they could

pay themselves huge bonuses, as before. The cost was £850 for every person in the country.

Professor Ford’s idea was to hand it to the public, who’d have put it in the bank (so they would have

had their bail-out). It would have been a tremendous boost to the economy.

Experts study weird things, like a bird called Bugeranus, a fungus named Spongiforma squarepantsii,

a beetle called Agra cadabra and Pieza rhea, a fly. They are all real! There are articles like ‘Fifty Ways

to Love Your Lever’ and ‘Fantastic Yeasts and where to find Them’, and papers with multiple authors

(in 2015 Nature published one with 5,154 authors). Encyclopaedias copy facts from each other and

are dotted with mistakes. You will find biographies of Dag Henrik Esrum-Hellerup , and Lillian Virginia

Mountweazel–invented to fill the pages. Neither was real.

Plagiarism is rife. Reputable organisations like the Royal Society and Cambridge University are now

stealing published ideas and claiming them as their own. In some countries, one-third of research

has been copied from somebody else. We are surrounded by fake news. The Amazon is not the

‘lungs of the world’, it contributes no oxygen to the atmosphere. Our hysteria about plastic is

similarly misplaced. Experts prey on the public who are ignorant of what’s going on. The BBC

transmits ridiculous programmes about science, because it is acceptable to boast that you ‘can’t

understand maths’, or ‘don’t know physics’, though nobody would admit ‘I don’t know about

Shakespeare’ or ‘I’m ignorant of music’. So, when computerised planes crash or ships ram the

dockside because they are controlled by computers, it is the crew who get blamed. The real culprits

are the youngsters who wrote the computer code (but we hear nothing about them).

Experts say they use long words to aid communication, but Ford reveals that the terms are there to

keep outsiders at bay. Experts take decisions that kill people, yet are immune to blame—they say

‘lessons have been learned’ and they’re off the hook. If the media ask questions they reply ‘It wouldbe wrong to discuss individual cases’ and the questioning stops. Instantly.

British people say they don’t want American chicken, and wouldn’t eat chlorine-washed food. Yet

they do, every day. They approve of quiche, while avoiding a fried breakfast–even though the

ingredients are similar, and the quiche is more unhealthy. People follow those bake-off programmes,

though the fatty food they promote kills people. Ford says these shows should have a health

warning and is surprised we don’t have the ‘Great Tobacco Smoking Challenge’ or the ‘Blindfold

Railway-Crossing Elimination Game’.

This book should be read by everybody with a wish to understand the modern world. Huge

enterprises (like the Human Genome Project and the Large Hadron Collider) have conned us out of

billions of pounds, while smaller teams had better results at a fraction of the cost. It is time to call a

halt to this global confidence trick—and Nonscience Returns is the book that will guide us.



Here is their shop containing Books, Comics & eBooks


Posted by on
Index , , ,

Carbon Tax

 


Posted by on
Index
Location: Roodepoort, South Africa

Electric Universe Fiction: Anemone a Creature/Starship and the Pilots of the Birkeland Currents by Pan Orpheus




A few words by the author on his latest work in EU fiction. I always do my bit to promote the EU cause, particularly by an author of this calibre who has a firm grasp of the EU concepts.

 In my fiction, especially my latest book, 'Anemone a Creature/Starship and the Pilots of the Birkeland Currents' virtually all aspects of what we call EU Theory in its broadest sense are explored. The world of the journey of the Anemone is a three dimensional Cosmos where time is a simultaneity. It is a gradated fractal self-similar worlds-within-worlds Universe, where the huge ship travels on a 'Migration' from one star system to another, basically unaware of the tiny command module within. 

It is a Universe where Electromagnetism is the dominant force, acting and interacting with Plasma to carry Electricity through a Cosmic Web that may be set against a sea of neutrinos. The original and current contributors and groups to the Electric/Plasma Universe Paradigm are all mentioned in the Foreword or in the course of dialogue that goes on between the crew and passengers.

 Mythology is important, since the action takes place in the tenth millennium, a mythology of my own design has already been occurring in the course of my books. This allows for a concept of reincarnation to take its rightful place within my fiction, and features many afterlife characters such as 'Mister E' the Spirit of Nikola Tesla, and Phoebe the Afterlife Spirit of the third Oracle of the Temple of Delphi 'the bright and shining one' (often referred to as the bright, shining and foulmouthed one)! Humor is an element in my books as is music. Stories are told on the ship in a Scheherazade-like fashion. As an example, 'Twain and Tesla on the Mississippi is a chance for some humor and comments by passengers and crew. But it is the Anemone the Creature/Starship that hopefully wins the hearts and minds of the reader as it makes its way on its 'Migration' through the Birkeland Current, bearing in mind a warning from the 'others' of its kind that 'there are predators in those strange seas'. 

I believe that for many readers 'Anemone a Creature/Starship and The Pilots of the Birkeland Currents will light up the skies with the whole of the Electric Universe/Plasma Cosmology Paradigm.


Howard Lipman aka Pan Orpheus

Posted by on
Index , , ,

The "Greenhouse Effect". Ironic fail!



Note: The graphs below illustrate at a glance that whatever the actual role of CO2 (by correlation between temperature and CO2) it is certainly not consistent with a gas making up 0.04% of the atmosphere functioning like a glass roof. This is a pity because Mars (96% CO2) would probably be a bit warmer if it were. The graphs come from a single excellent recent paper (details below) which is well worth a read. It is less about CO2 in isolation and more about CO2 with respect to THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT itself.  You can also find it here where you can download a PDF. It does a perfectly good job of dispatching the nonsense science used by Climate Change movement to strongarm their way into the various avenues of social influence both scientifically and politically. Because of this I'm going just going to focus on one tiny little aspect, so minor you never hear it mentioned, yet so soaked in irony it begs to be pointed out.. So that's my objective here, pointing out the role of CO2 in a greenhouse and in the "greenhouse effect", nothing more.




The above mentioned paper:
Comprehensive Analytical Study of the Greenhouse Effect of the Atmosphere

       

.    The "Green House Effect" is an analogy made to represent the earth and its atmosphere in principle using a greenhouse. For the benefit of those of you who may be a bit fuzzy on the concept of a greenhouse, here below is a quick synopsis of 

1) How a real greenhouse works

           And

2) How the greenhouse effect is supposed to work

1. In a real greenhouse CO2 plays no role in creating heat, only in boosting total growth, rate of growth and development of all plant life dramatically

2. In the theoretical model the role of CO2 is hypothesized to no longer be important in plant growth and it now switches for some reason to the role played by the glass roof. Its unknown if the glass roof is meant to nourish plants in this model..... There is strong speculative evidence to support this.











L

At this point I will leave you to make up your own mind about the greenhouse effect itself. The subject is investigated in detail in the paper by Peter Stallinga, and the greenhouse model is evaluated somewhat sarcastically by me in this post as a bonus. Weak humour aside, there is some benefit to pointing this out since the term has been around so long its not really given a second thought.

For more on Van Belmont's Experiment and many others click here for my post on transmutation (Biology's version of LENR).

Click HERE for my extensive sources page on Climate Change

Click Here for Peter Stallinga's Academic Publications and here for his Earthling News. He also has a dot org science nonprofit site with interesting bits and pieces, located here

Or click HERE for the homepage of this site.



Posted by on
Index , ,

We know next to nothing about viruses!


The Covid 19 virus is proposed as a pathogen that in two weeks jumped off a bat and conquered the world. It is in focus first. I'm starting with the partial RNA sequences on record, most include tools detailing extensive missing code:

This one invites you to send in your own bits of code

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sars-cov-2/


Limited tools on right:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MN908947



Taxonomy Genome browser with tools:




This one includes tool of extensive ambiguous characters:




GenBank: MT019532.1




GenBank: MT560525.1




This one,  GenBank: MN908947.3 Lists as complete genome but you need to click the drop down menus for missing code and gap features.



So its quite clear that we do not, in fact have the complete genome. But is the code we have isolated to one viral strain, with bits being sent in from everyone? Unlikely. This is not even DNA genetic material, its viral RNA, not a twin helix where we can easily break apart the helix and grow copies of each strand in negative nucleotide's. 
You can tell a virologist is stretching the truth when they use the word ‘isolation’

Look up the procedure.  For the above papers that say they isolated the virus, but let me describe how they did it… They took a nasal swab and they processed it with no real details given as to how; but its clear they add antibiotics to kill bacteria and other compromising additives. So they process it and add it to a cell culture. They observed cells dying in the cell culture and they wrote: ‘We have isolated the virus.’ Clearly, it’s not specific. Even if you have identified a virus, you haven’t identified a specific virus. So then they searched around for RNA and they found a long string of RNA which looked like what had previously been called coronavirus. 

So despite media reports citing experts, and "fact checkers" supposed efforts to debunk statements such as I am about to make, look at the raw data yourself. Conclusion:

1) We have not isolated and purified the Covid-19 strain of viral RNA.
MORE »
Posted by on

Overturning the argument that the rate of increase in CO2 is a threat to life, using two quick Google searches.



*NB I do not subscribed to either of these "facts" neither do think petroleum or any  hydrocarbons are "fossil fuels". Those are irrelevant, the point is to highlight that the consensus science climate change agenda is easily exposed as nonsense even if only using consensus science itself. The bonus is that it won't get you censored (the downside is its usually wrong)
 

Posted by on
Index , , , ,

Comprehensive peer reviewed paper published on Covid-19 handling. It looks exhaustively at sociological precedents and curtailing of liberties to make a sobering conclusion.



Preface: I'm hosting this peer reviewed, published (Feb 2021) scientific paper after reading each and every word of it. It is probably the defining scientific analysis of the mess we find ourselves in today, at least that I I am aware of. Its exhaustively and meticulously researched, outstandingly well referenced and structured with rigorous scientific discipline and academic fortitude. I cannot highlight enough just how difficult this is in the science/sociological/political/cultural grey area. They have cleverly cited Covid-19 as a background to which the main theme of hysteria is explored. This is genius and gives them alot  more scope than they otherwise would have had. They don't even use innuendo because the points all make themselves.

To best frame what I perceive its value is I must first highlight what I can see is missing. This paper states upfront and throughout that its fundamental assumption is one of a reaction to circumstance, opportunism and fear. This is the case with some past cases of hyteria, and by implication herefore the current hyteria. I know this is not in fact the reality. I know that the evidence of orchestrated collusion of special interests and a scripted, as well as opportunistic handling of affairs is overwhelming. After reading this based on how well reasoned and structured it is I have become convinced that at least one, probably more, of these authors understand this and for reasons of political expediency have chosen the path of least resistance allowing them to bring all sorts of well reasoned and undoubtedly true information together to make a compelling case without jeapordizing peer review or risking a smear campaign which would render all of this research in vain.

Its an art to walk these sorts of metaphorical tightropes, and this research certainly has its place. I have learned from it and perhaps you will to, even if its value as a collection of references to yet more academic research on the matter is more valuable to you. I will be mining this for sources for years to come.

The link under the hosted portion of this paper is to the public database at NCBI.

You can find the original at The International Journal For Environmental Health And Public Affairs HERE listed as free, I'm not to sure about what stays free and for how long.

MORE »
Posted by on
Index , , , ,
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)

Labels

Search This Blog

Your Feedback

Name

Email *

Message *