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.
I just heard on the radio that there was another month of record heat—so, we had best step up our climate emergency measures!
In fact, as the graph shows, the percentage of readings above 90 °F in the U.S. in August was well below normal—the 25th lowest since 1895.
So, what are our officials doing?
Continuing to push for replacing our cars with electric vehicles—even though if all countries reached their EV goals by 2030, the reduction in CO2 emissions would only reduce average global temperature by 0.0002 °C by 2100
The world may become warmer, or cooler, without regard to U.S. or global emissions of CO2, but your home might be very much colder in winter if you are unable to heat it. Be sure to include this in your emergency preparedness.
Mylar blankets and sleeping bags are much advertised. They have their uses—they are excellent reflectors of heat—but are not as miraculous as claimed. For expedient cold survival, see the chapter on improvised clothing and protective items in Nuclear War Survival Skills. As Steve Harris points out in the 2022 updated version (see below), newspaper and paper grocery bags may be hard to find these days, but notebook paper will work, as will foam filling from cushions and car seats. Be sure to have lots of large plastic trash bags!
Summer is over—not too soon to think about winter!
A continuous increase in CO2 emissions from burning coal, oil, and natural gas has not been accompanied by an increase in violent storms. Your ICE (internal combustion engine) and millions of others are not guilty.
A couple of cautions about EVs:
Don’t use one as your evacuation vehicle. You might be stuck in traffic for a long time with nowhere to recharge.
The power may be out at the recharging station.
High storm surges are expected. And salt water flooding can turn a lithium battery into a “ticking time bomb.” Residual salt within the battery or battery components can form conductive “bridges” that can lead to short circuit and self-heating of the battery, resulting in fires. The time frame in which a damaged battery can ignite has been observed to vary widely, from days to weeks, according to the U.S. Fire Administration. Fires are extremely difficult to extinguish.
If you are in an area where a hurricane is predicted, be ready, and do not wait until the last second to evacuate.
Have your ICE vehicle fueled and packed. Have your EV parked on high ground especially near a body of salt water.
Even if you don’t expect to evacuate, stock up on things you need.
Have plenty of light sources—candles, lanterns, flashlights, headlamps, and spare batteries.
Have a radio that does not depend on the electric power grid to get weather and emergency reports.
U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken says that the potential threat of nuclear war is no more dangerous than the “existential problem of climate change.”
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moved the hands of the Doomsday Clock forward to 90 s before midnight, reflecting what it considers the growing risk of nuclear war. And a number of medical journals, including Lancet and JAMA Network are simultaneously publishing articles that urge health professionals to alert the public and our leaders to the major danger to public health posed by nuclear weapons. The ultimate goal of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) and others is to eliminate nuclear weapons, and meanwhile to “urge all states involved in current conflicts to pledge publicly and unequivocally that they will not use nuclear weapons in these conflicts.”
Neither NATO nor Russia appears to be inclined to make such a pledge—instead, they remind each other of the threat as provocations escalate. Moreover, Russia is suspending a landmark nuclear arms control treaty and announcing that new strategic systems have been put on combat duty.
A summer blockbuster, Oppenheimer, has aroused more fears of nuclear fallout.
In case you hadn’t heard of it, a radiological emergency response effort is quietly being worked on by a complex array of U.S. federal agencies. Medical countermeasures for acute radiation sickness are being developed and stockpiled.
But efforts to prevent radiation exposure to civilians are self-help. Some fire departments are using the 60-second training card below—possibly the only nuclear training they receive. A simple safe/not safe monitor, which uses a chemical that changes color when exposed to ionizing radiation, is being offered to first responders by a private nonprofit, Physicians for Civil Defense and can be purchased.
The UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is still predicting warming, of 1.5 (not nearly 85!) °C, but its new chairman Jim Skea said “it was not helpful to imply” that such a change posed an “existential threat to humanity.”
Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) asks U.S. Special Envoy for Climate John Kerry how much global temperature would drop if we spent $100 trillion to reach zero emissions by 2050. Kerry could not answer. The effect would not be measurable. Your air conditioner, car, gas stove, and hot shower are making no difference whatsoever. Neither are Kerry’s junkets by private airplane, but why not stop his emissions first?
I hope you are staying well-hydrated and protecting your skin from excess sun exposure. There are real dangers from heat exhaustion and skin cancer.
A graph published in the Lancet warned of the dangers of heat waves—but distorted the comparison between hot and cold temperatures by changing the units on the axis. There’s not unprecedented heat, so why the fearmongering?
If you are not able to sweat normally, there is an increased risk of heat exhaustion. Causes include skin or nervous system disorders, connective-tissue disease, and certain drugs, such as antidepressants and opioids.
Of course, you should wear protective clothing or use sunscreen if you will be heavily exposed to sunlight to reduce the risk of skin cancer. But some exposure is needed to make vitamin D.
The calculation may not include increased carbon dioxide emissions from fires, such as the huge cargo ship fire in the North Sea caused by an EV. Some apartment buildings won’t allow you to park your EV in an underground garage. Such fires are extremely hard to control.
Pay attention to the other side of the graph: deaths from cold. Winter is coming!
