A color photograph of “the awesome fireball” from a test of a hydrogen bomb (what Edward Teller called “the Super”) appeared on the cover of the Apr 19, 1954, issue of Life magazine (20 cents). It resembles photos of the sun.
The first page of the article quotes President Dwight D. Eisenhower, concerning fears raised by the threatening aspects of the world, including the H-bomb. “The greater these apprehensions, the greater is the need that we look at them clearly, face to face, without fear, like honest, straightforward Americans….”
The editorial is titled “The Christian Hope” with subtitle “It will not save civilization except by saving the soul of the individual.” It stated that there was little evidence of desperation. The suicide rate showed no meaningful trend. “The general fear of annihilation by H bomb is not desperate; it takes the form of barking for action, as you would expect of any healthy animals whose instinct of self-preservation is unimpaired.”
It noted that “the doctrine of automatic progress, which so warped the 19th Century’s picture of itself, has all but vanished.” It quoted St. Paul’s admonition that “For when they shall say Peace and safety, then sudden destruction cometh.”
Have you noticed an increase in your utility bills?
Hopefully, you are not in the position of having to choose whether to heat or eat, as so many are, especially in Europe.
Part of the increased bill is the deteriorating value of the dollar (inflation). But there is an increasing component from replacing abundant, affordable energy with supposedly clean, green “renewables,” as shown in the graph.
How can this be? Aren’t sunbeams and breezes free? Of course, they are, but the technology needed to collect the energy and transmit it where it is needed is very costly. Promises to save money and create good jobs were false. The initial low costs depended on government (taxpayer) subsidies. Promoters such as Al Gore have gotten very rich. But when the subsidies run out, companies go bankrupt. Solyndra is only one example.
Solar panel start-up Solyndra was the first company to get government-backed loans from the 2009 stimulus bill—the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), collecting $535 million and receiving a $25 million tax break from California’s agency for alternative energy, according to Forbes. Auditors at OpentheBooks.com compiled a list of many others.
New York offshore wind projects are being scrapped, and Siemens, the world’s second-largest turbine manufacturer has been declared “uninvestible,” according to NetZero Watch. The idea of 66,000 MW of offshore wind capacity in the US and UK by 2030 has been called “an expensive fantasy.”
Medical organizations need to include the increased costs of energy in the Social Determinants of Health (SDOH).
From the meeting of the public health committee of the Pima County Medical Foundation:
Update on COVID-19 vaccines:
DNA contamination of COVID vaccines is discussed in the winter issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (https://jpands.org/vol28no4/orient.pdf).
Dr. Steven Hatfill’s article on the need for accountability concerning the U.S. pandemic response appears in the same issue (https://jpands.org/vol28no4/hatfill.pdf). Dr. Hatfill just spoke at the COVID summit in Bucharest, Romania. He viewed Dr. Ryan Cole’s pathology slides showing severe Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease post-vaccination, and he fears that prion disease may turn out to be a late complication of COVID vaccines.
Dr. James Gruhl reported on recent articles about frameshifting in protein synthesis owing to the pseudouridine in vaccine mRNA (for which the Nobel Prize was recently awarded). The consequences are unknown, but could occur late.
Update on nuclear war:
The December issue of Scientific American concerns updating the U.S. nuclear arsenal.
The effects of low-dose radiation are greatly overstated.
Proposed “Sacrifice Zones”—using upgraded land-based missiles as a “sponge” to absorb a Russian strike is an obsolete, likely impossible idea—the most credible threat is bombs planted by terrorists in key Western cities as a deterrent to retaliation.
Casualties could be minimized by knowledge and preparedness and maximized by panic and disinformation.
The radiation terror campaign continues in the December 2023 issue of Scientific American on “The New Nuclear Age” (http://tinyurl.com/5exwpywd). As has become typical with this once excellent magazine, beautiful illustrations and some fascinating articles are mixed in with politicized commentaries, and certain assumptions are not to be questioned: safe-and-effective vaccines, nonexistence of an intelligent designer, and catastrophic human-caused climate change. Doubts or skepticism (“denialism”) are “conspiracy theories” and “antiscience ideology.” And nuclear weapons are an existential threat, a nuclear attack is nonsurvivable, and tiny radiation doses are deadly.
“The U.S. is beginning an ambitious, controversial reinvention of its nuclear arsenal. The project comes with incalculable costs and unfathomable risks.”
A major part of the $1.5 trillion program to build up the U.S. nuclear arsenal is to refurbish the land-based part of the “strategic triad.” Upgraded missiles are to be planted in hundreds of silos across five states, “to serve as a ‘great sponge’ to soak up enemy missiles,” states the article on “Sacrifice Zones.” During the Cold War, “the air force used the vulnerability of the land-based missiles to argue for their necessity.” The enemy would use up resources that could otherwise be used to attack military targets, infrastructure, or cities. It is claimed that such an attack would “annihilate all life in the surrounding regions,” cause several million fatalities across the U.S. from acute radiation exposure if people had advance warning and adequate shelter for four days, and twice as many if they did not (they don’t).
I hope you are able to afford travel, good meals, and warm indoor temperatures over the Christmas holiday.
Such joys may soon be too expensive for most—in large part from regulations to “fight climate change.”
The climate change hypothesis depends on the statement that atmospheric CO2 levels, as measured at Mauna Loa, are constantly increasing, whereas they fluctuated around 280 ppm from 1800 until around 1957. However, more than 90,000 direct measurements of CO2 by textbook chemical methods, described in 380 technical publications, were made between 1812 and 1961. Maxima occurred around 1825, 1857, and 1942, as shown in the graph, with 1942 being around 400 ppm.
As Ernst-Georg Beck wrote in 2007, these early direct measurements have been criticized, except for the ones that agree with the climate-change narrative, and the IPCC now relies exclusively on indirect measures from air trapped in ice cores for values prior to 1957. From his detailed analyses, Beck concludes that: “It is indeed surprising that the quality and accuracy of these historic CO2 measurements has escaped the attention of other researchers.”
Beck observes that the close relationship between CO2 and temperature is consistent with a cause-effect relationship, but does not indicate which is the cause and which the effect. Ice-core data showing that changes in temperature precede the change in CO2 concentration argues that temperature forcing controls the CO2.
The climate-change Grinch aims to control everything, not just Christmas.
Even if the earth is not the hottest ever, should we not worry about the recent rate of change? Should we not follow the agreement from the Conference of Parties for the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), COP 28?
For a longer-term perspective, see the graph below:
We can see that increases this rapid and sharp occurred long before humanity existed, and that they generally did not continue. Nor is there evidence that current warming has been harmful. Fewer people die from excess warmth than from excess cold, plants grow better when they are warm, and there have not been more climate-disaster-related deaths.
There is also no evidence that reducing carbon dioxide emissions would affect the trend. That is a hypothesis based on models, which so far have failed.
Over the past 30 years, trillions have been spent on wind and solar, and the world’s dependence on hydrocarbon fuels has only decreased from 87% to 82%.
At the recent COP 28 in Dubai, chaired by Sultan al-Jaber, the chairman said that phasing out fossil fuels would send humanity back into caves. Nevertheless 100 countries promised to do it.
We hear about deadlines for replacing gas stoves, cars with an ICE (internal combustion engine), and coal-fired electricity. Campaigns are becoming more aggressive. The EU has an end-of-life vehicles directive that calls for seizing your car and scrapping it if it cannot meet climate directives. But global use of coal, oil, and natural gas is still increasing:
One problem for the greens is that wind and solar producers are struggling or going bankrupt. Another is NIMBY-type resistance from citizens. An insurmountable barrier is the requirement for metals vs. production capacity, as shown in the table below. In the U.S., it takes years to get a permit to open a copper mine because of environmental issues. There is only one rare-earths mine in the U.S. Ask your political candidates or Net-Zero advocates in your local government what they suggest doing about this.
As yet another “booster” dose of Covid vaccine is being rolled out, yet only 2 percent of Americans have opted to take it, a number of observations are being made:
We are seeing frequent reports of “turbocancers”—tumors that are rare, unusually aggressive, or occurring at an unusually young age. The vaccine evidently suppresses a factor that suppresses tumor growth.
“Shedding” appears to be a real phenomenon, in that symptoms may occur in persons exposed through skin contact with a vaccinated person up to 2 weeks post injection. The maximum seems to be in the first 48 hours.
Microclotting has been observed in vaccine recipients through electron microscopic examination of the blood—a test that is not generally available.
UK data shows enormous increases in excess early deaths in COVID jab recipients, which is greater with more injections.
The whole rationale of mass vaccination against a growing number of diseases needs to be reexamined. We should instead be researching treatment methods, and prevention by strengthening health. Reportedly it was said that drug company profits could be significantly increased if the mean vitamin D3 level could be kept below 25 ng/mL.
The general public is losing trust in American health institutions, after the COVID reversals and “mistakes,” in other areas such as cancer treatments, sepsis, infections, vaccinations, etc. These are now being looked at with a fresh skeptical perspective by researchers and the public and foreign countries who just used to rely on the U.S. for “science.”
Nuclear fuel has more energy per kilogram than any other fuel. A 100-watt light bulb can be lit for only 1.2 days on 1 kg wood, 3.8 days on 1 kg coal, 4.8 days on 1 kg oil, and 25,700 years on 1 kg uranium.
Since Germany has forsworn nuclear energy and has lost access to cheap Russian gas, and its Energiewende to wind and solar has proved so costly and unreliable, it is clear-cutting forests and mining lignite (the dirtiest form of coal) to keep warm, while deindustrializing.
If the “Net Zero” forces were primarily concerned about reducing CO2 emissions rather than some other agenda (destroying capitalism, impoverishing the U.S., reducing the human population, some other goal they do not wish to openly promote), should they not be advocates for nuclear energy?
Additional information:
Robert Zubrin, The Case for Nukes: How We Can Create a Free, Open, and Magnificent Future, Doctors for Disaster Preparedness, 2023
The Washington Post reports that “a rapid surge in global ocean temperatures in recent months is raising the specter of a climate pattern shift that could accelerate planetary warming and supercharge trends that already are fueling extreme storms, deadly heat waves, and ecological crises on land and sea.”
There was a “spike” in global average surface ocean temperatures since early March—of about 0.2 °C. We “just know” that as atmospheric greenhouse gases increase, “the planet will continue to set new climate and weather precedents, and oceans will grow ever hotter,” said Michael McPhaden, a senior scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
When the earth was ice-free, the deep ocean temperature was up to 16 °C warmer than now. We have been in a global cooling trend since the Eocene Thermal Maximum 50 million years ago, when the ancestors of all existing species lived, states Patrick Moore.
What caused these tremendous changes? Not prehistoric combustion of “fossil fuels”! Transfer of heat by ocean currents was colossally changed by tectonic shifts that rearranged continents and blocked currents, as explained by geoscientist Tom Gallagher. There have been two states of climate on earth: the default condition: dry, dusty, cold, and glacial, and the current condition: wet, warm, non-glacial times when vegetation and civilization thrive.
There have been recent variations in ocean temperature, though it is difficult to distinguish cyclical from secular trends when there is very little reliable direct measurement data until quite recently. There was major heating of the oceans early in the 20th century. Then they cooled, and now we’re barely back to 1950s levels.
Could this warming have been caused by slight differences (< 1 °C) in atmospheric temperature? That is absurd. Water has a very high heat capacity. The heat content of the oceans increased by 400 zetajoules (zeta means 1021) over 50 years. Over that period, human consumption of energy was 22 ZJ. The estimated energy of the world’s total fossil-fuel reserves as of 2010 was only 40 ZJ, as pointed out by Willie Soon (see video from Doctors for Disaster Preparedness 41st annual meeting at about 7:49 minutes).
Compared with natural forces, human production of CO2 and its possible effect on climate is negligible. Regulating meat eating, methane production by cows, nitrogen release from farming, transportation fuels, and electricity production will devastate human populations and living standards—with zero impact on ocean temperature.
We are not “boiling the oceans,” despite Al Gore’s claim at the World Economic Forum in Davos in January 2023.
Additional information:
“The Week That Was,” Science and Environmental Policy Project, www.sepp.org.
