Category: Press Release

Over the noise about the Trump guilty verdict, have you seen any reports about developments in the Russia/Ukraine war?

As Russia continues to make slow progress on the ground, longer-range weapons are being supplied to Ukraine, along with proposals to strike targets within Russia. The defense minister of the Netherlands said that Ukraine could use the F-16s it sends in any way it likes.

The top map shows the location of Russian early warning system (EWS) radars and the area over which they can detect an incoming ballistic missile. The lower one shows the area covered by two installations that were reportedly attacked. At least one is said to be out of action awaiting repairs.

A degraded EWS leaves a country subject to a decapitating strike. Cold War doctrine calls for a devastating response, which has so far not materialized. But against what? NATO is maintaining plausible deniability.

Ascending the escalatory ladder without dire consequences so far “has led to a situation where many western decision-makers sincerely believe they can act with impunity, totally disregarding Russian warnings, while considering the likelihood of nuclear war an impossibility.”

The U.S. has no system to destroy nuclear warheads about to impact an American city. The batteries of Nike missiles that used to ring cities in the 1950s (the Nike-Hercules was nuclear-tipped) were all decommissioned.

The Soviet Union did not abandon anti-ballistic missile defense using nuclear warheads. In 2001, Russia was said to have a de facto missile-defense network with at least 8,000 modern interceptors, tipped with small nuclear warheads that do not require bullet-hitting-bullet accuracy. As of 2020, there were plans to double the firepower capabilities of the system defending Moscow.

There are many unknowns about Russian and U.S. capabilities, and the long-lasting MAD doctrine credited with keeping the peace for decades is being challenged.

Presidential candidate Donald Trump said that nuclear annihilation is the real threat, in commenting on President Joe Biden’s recent speech, in which he said global warming posed the “greatest existential threat to our country.” Neither candidate is talking about strategic or civil defense. The Biden Administration has authorized Ukraine to use U.S. weapons for “limited” strikes within Russia.

Additional Information: D.I.Y. Civil Defense

I hope you are having a nice Memorial Day, celebrating the beginning of summer.  But do not forget that Memorial Day is about those who fell in war.

Americans tend to think that war is “Over There.” And that nuclear war is unthinkable, but if it happened, they erroneously think that it would inevitably wipe us out so there is nothing to do.

Some current events to consider:

• Russia is conducting tactical nuclear exercises in Belarus.
• NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg advocates lifting restrictions on the use of U.S. weapons against military targets inside Russia.
• One of Russia’s strategic “over the horizon” radars, designed to detect ballistic missiles launched from Western Europe, the Mediterranean, or the Middle East, was struck, apparently by an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV).
• Attacking a component of the strategic nuclear forces, which is considered an effort to facilitate a sneak attack, is forbidden by the rules of the Cold War. It could provoke a preemptive first strike.
• French president Macron has threatened to send French (not   NATO) troops to Ukraine and may have already done so. Direct involvement by NATO would be a major escalation.
• American ATACMS missiles were evidently used against a Russian S-300 battery in Donetsk. Analyst Will Schryver thinks this must be a “100% NATO operation”.

On another front, there is grave concern that Iran could develop a nuclear weapon “in a few years.” What if it already has a few? It has nuclear friends—and no one knows for sure what happened to all of the Soviet stockpile. It’s possible that the threat of exploding a nuke hidden in a world capital is a deterrent strategy.

Some use of a nuclear weapon, by accident or design, appears likely. No matter where it happens, worldwide radiation panic could ensue. Inform yourself about radiation effects. It’s best to have your own radiation monitor. The safe/not safe radiation detector card—retail price $45—will  be unobtainable once the panic starts. The best use for limited supplies is to equip first responders NOW. Ten can be obtained free for first responders who request them on organization letterhead (http://www.ki4u.com/products1.php).

Additional information:

• Guidelines for expedient dot monitors  
• Myths and facts about nuclear weapons: first two chapters (about 20 pp) of Nuclear War Survival Skills
• Don’t plan to die: The Good News about Nuclear Destruction YouTube

Are you more worried about climate change than nuclear war? In a Washington Post op-ed, George Will observes that negligible public anxiety accompanies the intensifying danger of global incineration from nuclear war.

Like most commentators, Will assumes that the only possible outcome after the first salvo is global extinction. He refers to journalist Annie Jacobsen’s March 2024 book Nuclear War: a Scenario. This revives the 1980s climate catastrophe theory of nuclear winter.

Continue reading “WW III: Ground Zero. Population: 5”

I hope that your spring is delightful, but are you worried about approaching summer heat? Do you plan to turn on air conditioning?

Many localities are pressing on with costly “green” initiatives, based on the alleged certainty of impending man-made warming crisis. The experts are claiming, with great confidence, a sudden increase in our understanding of climate, as the graph shows.

Climate change is not new, but has occurred throughout earth’s history, with dramatic changes in recorded history that had profound effects on human civilization. The graph shows reconstructions from a Greenland ice sheet. Of course, this is from just one location.

Al Gore and others present graphs of temperature together with carbon dioxide concentrations. They both go up and down. If we assume that a CO2 increase caused a temperature rise, an obvious question is: What caused the change in CO2? All the “don’t knows” could apply to that question. What we DO know is that it was NOT from burning coal or driving gasoline or diesel-powered vehicles before the Industrial Revolution.

It is a fact that more CO2 dissolves in cold water than warm water. Watch your carbonated beverage outgas as it warms. The changes in CO2 observed from ice cores agree with the amount expected from calculations of ocean outgassing with warming. Also, the rise in temperature comes BEFORE the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels. Hence, the causal connection is that increasing temperature leads to increasing CO2, not the other way around.

What caused the rise in temperature in Greenland? Don’t know.

Have the natural forces (solar irradiance, orbital changes, ocean currents, etc.) that caused past warming become irrelevant, so that changing the human-caused CO2 emissions thermostat will be the only decisive factor? I don’t think so, and neither do 32,000 other scientists.

Do you know what will happen to global temperatures and hurricanes and other weather events if you refrain from using A/C or driving your ICE (internal combustion engine)? Exactly nothing. What would happen if everybody in the world lived as virtuously as UN Agenda 2030 demands? Don’t know? Or exactly nothing? It is a purely hypothetical question.

We DO know what the Green agenda would bring: mass poverty and starvation. That is not hypothetical.

Additional information:

• CO2 Coalition: be sure to take the climate quiz!
• UN Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. Watch what your city and county governments are dolng: are they going to restrict your movements in a “15-minute city”? Expect you to bike in 110-degree heat?
• Make a chart of your gas and electric bills. What happens when “renewables” are introduced?
• Media Balance Newsletters

I hope you are not experiencing a power blackout during Arctic cold.

Such circumstances are chilling public support for an energy transition.

Climate-change policy advocates may claim that “renewables” (wind and solar) are not only clean but great for the economy. The only thing lacking, they say, is the “political will” to oppose the “fossil fuel” lobby.

Actually, there is a huge dollars-and-cents issue, as the figure shows.

Solar panels for your house or in decentralized applications might be affordable, and the fuel is free. But when the cost of integration into a centralized system is taken into account, wind costs between 7 and 14 times more than hydrocarbons, and solar between 10 and 44 times more, according to economist Peter St Onge.

Then there’s the effect of weather on weather-dependent systems, at times of increased demand.

On Jan 14, 93.6% of Alberta’s energy was produced by hydrocarbons (“fossils”) and 0% by wind or solar. To replace Alberta’s hydrocarbon generating capacity would require 11,043 wind turbines 727,615 acres of solar panels.

In June, the “hail-proof” solar panels at a multi-million dollar, 5.2 megawatt solar farm in Scottsbluff, Nebraska were mostly destroyed by baseball-sized hail moving at 100 to 150 miles per hour. The region has some of the highest frequencies of hailstorms in the country, averaging seven to nine hailstorms per year. Yet, the area is still building solar plants, driven by federal and state incentives to deploy renewable energy.

Political candidates and climate activist groups should be asked specific questions about costs, weather damage, environmental impacts, and waste disposal.

Additional information:

• Outsmarting wind and solar lobbyists
• Renewables the cheapest form of energy “only for investors”: stopthesethings.com
• Land and materials cost of Green New Deal
• Turbines wipe out raptor nests for 5 miles

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.
• See https://www.ddponline.org/2024/01/04/nuclear-scaremongering/#more-1139 for references and further information.

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.

Additional information:

• UK Met Office to ditch actual temperature measurements for model predictions.
• NOAA using fabricated temperature data from “ghost stations” closed years ago.
• Ice-core data shows temperatures 2.5 °C warmer in Viking age, 4,000 years ago.

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.

Additional information:

• Summary of important provisions in COP 28 final agreement and commentary by the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP, sepp.org)
• Commentary by Prof. Peter St Onge
• Reports from the NIPCC (Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change)

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.

Additional information:

• Defending your rights against wind and solar lobbyists
• Net Zero
• Fossil fuels required for wind turbine production
• Why can’t all states emulate California’s “clean energy” standards
• Energy storage requirements for “renewables”

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.”