Category: science

I must admit, I never quite grasp the science behind these apocalypse predictions dealing with climate change considering that science as it is, has the world upside down.

Begins with the premise that what we need is a colder planet never mind the fact that more people die in colder weather than warmer. A 2014 study by the Department of Health and Human Services found that for everyone who died in hot weather, two died in colder weather.  This was similar to what the EPA saw and Lancet reviewed data from 384 locations and found that people died in wintry weather by a 15 to 1 ratio.    So, there is no rationale to lower the planet temperature.

The other aspect that if CO2 is so bad, what explains how we can be able to increase food production and better diets while the CO2 has increased? Or how we have seen the number of people living in poverty dropping and health indexes despite warming weather?  Could it be that maybe a little CO2 is good for the planet or for humanity? Or a warming planet is good for the planet?

 The World Bank and other organizations estimated we will be 450 percent rich by the end of the century so if the worse scenarios are reached, we will be only 434 percent richer which is hardly a crisis. 

The solutions to climate change by the alarmist are worse than the actual problem.   Some solutions include:

1. Geoengineering to block portions of the sun from reaching the planet, now what could go wrong. A colder planet means shorter growing season.
2. Reducing yields of agriculture means massive starvation. One study shows that organic farming will feed 4.7 billion and fertilizer including fossil fuels which is what we are doing will feed twelve billion people. The world population is eight billion, you do the math.  Climate solution for farming will not be able feed forty percent.
3. The elimination of fossil fuels will hamper economic prosperity and the energy provided by fossil fuels has led to unprecedented economic growth worldwide. Eliminating means returning our economy to the 19^th century.  Massive poverty is hardly a solution.
4. The attack on the free market will only increase worldwide poverty and increase famines. 
5. Then there are the trivial things like no gas grill, eliminate your “gas guzzling car” for electric cars, less airfare among other things to make your life sucks,

So, if your solution to a problem is to kill of 40 percent plus of the world population is not a solution but mass murder and genocide.   

The battle between Robert Kennedy, jr. and Dr. Peter Hotez is intriguing since it brings out in the open the disastrous policy followed during the recent pandemic and in which Dr. Hotez supported those disastrous policies.

The pandemics as many recent studies shown, failed to stop the infections, did little to save lives and may have killed more through failure to treat chronic illness effectively, loss of education for children, loss of jobs and businesses, led to greater inequality and fail to stem the infection. Peter Hotez may have accused RFK of misinformation but when it came to the coronavirus and the vaccine mandates, it could easily be said that it is Hotez and other lockdown proponents were guilty of misinformation.

The vaccine proved to be disappointing in both efficacy and prevention of transmission. Novak Djokovic was one of those victims of the vaccine mandates as he was denied entrance into the United States while he was striving to become the Greatest Tennis Player of all time. While he recently got his 23^rd, he may have been robbed of other opportunities to extend his record to exceed even the woman champion Margaret Court and tied presently with Serena Williams record of the Open Era. The irony is that he had natural immunity and that was sufficient to be allowed to compete.

RFK, Jr. opposition to this vaccine and to the mandates was based on science as we now know. The problem that arises is not just a debate about vaccines but the entire process in which those skeptics scientist who challenged the narrative about Covid and ended up themselves being attack. Dr. Hotez and others must admit they were wrong about the virus, the lockdowns and its impact and the vaccine and its efficacy.  Hotez along with Fauci and Birks were wrong on much and yet they have failed to acknowledge their mistakes that not only cost millions their job, their education and even their lives but they also destroyed their credibility and the credibility of science. It is time now for a day of reckoning and a commission to review the mistakes made so we do not repeat them again. 

A couple of stories caught my eyes dealing with Climate Science and energy production. The first story, the Artic Ocean was ice free 10,000 years ago during the summer as NoTrickZone observed, “Researchers from Aarhus University, in collaboration with Stockholm University and the United States Geological Survey, analyzed samples from the previously inaccessible region north of Greenland. The sediment samples were collected from the seabed in the Lincoln Sea. They showed that the sea ice in this region melted away during summer months around 10,000 years ago.”  Nor is there any guarantee that Artic Ocean will be ice free in the future even though the authors view this as a possibility within this century.  NoTrickZone quoted the authors, ““Climate models have suggested that summer sea ice in this region will melt in the coming decades, but it’s uncertain if it will happen in 20, 30, 40 years, or more. This project has demonstrated that we’re very close to this scenario, and that temperatures only have to increase a little before the ice will melt,” says Christof Pearce, Assistant Professor at the Department of Geoscience, Aarhus University.” 

The researchers used data from the Early Holocene to predict future possible thawing of the Artic ocean, but they had to acknowledge that the summer temperature were higher than today, nor can you blame human intervention or higher CO2 since CO2 levels were actually lower.  The authors cannot judge if this will be good or bad for the climate, but they take the negative perspective since that is how one gets published today.  Even if the study puts in question the narrative that human activity is the main driving force behind present climate changes since it is obvious that past melting of the Artic was driven by natural variability.

NoTrickZone, P Gosselin noted, “Despite the undisputed powerful natural factors and cycles at play in the Arctic, some researchers take a more alarmist or even hysterical view of what the future holds. For example, warning that greenhouse gas emissions are heating up the planet, Christof Pearce said, citing dubious model results: “The study is a wake-up call, because we know that it will happen. This news is not making the situation more depressing, just more urgent. We have to act now so we can change it.”  If this study shows that natural variability is responsible for this past change, what can humans truly do?

The second story makes the case the demise of fossil fuels in particular natural gas may be exaggerated.  The author Terry Etam noted, “Here’s a 2023 headline from an anti-hydrocarbons website: “China, India lead US$534 billion global gas pipeline build out.” The article notes that globally, over 59,000 kilometres of transmission pipeline are under construction and an additional 151,000 kms are proposed (for reference, the earth’s circumference is 40,000 kms).”

Throughout the world, new natural gas pipelines are being developed, estimated to be five times the earth circumference.  While many have predicted the end of fossil fuel, but the world is acting otherwise as natural pipeline are increasing and coal plants are being built in China and India. 

Etam observed about Africa, “This is from the Gas Exporting Countries Forum, of which many members are African: “Unfortunately, the issue of African energy access has rarely been reported or prioritized, despite African energy consumption per capita being the lowest globally. In light of the need for a secure, affordable, and sustainable energy source to fuel economic growth and alleviate poverty in Africa, all the available energy options will continue to be relevant…the abundance of natural gas and the proven efficiency of combined cycle gas turbines (CCGTs) in power generation make it a suitable complement to renewables in Africa’s just transition plan.”  Africa dependence on wind and solar will not work without fossil fuels.  The era of fossil fuels are far from finished.

I will admit that I am skeptical of the role humans play in climate change, but there are those less skeptical who will admit that coming climate change is manageable, not the serious problem we supposed it to be.

Let begin with the reality is that climate alarmists believe that the planet is overpopulated, and the industry required to keep this population fed and clothes is causing damaging climate warming that will cause massive famine and drought.

The problem with argument is that much of the past century proves the complete opposite.  As the planet warmed and the CO2 levels increased, the planet actually prospered as we ended up feeding more people better diets and millions left poverty to a middle-class life.  Realistically speaking, the alarmist can’t even prove that additional CO2 or warming is even bad, and a better case can be made that is actually good for the planet.

The solutions being proposed are the equal of the famous line in Vietnam, “We destroyed the village to save it.”   The alarmist mind set is similar, we will destroyed the planet to save it.  Their solutions will do exactly that.

The first aspect is the elimination of fossil fuels, but they have to develop substitute for fossil fuels and the most efficient replacement, nuclear energy, they oppose.  They support the least efficient form of energy solar and wind which can’t operate when the sun don’t shine, or the wind doesn’t blow.  Without back up from fossil fuels, these renewables are incapable of fueling modern economy.

The alarmist policies will make both food and energy policy more expensive, reducing its availability for billions of people.  We saw this in Sri Lanka when the government followed the advice of the climate alarmist ESG polices the country went from being food exporter to food importer, the economy and government collapsed.  Netherlands in attempt to reach EU carbon neutral goals have forced farmers to close farms and Canada is following up with similar stupid ideas.  These policies, happening in nations who are substantial food exporters, will reduce the yield of food produced and raise prices.  The first victim will be those who are dependent upon these exports and many in the third world will have less food and more starvation.  Billions will die as result of these policies, not by changes in climate.  Without fossil fuels, the ability to get food to the market will be compromised as those vehicles responsible will be eliminated.

The restriction of fossil fuels production in the United States have led to a rise in energy prices, and as Alex Epstein noted, we have only seen 1 to 2 percent of what the climate alarmist wants and created an energy emergency. Imagine what if we get the whole plan they want to do.

Fossil fuels are needed to expand food supplies and reduce them will lead to the opposite.   When climate alarmist claims that changes in climate will lead to massive famine, that is wrong. It is the policies that will lead them.  In the past century, famines were not the creation of climate but government policies.  They were man-made phenomenon and these policies recommendation to reduce farming yields will create man-made famines.

The other aspect of climate alarmists is that they want a colder climate even though a colder climate will lead to shorter growing season and more famine.  They are even thinking of geo-engineering by attempts to block sunlight to create a colder planet.  More people normally die in colder weather than warmer weathers, so you have to ask why to create or desire a colder climate?

You have the Biden administration and various Democratic government wanting to eliminate combustible cars in favor of electric car.  Considering there are significant disadvantages to electric vehicles just as charging time, overall limitation in miles specifically in colder weather and are more expensive. With less range and priced out of many Middle-income Americans budget, many Americas will find their personal travel options limited.  The elimination of gas-powered car will hamper the ability of many Americans to advance economically.   The battle over natural gas stove oven is another battle that will increase the cost of cooking a meal for many Middle Class.

The solutions we are hearing are about reducing our living standards and destroying the economic system responsible for our economic growth to begin with.  These solutions are anti-people and not pro-environment since they do little to help the environment or reduce CO2 emission. 

Marc Morano and others made the case that the pandemic emergency were a dress rehearsal to declare a climate emergency to force changes.   The reality is that pandemic lockdown were a complete failure by every measure.  We saw lost incomes, small businesses forced out of business, children not getting educated and many people failed to follow up on treatment for serious health issues.  When you add various variables, no lives were save in lockdown states or countries versus those who did not lockdown or open up their economy earlier, but they fell behind economically and children suffered in education with minorities and the poor suffering the worse.  Hundreds of millions of people worldwide were put on the verge of starvation. 

If you repeat this on with a climate change emergency, you can substitute hundreds of millions to billions on the verge of starvation.  Much of the scientific community who favored the lockdowns, did so based bad or manipulated data and skeptics were proven right.  Much of climate science has serious flaws and their solutions are worse than the problem they diagnosed.  The scientific community showed serious flaws as they prized consensus over science during the Covid pandemic and they are no different from climate science where consensus is prized over science.  The solutions proposed will produced billion of deaths, all man made.  We have more to fear from the solutions than a warmer planet. 

What the pandemic showed is that scientific process is messy with humans facing difficult choices.  During the pandemic, we had two roads, the first was to slow down any government response until what we were truly facing and the second road was to act immediately even when we didn’t have all the needed information.  Both choices meant hundreds of thousands would die but one road will preserve much of society and allow it to recover quickly.  The second road led to more deaths, unemployment, children not educated, and did not stop the spread of the virus.

We chose the latter, and it was a disaster.  Those who favored the first route of slowing down the process proved to be correct.  They were more correct about the nature of the virus, the lethality and which age group most impacted, and understood the damage the lockdown would do.  Many of the supporters of the lockdown have accepted many of the skeptic’s views. Dr.  Leana Wen acknowledged that maybe the CDC overcounted actual deaths from Covid and many like Emily Oster that they were wrong on many of the key issues of the pandemic.

Tony Fauci and his associates have done more to undermine science than anyone could ever have and Dr. Fauci exposed the underbelly of our scientific class that politics and power plays a role in how science really works. It is not about science and even following science, but about continuing  to support the narrative that those in power wanted.   It could take a generation for people to believe in science as they saw big science destroyed scientific debate with many suffering as a result and careers destroyed or threatened.  Millions lost their jobs first as the result of bad policies including lockdowns and later due to vaccine mandates, children uneducated and how many people will die prematurely from cancer or heart diseases?

For those interested in some of the climate alarmist ideas, here they are.

1. Create a race of small people, so you have eugenics, and will it stop at just size?
2. Geoengineering funded by Bill Gates to reduce the sun’s impact on the planet and make the planet colder, what can go wrong.
3. Jan Goodell once suggested that “climate change” would be relieved if we had the population of 500 years ago.  So, genocide has entered the climate debate for how do you get to this goal of reducing population this low without genocide? Nor has she been the only one.
4. Elimination of fossil fuels and no return to nuclear energy, you are talking a 19^th century economy.
5. Restrict the yield of farming and the elimination of husbandry. So, we are talking meatless society and smaller yield means less food. Less food combined with no fossil fuels means billions die of starvation.  Goes with reducing population and ends up with genocide.
6. Elimination or curtailing of capitalism combined with elimination of fossil fuels means less prosperity, more poverty, more starvation. Genocide.
7. Restricting freedom of speech and more authoritarian government.

Capitalism allows us to find solutions to future energy needs and survive whatever nature hits us with We have lowered death by 90 percent in extreme climate crisis like tornadoes and hurricanes.

The reality is that the solutions are far worse than even the worst-case scenario they come up and those scenarios are the least likely to happen.  So, the climate alarmists have managed to combine elements of eugenics, massive starvation, extreme poverty and for the survivors, a less free society.

Watching Davos, I come to one conclusion everyone who showed up agreed on all the major issues.  There was no actual diversity of ideas but a lot of stupid ideas.  There is Siemens Chairman Jim Hagemann who says we need at least one billion people eating bugs to save the planet from our climate crisis.   I wonder who those billion people are and where they live.  If you are poor or live in a developing country in Africa, you will get a diet of bugs. 

Then there is this “Government must act as investors of first resort to invite wider private sector interest and investment in technologies and sector with the highest potential to build the markets of tomorrow.”  The government will direct investments. They added “ With global demand for industrial products projected to grow significantly by 2050, the decarbonization of industry  is fundamental to the global energy transition.  Just five industries (cement and concrete, iron and steel, oil and gas, chemicals and coal mining) together are responsible for 80 percent of industrial emissions.”  These businesses will either be restricted or eliminated, industries that provide jobs for millions.

Never have so many people have so much of high opinion of themselves to be our better but yet support or come up with so many bad ideas.

No it is foolish thing to have economy based on 18 to 19th century technology. We have seen in the past 120 years, massive prosperity, and better health worldwide due to fossil fuels and yet in a slightly warming planet that is greener today than decades ago.

The question is that we are feeding more people better diets and no one can dispute that. As countries liberate their economy more freedom has happen to go with prosperity. The real lie is the “capitalist reset” that will mean less growth, less prosperity, more poverty.

I am not supporting economic stupidity or questionable science. There is one solution to any future climate issues that befalls us, innovations from free minds. We are seeing energy shortage and higher energy cost that is pushing many downward due to the bad policies.

Without fossil fuels, we don’t have our quality of life we have today and we won’t have our quality of life if we eliminates fossil fuels. Personally I prefer prosperity.

Trying to compare the tobacco industry to fossil fuels is plain stupidity. Without fossil fuels we don’t our quality of life. Fossil fuels produce wealth and improve our quality of life, allowed us to feed more people better diets and more people escaping poverty.

Here is the problem with the Lockdown and economic restrictions argument. First my opponents have yet to come to grips of the damage our response to overall society.

I haven’t even touched on other impact including additional suicides, drug overdose increases, chronic diseases not being treated, delayed in screenings for cancer and other diseases. There are more than enough data to show more people have died or will PREMATURELY DIE.

One critic wants us to take New York out as outlier, now that is cherry picking. When reviewing bigger states run by GOP and Democrat governors, we found Demographics, density and age were similar. Not only that the Democratic states may have had slight advantages.

States like Illinois and Pennsylvania have similar per capita death data to similar Republican states like Florida, Georgia, Texas and Ohio. And they have higher unemployment due to their policies.

So unless you can defend the higher unemployment by Democrat states (we are talking 30% higher on the average, look at the data ) was worth the sacrifice or the delay in opening the schools, the increase suicide and drug overdoses, then you have no legitimate argument.

Lockdown and economic restrictions in the loss of freedom, loss jobs and businesses failed in stemming the virus. That is not even no longer debatable.

Had a great exchange with Jason twitter and here is the exchange.

Jason: You’re definitely in the league of cherry-picking and manipulating data to support your cognitive bias, and no I am not in that league with you…agreed. Yet, your rebuttal doesn’t actual address my point. Redirecting the argument is not a “rebuttal”. Try again

Tom: I did rebut your arguments and that others. You have failed to respond to my arguments that the cost of lockdowns have been worse that dealing with the virus. Thanks for the response and will use your shallow thinking on my timeline on the failure of your thought process.

From here the tone changes

Jason: That is a different argument, and one I actually agree with you on. My point was in your depiction of infection and death rates. You disingenuously discount the fact that comparing Dem states (that have the most densely populated cities) is a false equivalence to Rep states.

Tom: I referred to studies that dealt with density of population, noted that many GOP bigger states have density and demographics to bigger blue states. Illinois and Pennsylvania are similar to Florida and other red states in per capita death.

Jason: When you use misleading data to build toward your ultimate point, your intended argument loses it’s validity and credibility. It’s unfortunate because you make some valid points…but it seems you need to take classes in argument structure.

Tom: You have missed my entire argument namely lockdowns failed to stem the infection and had higher cost to society. That was my argument and your friends failed to see that. Since you agree with them on this We may not be far apart

Jason: I’m not sure who my friends are that you are referring to. I agree with you that draconian restrictions did more harm than good in the grand scheme of things, but I think it’s a more nuance argument than what you are presenting.

Jason: I hear you. Twitter wars are futile, but I think we all need to be careful when making “seemingly” ideologic points

Tom: I was referring to Sean and Dennis who fail to see my larger point or respond to it like you are now doing. Normally I avoid twitter wars but since you are willing to look at overall data, this was worth while exchange. But I will add there are individuals like Andy Slavett who have refuses to see the damage of the lockdown.

Tom: My data is not misleading, and my argument is sound. Trust me, I had others validate my overall data. How would you make the argument?

Jason My argument, specific to population density, is that you cannot aptly compare a city like New York or Chicago to even the largest cities in red states. And even if you could, then your data should compare those cities as opposed to the states, otherwise the data is diluted

Tom: Good point but I chose states and we compared them in different ways as to ensure the best numbers possible

Tom: I am going to apologize to you since you understood my arguments but had serious question about methodology and allowed me to flush it out. Have a good day.

Jason: I appreciate that and thank you as well.

Jason had serious question about the data and we discussed my methodology. Unfortunately, these discussion end up in name calling. Certainly when some of tweeters question your intellect, do you get into a pissing contest? Jason challenge me and decided to go for it. Interesting conversation went from insults to serious discussion on methodology. I defended my methodology and he understood what I was doing. He made reasonable recommendations but I stand by our methodology and the general point. For me, it is not about just death per capita but the overall impact of the lockdown and economic restrictions.

Received interesting comments from all sides but no one has bothered to discuss the wide difference in unemployment and ask or answer the question, was the trade off of the lockdowns and economic restrictions worth the higher unemployment?

Updated data on states: among GOP governors, the average death per capita was 184 to 180 for Democratic states. That represent 2% difference. Top 8 populous states, There is 221 deaths per 100,000 in Democratic states vs 204 in GOP states. This represent a 8% difference-GOP.S

No real statistic difference in deaths but major differences in unemployment. Proof the Lockdowns failed in saving lives but economic damage was far worse.

Democrat run states had 20 per 100,000 less death but 2300 per 100,000 more unemployed. Overall 2 per 100,000 more people died from Covid in GOP states but Democrats had 2000 per 100,000 unemployed. That is the trade off.212S

Updated data on states: among GOP governors, the average death per capita was 184 to 180 for Democratic states. That represent 2% difference. Top 8 populous states, There is 221 deaths per 100,000 in Democratic states vs 204 in GOP states. This represent a 8% difference-GOP.

Put it this way. Among 50 states, there was 1600 per 100,000 more people unemployed under Democrat governors, 2100 per 100,000 in most populous states, and among Democratic control states, 2300 per 100,000 more unemployed for an average of 2000 per 100,000 per unemployed.

In the first study, 4 per 100,000 died from Covid in GOP states but they had stronger economy with 1600 more per 100,000 employed. Among bigger states, the GOP governors have lower death and lower unemployment.