‘Mr. [Prime Minister, President, etc.] with great respect, you are neither the king nor the ruler of [pick a country.] Both you and your colleagues are public servants sent for a short time to [Parliament, Congress, Bundestag, Diet, White House, Pink House, Kremlin, etc. ] at our behest as citizens to govern under God in terms of the [Charter, Constitution, etc.] and to seek a harmony of public legal interest. You do not grant people rights and responsibilities that are theirs as God’s image-bearers and a free people. Since you do not grant them, you have no authority to remove them.’
’Your government does not grant people the right to their bodily integrity, the right to work or earn a living, the right to decide for their children or to be with their families or dying loved ones, the right to gather to worship and obey God, the right to travel in their own land or enter and leave. Civil government exists to protect these pre-political and fundamental freedoms, not bestow and remove them as if it can function in the place of God.’
Slightly adapted excerpt from: An Open Letter to Justin Trudeau and the Federal Government
David Zurawik discusses controlling speech on CNN in response to Elon Musk buying Twitter. (Screenshot credit: Julio Rosas/Twitter)
Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter has made all the right people mad, and that includes a lot of the talking heads within the mainstream media. Initial reactions were as overwrought as you’d expect, with cable news setting its collective hair on fire.
But, if anyone thought the passage of time would bring about some moderation, I can assure you that hasn’t happened. CNN held a hilariously composed roundtable on Sunday morning with figures like Brian Stelter, April Ryan, and someone named David Zurawik. While obviously being an avid political observer, I’ll admit to having no idea who Zurawik is. Yet, my first exposure to him has certainly left an impression. Namely, that he’s deranged.
While discussing Musk’s acquisition, Zurawik lit into a hysterical rant about the supposed dangers of unabridged free speech. In doing so, he managed to give the game away on what about this deal is actually driving the media so insane.
The entire segment is bonkers, but here’s the money quote.
There’s a bigger problem here about how we’re going to control the channels of communications in this country.
And that’s what this is really about. All of the far-left Democrats sitting at that table are not actually worried about online harassment. They couldn’t care less about real disinformation, and they don’t lose a bit of sleep over supposed “hate speech” on social media. No, what this is really all about is controlling the prevailing narratives.
CNN and the like are used to having the deck stacked in their favor. They have special carve-outs that allow them to push essentially whatever they want without a second thought. The algorithms are bent to their will, they own the “fact-checkers,” and they rely on being able to dictate what gets traction and what doesn’t. While true stories on Hunter Biden get censored, their misleading tripe gets promoted to the trending list.
Musk is promising to take all that away. Worse for them, he’s promising to peel back the curtain and expose what’s been happening for years. The billionaire has already said an open-source algorithm is coming, and he’s also making transparency a priority in his decision-making. The left absolutely hates that. They don’t want to play by the same rules as everyone else, and now that they might have to, they are lashing out in more and more tyrannical ways. And keep in mind, that we are talking about a single platform here. That’s how spoiled they are by the bias that normally does their bidding. Imagine how they’d act if the playing field was leveled further?
I hate to be the one to have to break this to Zurawik and his friends, but they are the bad guys here. They are the ones losing their minds over the prospect that the government, colluding with huge corporations, might not have quite the same grip on the flow of information they’ve had in the past. It’s pathetic to see them get so worked up over Musk, who himself is fairly liberal. We already knew these people were worthy of scorn, but now they are just acting like children.
Still, this isn’t child’s play. This is serious, and pushing back on a news industry that is this desperate to stifle basic free speech is the prevailing issue of our time.
As Covid descended on California in March and April of this year, economies began to shut down and the debate raged over what businesses were deemed “essential.” There was a rather public dialogue between Elon Musk, the founder of Tesla, and Alameda County authorities regarding the forced shutdown of the Tesla plant in Fremont.
This dialogue we punctuated by a pithy tweet from Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez who describes herself as a Progressive Latina Democrat, “F*ck Elon Musk.”
At that time, we had no idea how much that tweet… and attitude… would cost us.
Elon Musk threatened to leave the state. The Governor was dismissive, saying “Elon Musk isn’t leaving California anytime soon.”
Six months later, Elon Musk has left California. He has sold (or is in process of selling) all his personal real estate in the state. He is now a resident of the state of Texas. He has moved his philanthropic foundation to Texas. One of his companies, Space X, is based in Texas and Tesla is building a new plant outside of Austin, TX.
Consider the unfathomable irony of progressive democrats forcing Elon Musk to give up on California. Musk came to this state as an immigrant and proceeded to do more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through Solar City and Tesla than all the “progressive” politicians in the state combined. Anyone can make a proclamation or talk about climate change. Musk didn’t talk about it. He simply brought products to market that benefitted the consumer, the environment, and his shareholders. He should have been the “poster boy” for the green agenda, but instead they turned on him because he refused to buckle to arbitrary regulations based on flimsy medical data. (By the way, automobile manufacturing is now deemed “essential” in CA.)
There is no way to know for sure what Mr. Musk will pay in California state tax this year, but it would surprise no one if he paid the most of any individual resident. Next year, he will be a resident of another state.
The damage goes much deeper than the tax revenue of one person. Musk didn’t just leave the state. He “turned” on the state. It is now his mission to get other innovators to leave as well. According to the Governor of Texas, he is on the phone with Musk once a week, strategizing about how to get other CA companies to relocate to Texas. In the last few weeks, Hewlett Packard Enterprise and Oracle have moth announced they are moving their HQs to Texas, with other potential moves in the pipeline.
That is not to say this was all caused by one tweet. Plenty of other factors are in play.
· Companies are realizing they don’t need a highly centralized HQ, with their employees being productive from wherever they choose to live.
· The high cost of living in the bay area…
· Governments inability to deal with highly visible issues like homelessness. Executives have grown tired to stepping over syringes and feces in the streets of San Francisco.
But the fact remains, CA state income tax is the highest, CA’s ranking for “business friendliness” is lowest, and we have elected representatives who would lob crass, vulgar f-bombs at the people who are paying the freight.
Half the tax in this state is paid by the top 1%, and many in that category are realizing they can make their living from anywhere. Try to add up the lost tax revenues of having the second wealthiest man in the world and the executive teams of great companies like HP and Oracle depart the state. We’re talking billions of dollars in lost revenue. Not to mention the philanthropy, which is gone too.
Any Progressive agenda only has value if someone can pay for it.
The next time the state raises your taxes to make up for the taxpayers who have left CA, try not to use the language employed by Ms. Gonzalez. But no one would blame you if you did…..
Listen and read the interview with Kelly Brothers at this link:
In an April 13 2022 editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) “Covid-19 Boosters — Where from Here?” Dr. Paul Offit MD starts with the obligatory praise for mRNA Covid-19 vaccines, but then abruptly switches to a very serious note of alarm about the continued use of boosters.
NEJM has been at the nexus of positive Covid-19 publishing. Its editorial board has the advantage of reviewing a broad sweep of Covid studies. The fact that they decided to publish a blunt warning is highly significant. The message for governments, medical professionals, and medical media commentators and explainers cannot be ignored or underestimated.
The editorial raises a number of questions:
“Unfortunately, studies did not stratify patients according to whether they had coexisting conditions. Therefore, it was unclear who among the younger age groups most benefited from an additional dose.”
In summary, boosters are not very useful for younger people who are healthy. This doesn’t sound very serious, but the NEJM went on to discuss the implications.
The continued universal use of boosters, in a misguided attempt to eliminate Covid, ‘will limit the ability of booster dosing to lessen transmission.’
The consequence, NEJM warned, are problems whose full extent and eventual outcomes are unknown:
“Boosters are not risk-free, we need to clarify which groups most benefit. For example, boys and men between 16 and 29 years of age are at increased risk for myocarditis caused by mRNA vaccines.”
“And all age groups are at risk for the theoretical problem of an “original antigenic sin” — a decreased ability to respond to a new immunogen because the immune system has locked onto the original immunogen….This potential problem could limit our ability to respond to a new variant.”
Original antigenic sin refers to the known possibility of ADE—antibody dependent enhancement of an illness. In essence, the immune system antibodies produced as a result of vaccination can in combination with new variants enhance the capacity of Covid to cause serious illness. This possibility arises because of the innate capacity of the Covid virus to adapt when faced with a highly vaccinated population—a known viral evolutionary pathway.
The editorial concluded with a message for governments:
“…educate the public about the limits of mucosal [mRNA Covid] vaccines. Otherwise, a zero-tolerance strategy for mild or asymptomatic infection, which can be implemented only with frequent booster doses, will continue to mislead the public about what Covid-19 vaccines can and cannot do.”
Facing reality is proving hard for our government
Is an editorial in a foreign medical journal cause for alarm? Yes, when it is the NEJM, the most conservative of medical journals, known for its unflinching support of modern medical orthodoxy.
Our worst enemy is complaisance and inaction. This was exemplified for me by a reply from an MP this week who says:
“I do get some comfort from the fact that smallpox and polio vaccines, do appear long term to benefit humans, and from my general reading there is hope and belief that the COVID vaccine will do the same….the vast majority of scientists involved provide me reassurance that the vaccine is safe and that the alternative of not vaccinating is simply not an option.”
In other words, he says there is no alternative except to carry on boosting, precisely the problem that the NEJM was warning against, which is leading down a road to a very uncertain and possibly very dangerous future.
As I travelled south towards Wellington yesterday, I passed kilometres of stationary cars going north stalled by a couple of traffic lights in Otaki. The $3.5 billion spent on the transmission gully motorway has delivered no improved travel time because the planners were perhaps not thinking far enough ahead and carried on regardless (and btw for the motorway enthusiasts after Otaki comes Levin, so should bypasses be the first priority?).
Do we carry on vaccinating against polio and smallpox every few months?—NO we do not. This one fact should have been sufficient to alert our MP that something is different about mRNA technology. Who are the medical experts advising our MPs, watering down the published Covid medical research results to the point of banality? Is our $64 billion spent on Covid so far well spent?
Calling a medical emergency in New Zealand
We know that both mRNA vaccination and Covid infection carry as yet unquantified long term risks of heart disease. Are we ramping up our capacity to treat heart disease? Apparently not. A correspondent in Palmerston North writes that she has been referred to a heart specialist by her GP, but the specialist replies he is too overwhelmed with cases to see her and refers her back to her GP. When is this Covid buck passing going to stop?
Heart disease is the number one killer in New Zealand. The apologia being trotted out by the media that myopericarditis following vaccination will turn out to be mild in the longer term without actual supporting research, does not amount to a credible medical policy.
We keep hearing anecdotal reports of our hospitals overwhelmed with cardiac cases. Are the reports real? The government is not publishing data, so we are left in the dark. Is the government failing to look or are they deliberately concealing information?
The situation is similar in the UK, information about alarming rises in cardiac cases is too hot to handle, so is it being covered up? Some data is coming out from individual hospitals. The NHS trust in the small UK seaside resort of Blackpool responded to a freedom of information request last week. Their cases of heart failure are up 400% on historical averages. Yes, 400%.
Who can turn the ship around?
We all have relatives or friends still insisting that our hospitals are full of the unvaccinated, that no one who is vaccinated has ever died, that the unvaccinated are endangering everyone, that international studies prove the vaccine works perfectly, and so on… All of which are remote from reality, yet without honest government and media messaging, polite rebuttals with references to actual data are met with outright denial and condemnation.
Only the government and mainstream media are in a position to convey the sober NEJM assessment of boosters to the public. Otherwise the public will remain stuck with boosters or bust misinformation. Continuing to publish misleading information about hospital statistics or myths that only mRNA vaccination of 100% of the population will stop the pandemic (as Stuff did this week) will only make it harder to institute reliable policies.
Mark Steyn of GB news called out the UK government Thursday this week with official UK statistics showing that boosted individuals are twice as likely to suffer infection, hospitalisation, and death compared to the unvaccinated, partially vaccinated and doubly vaccinated lumped together. This raises the possibility that Antibody Dependent Enhancement is already taking hold.
We are heading in that direction too, possibly just a few weeks behind, New Zealand statistics highlight increasing vulnerability of the boosted as each week goes by. This point is reinforced by increasing reports of multiple reinfections among vaccinated populations.
Time to call a medical emergency
This is a call for an energetic, robust and focused response to an evolving medical situation. A preparedness to consider and entertain views that were dismissed as unthinkable a few weeks ago.
Don’t trust my word, trust the New England Journal of Medicine which has sounded the alarm because our situation may be about to get much worse if the government continues to do and say as it has been so far.
Please forward this message to those in need of this officially sanctioned warning.
“The leading source of dis-information today, in the United States, is the United States government.” ~ Dan Bongino, former U.S. Secret Service, April 29, 2022. (On his podcast.)
Hey, there seems to be a magazine for everything. Why not this? It was done openly during the late colonial days and early days of the American republic.
“Plandemic” Producer Mikki Willis Speaks at DTLA in Los Angeles, Announces Release of Free Audiobook Version
by Joe Mcdermott on 04/29/2022 3:54 pm
Independent investigative filmmaker Mikki
Willis
LOS ANGELES, CA – Mikki Willis, the producer of the controversial documentaries Plandemic: The Hidden Agenda Behind COVID-19 and Plandemic: Indoctornation – who recently spoke at a “Defeat the Mandates” rally in Los Angeles – has announced he is releasing a free version of his book Plandemic: Fear Is the Virus. Truth Is the Cure, which contains a look at the makings of his two films he describes as “an exposé of the truth behind the origins of COVID-19.”
The Plandemic series is touted as being the “most seen and censored documentary in history,” and makes numerous controversial claims, such as vaccines being “a money-making enterprise that causes medical harm,” in addition to exploring themes of loss of free speech and free choice.
The Amazon page for Willis’ Plandemic: Fear Is the Virus. Truth Is the Cure describes the book as “A fascinating behind-the-scenes account about the making of Plandemic and Plandemic: Indoctornation; an exposé of the truth behind the origins of COVID-19; an alarming examination of individuals, such as Dr. Anthony Fauci and Bill Gates, and organizations like the CDC, NIH, WHO, and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, among others, driving the global vaccination agenda; and a look at the tech giant and mainstream media forces doing their utmost to silence and suppress the veracity of these findings.”
In an email newsletter, Willis claimed his book was already a “5 star best seller,” but despite its early success, he said he would be releasing an audiobook version of it for free… something that was always his intention to do.
“Thanks to you, Plandemic: Fear is the Virus. Truth is the Cure, is a 5 star best seller! But all that has come to an end. For the same reason I gave my Plandemic movie series away for free, I have decided to give away my audiobook,” he said. “The reason is simple. The information revealed in my movies and in my book does not belong to me. It belongs YOU, the PEOPLE. I recorded the Plandemic audiobook with the intention of giving it away!”
Willis explained his reasoning behind the giveaway of his explosive book, saying that it was never his intention to profit off of his documentary films and books.
“I’ve had numerous industry professionals try hard to convince me to monetize the Plandemic brand,” he said. “Here’s what I tell them: ‘If your home was robbed and I caught the thieves, how would you feel if I tried to sell your personal belongs back to you?’”
When the hardcover version of the book was released last year, Willis announced 100 percent of the profits would go to the development of a new youth mentoring program, known as The Pride. In the newsletter, Willis noted The Pride is already in its first quarter and the kids under its care are “thriving.”
Willis concluded by announcing that a third entry in the Plandemic series would be premiering in July 2022. Currently, he said that the film is in its final phase, with the final interviews being conducted before the editing process begins.
“This third installment of the series will rise above the cacophony of the COVID debate to focus on – the big picture, how we got here, how we get out, and the most viable solutions to protecting our children and rebuilding our lives, our communities and our nations,” Willis said.
The Pandemic series of books and films by Willis has been touted by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Founder of Children’s Health Defense, award winning investigative journalists Ben Swann, Lara Logan, and many others.
🔺Plandemic Creator Mikki Willis on The Great Awakening Happening Around the World “It Has to Get a Lot Worse Before It Gets a Lot Better” pic.twitter.com/iOV71D59wM
Economist Bjorn Lomborg, PhD provides useful information and links in his article (below). For that we can be grateful. However, his article contains a point of misinformation that is very important. He writes in Wall Street Journal, “Climate change is real and man-made; have no doubt about that.” While it is true that climate change is real. It is not true that climate change is man-made, and certainly not by man-made CO2.
Humans cannot change net global average atmospheric CO2 concentration. We can not increase CO2 concentration and we cannot decrease CO2 concentration at the global level. Therefore, the contribution of CO2 by humans has no effect on global temperature or climate change. CO2 from burning fossil fuels does not increase net global average atmospheric CO2 concentration nor change the rate of growth of CO2 concentration, nor increase earth’s temperature. CO2 concentration in air and CO2 concentration in water are determined primarily by Henry’s Law, the Law of Mass Action and Le Chatelier’s principle.
Physicists Roger Cohen, PhD and Professor William Happer, PhD explain carbonate chemistry in sea water in their September 18, 2015 paper titled, “Fundamentals of Ocean pH.” They point out, “This brief note is a quantitative review of the physical chemistry of ocean pH. High school chemistry and algebra should provide enough background to follow the discussion. An excellent introduction to the chemistry of the oceans can be found in the book: Seawater: Its Composition, Properties and Behavior, by Wright and Colling.” The following figure 6 is from the Cohen and Happer paper.
Figure 6: Nat, the number of moles of CO2 in the atmosphere, and Noc, number of moles of CO2 dissolved in the oceans, versus the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. The ocean alkalinity is [A] = 2.3 × 10−3 M and the temperature is T = 25 C. (Cohen & Happer, 2015)
We can see from this graph that the amount of CO2 (moles) in the oceans is much larger than the amount of CO2 (moles) in the atmosphere. (One mole is 6.023 X 1023 molecules.) Like soda pop or beer, if you heat or agitate water or seawater then CO2 gas is emitted into the air. Henry’s Law defines the ratio of the CO2 gas in the air above a liquid versus CO2 gas in the liquid for any given temperature.
Henry’s Law coefficient Kh is different for each gas and liquid combination. It can be calculated, but it is conveniently found in tables for various gas-liquid combinations and temperatures. 𝐾h (𝑇) = [CO2 (g)]/ [CO2 (aq)] The Henry’s coefficient times temperature in Kelvin equals stoichiometrically the moles of atmospheric CO2 gas divided by moles of aqueous CO2 gas. This is known as the Henry’s Law partition ratio, which is also known as the solubility of CO2 gas in seawater. Henry’s coefficient and partition ratio are dimensionless values which are independent of the source of the CO2 and independent of the amount of CO2.
Concentration is an extensive property of matter when there is only one phase of matter present, for example one gas phase or one liquid phase; the ratio of two concentrations is an intensive, dimensionless property of matter. The concentration of CO2 gas in air versus the concentration of CO2 gas in sea water is an intensive property of matter. When the two phases are in contact with each other, then the concentration within each phase adjusts to the Henry’s partition ratio. An example of an intensive property of matter is molecule weight. Increasing the amount of material does not change its molecular weight. Adding more CO2 to the air does not change the partition ratio of CO2 gas between the air and water. Adding more CO2 to air forces more CO2 to be absorbed into water so that the air/water ratio is maintained for a given temperature. And this is true whether the CO2 is in atmosphere, in rain, in water in soil, in lung and gill tissue, etc. Adding more CO2 to the air forces the phase-state equilibrium equation CO2(g) ↔ aqueous CO2(g) to the right, to the product side of the reaction. As more CO2 gas dissolves in seawater, in turn, that higher concentration of aqueous CO2(g) forces the CO2 hydration equilibrium equation to the right, so more CO2 gas ionizes and reacts with seawater to form either bicarbonate ions or carbonic acid.
The reactants in the CO2 hydration equilibrium equation are simply aqueous CO2 gas + H20 liquid. And liquid H20 exists as 2 hydrogen ions H– (known as hydronium ions) and 1 hydroxide ion OH+. Depending on instantaneous conditions in the water, the reaction products are either the ions H+ + HCO– or H2CO3, that is, either bicarbonate ion or carbonic acid respectively. H2CO3 i.e. carbonic acid, exists in water as the ionic forms 2H– and CO32- that is 2 hydrogen ions and one carbonate ion. Only about 1% of the CO2 gas which is absorbed in seawater remains as non-ionic uncharged aqueous CO2 gas. Aqueous CO2 gas and carbonic acid and bicarbonate ion convert reversibly so fast and with so little energy change that they are often considered as one entity, dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC.)
The carbonate chemistry described is not part of Henry’s Law. However, the carbonate chemistry and the CO2 hydration reaction are reversible reactions, rapidly reversible by warming the water surface for example, but also by agitating the seawater. Average sea surface temperature (SST) has been increasing slowly since the early 20th century. The causes of this sea surface warming are beyond the scope of this paper except to say that increasing human CO2 emissions are not one of the causes. Higher temperature at the gas-liquid interface surface between air and ocean causes rapid CO2 gas emission from the surface. The bicarbonate ions and carbonic acid products formed when CO2 reacts with water are rapidly (in seconds) reversible to aqueous CO2 gas in ocean surface.
At the global level, the ratio of CO2 gas concentration in air versus CO2 gas concentration in water surface, that is the Henry’s Law partition ratio, is a function of temperature, and to less extent in local conditions alkalinity, salinity (considering all dissolved element not only sodium chloride) and winds, storms, ocean currents and other disturbances such as biological additions and subtractions of CO2. Perturbations to the trend of the Henry’s law partition ratio (e.g. additions or subtractions of human CO2) are rapidly returned to trend. Residence time of CO2 in air does not change the CO2 concentration in air.
A container of seawater at equilibrium in calm, open air in the shade also contains carbon dioxide gas (CO2 gas) and also the reaction products of CO2 gas which reacted with the seawater. No human action or existence was needed to dissolve CO2 gas in seawater nor to cause the reactions. CO2 gas was absorbed from the air. CO2 gas is highly soluble in pure water and more soluble in seawater. If the container of seawater is outside at 10 degrees C, it contains more CO2 gas than in summer at 25 degrees C. The difference in CO2 concentration in the water samples at the two temperatures can be measured.
We see by comparing the graph above with the graph immediately below, both at 25 degrees C, CO2 gas is about 37.5 times more soluble in water than O2 and that both gases are more soluble in cold water than warm water. Generally, we know oxygen is plentiful in ocean because fish and other sea life live there and absorb oxygen gas through their gills for their respiration. Henry’s Law also applies to the solubility of oxygen and other gases in water and in seawater, and oxygen and carbon dioxide in blood, etc.
The graph immediately above is by retired professor of chemistry and materials science Daniele Mazza who has software code available for this purpose. He explains in his easy-to-read online website and textbook, “Compared to the atmosphere, which contains around 850 Gt (gigatons) of carbon (in the form of CO2), the oceans hold 38,000 Gt of carbon. That’s nearly 45 times more. Despite quite frequent discussion and examination in scientific papers and the press of the relationship between ocean chemistry and environmental issues (such as CO2 uptake, ocean acidification and carbonate sediment), the basic underlying chemistry is poorly understood… In particular heterogeneous reactions (like calcite/aragonite formation from dissolved Ca++ and CO3— ions) may require long times, like years or decades, to be completed. On the contrary CO2 dissolution in surface seawater requires shorter time intervals to reach equilibrium with all dissolved species (H2CO, HCO3– , CO3—) deriving from its dissolution… One topic frequently debated today is the potential hazard for coralline reefs of the rising concentrations of CO2, through the reduction of ocean pH and carbonate ion concentration. The effect of this, is however compensated for by an increase in oversaturation in warmer areas of oceans, where calcifying organisms and coral reefs prosper. Global warming, estimated at about 1°C from the beginning of the twentieth century to the present day, also favours oversaturation and thereby counteracts the effects of increasing CO2 content by anthropogenic emissions.” https://danielemazza.academia.edu/ and Mazza, Daniele. 2020, page 42-43.
Figure 7 below is from the previously referenced paper by Cohen and Happer. The Cohen and Happer report and the Mazza report confirm each other, though illustrating the point in a different way.
“Figure 7: The equilibrium rate, dNoc/dNat, of increase of CO2 in the oceans with the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. The ocean alkalinity is [A] = 2.3 × 10-3 M and the temperature is T = 25 C… The rate of increase, dNoc/dNat, of CO2 in the ocean with CO2 in the atmosphere is shown in Fig. 7. Because of the long time (centuries) needed for additional CO2 molecules dissolved in the ocean surface to reach the deeper ocean, the currently observed rate, dNoc/dNat ≈ 1, is about three times smaller than the predicted equilibrium rate.” (Cohen & Happer, 2015)
Cohen and Happer summarized the point, “This minimalist discussion already shows how hard it is to scare informed people with ocean acidification, but, alas, many people are not informed. For example: The oceans would be highly alkaline with a pH of about 11.4, similar to that of household ammonia, if there were no weak acids to buffer the alkalinity. Almost all of the buffering is provided by dissolved CO2, with very minor additional buffering from boric acid, silicic acid and other even less important species… doubling atmospheric CO2 from the current level of 400 ppm to 800 ppm only decreases the pH of ocean water from about 8.2 to 7.9. This is well within the day-night fluctuations that already occur because of photosynthesis by plankton…So scare stories about dissolving carbonate shells are nonsense.”
As has been shown, CO2 gas is highly soluble in seawater, for example about 30 times more soluble than oxygen. Solubility of CO2 and O2 are inversely proportional with temperature, solubility increases as water surface temperature decreases following Henry’s Law. Bicarbonate and carbonic acid concentration also increases as seawater temperature decreases. On the other hand, when water surface temperature increases above about 25.6 C, then CO2 becomes oversaturated in ocean surface (with respect to the Henry’s partition ratio for that temperature) and thus CO2 gas is then emitted from the warm ocean surface. When sea surface temperature decreases, for example as happened around earth’s equatorial tropical oceans following the volcanic eruption of Mt Pinatubo in June 1991, then the rate of growth of net global average atmospheric CO2 concentration decreases temporarily, then returns to trend, as observed and shown in the following graph.
The following graphic, Figure 3 in Kauppinen and Malmi 2019, clearly shows the cooling that occurred following the Mt Pinatubo eruption.
When we finally correct the misinformation that human use of fossil fuels is increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration and making oceans acidic, then we finally remove the fear and guilt element that human-CO2-caused climate change proponents have been using for 4 decades to misinform and convince children, students, politicians, world bankers, etc. Eventually we can rid the world of this trillion dollar per year waste of money on a non-problem.
Be Afraid of Nuclear War, Not Climate Change: Russia’s war in Ukraine shows that global warming has distracted us from more important threats. (Please read the article at the link below)
By Bjorn Lomborg
March 29, 2022 6:18 pm ET
Weeks before thermobaric rockets rained down on Ukraine, the chattering classes at the World Economic Forum declared “climate action failure” the biggest global risk for the coming decade. On the eve of war, U.S. climate envoy John Kerry fretted about the “massive emissions consequences” of Russian invasion and worried that the world might forget about the risks of climate change if fighting broke out. Amid the conflict and the many other challenges facing the globe right now, like inflation and food price hikes, the global elite has an unhealthy obsession with climate change.
This fixation has had three important consequences. First, it has distracted the Western world from real geopolitical threats. Russia’s invasion should be a wake-up call that war is still a serious danger that requires democratic nations’ attention. But a month into the war in Ukraine, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres—whose organization’s main purpose is ensuring world peace—was focused instead on “climate catastrophe,” warning that fossil-fuel addiction will bring “mutually assured destruction.” His comments come at a time when nuclear weapons are posing the biggest risk of literal mutually assured destruction in half a century.
Second, the narrow focus on immediate climate objectives undermines future prosperity. The world currently shells out more than half a trillion dollars annually in private and public funds on climate policies, while spending from the governments of countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development on innovation that underpins growth in areas such as healthcare, space, defense, agriculture and science has been declining as a percentage of gross domestic product over recent decades.
Education performance in developed nations is stagnant or declining, and real income growth among OECD countries has almost stalled this century. By contrast, in China, where innovation-related spending is up 50% from where it was in 2000 and education is rapidly improving, average incomes have increased fivefold since the start of the 21st century.
Third, in the world’s poorest countries, the international community’s focus on putting up solar panels coexists with a woeful underinvestment in solutions to massive existing problems. Infectious diseases like tuberculosis and malaria kill millions; malnutrition afflicts almost a billion people; more than three billion lack access to reliable energy.
These and other issues plaguing the developing world are solvable, but get far less funding from wealthy countries than climate change. Giving the developing world affordable access to consistently available energy—which often requires fossil fuels—is the key to lifting most of the world out of poverty. Yet before the invasion of Ukraine, the developed world was racing to make fossil fuel energy more expensive and less accessible for the world’s poorest.
What underpins this climate fixation? The false and irresponsible idea that global warming poses an immediate existential risk for the world. Climate change is real and man-made; have no doubt about that. But the best economic estimates used by the Obama and Biden administrations, as well as those created by the only climate economist to ever win the Nobel Prize in economics, all show that the total impact of unmitigated climate change—not just on the economy but overall—would be equivalent to less than a 4% hit to global GDP annually by the end of the century.
The U.N. estimates that the average person in 2100 will be 450% as rich as today. If climate change continues unabated, the average person will be “only” 434% as rich—a far from catastrophic outcome.
A world scared witless doesn’t make smart decisions—so it should be no surprise it hasn’t managed to make a dent in climate change. Globally, last year saw the most CO2 emissions ever, despite $5 trillion spent over the past decade on climate policies. The U.N. admitted in 2019 that there has been “no real change in the global emissions pathway in the last decade” despite the global Paris agreement.
The European Union has tried to shift to renewables but still gets more than 70% of its energy from fossil fuels. Much of the rest is generated by burning wood chips from trees chopped down in America and transported on diesel ships. Solar and wind produce only 3% of the European Union’s energy, and the technology is unreliable, often requiring backup from gas when the sun doesn’t shine or the wind doesn’t blow. Europe’s refusal to embrace shale gas—which can be found throughout the Continent but remains untapped—has left it at the mercy of Russian gas. The past two months show how dangerous this is.
Well-meaning politicians across the world have been proposing policies to reach net-zero emissions in coming decades. According to McKinsey, the policies will cost $9.2 trillion every year until net zero is supposed to be achieved in 2050. This is equivalent to half the global tax take. Such extremely costly policies are unlikely to be enacted by emerging economies such as India or Africa, whose emissions will skyrocket as their populations and economies grow. Net zero is also likely to fail in the developed world, where its high costs will erode prosperity and thus political support. Achieving net zero would cost every American family $19,300 a year, according to the McKinsey study.
To respond to climate change effectively, the world needs to spend more on green-energy innovation and develop renewables that are reliable and cost-effective. To address their immediate energy problems, Europe and America need to embrace fracking—despite Russian-funded propaganda discrediting it—and help the rest of the world access the oil and gas it needs. There are many serious threats in the world today, but most won’t get the attention they deserve until the political classes drop their hyperbole about climate change and treat it like what it actually is—only one of the many problems to be solved in the 21st century.
Mr. Lomborg is president of the Copenhagen Consensus and a visiting fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. His latest book is “False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet.”
Proponents of human-CO2-caused global warming (AGW) stir up fear and guilt with their CO2 lies and omissions, as they did with ozone years ago. Fear and guilt is their purpose. “YOU are making the planet dangerously warm, our generation will not raise families and grow old, HOW DARE YOU!, or some similar infantile rant. Proponents control the media and the population and the vote with fear. Their indoctrination by fear has apparently worked on millions of people, especially 40 years of children around the world. Obviously it has worked on the world’s politicians, mainstream media, educators and entertainers. But, you need not be one of their useful idiots and eventual slaves.
Pay attention now children, teachers and politicians:
The following 2 graphs are really what the temperature trend is doing, contrary to most people’s education and daily and continuous news, and contrary to the politicians in something like 160 countries, the UN, the EU, Great Resetters and global bankers:
GISS is NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies
And the following graph is really how carbon dioxide is trending:
By the way, the green line in the graph immediately above is net global average atmospheric CO2 concentration from all sources. Human-produced CO2 is a small fraction of that net CO2.
But the great resetters, government agencies, teachers, mainstream media, and politicians around the world scare you with graphs of CO2 data like the following:
And statements like “97% consensus of scientists agree on climate change!”made by the presidents and prime ministers of nations, multinational organizations and charlatan so-called “environmentalists.”
And…
Yes, the same people producing the global warming fraud are also pushing major reduction of earth’s population of humans. Some of them believe, say out loud and write that humans are a plaque on the earth, for example the late consort to the Queen of England, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, infamously said he wanted to come back as a virus plaque to reduce earth’s population.
In fact, world population growth has been declining for decades, is expected to continue declining, and is now below replacement levels in multiple countries.But you may not perceive that decline yet because the same AGW proponents producing the global warming fraud are inducing people to move to the big cities and out of rural areas. It is no mystery that some of those same AGW proponents are buying up huge amounts of rural land, farms and ranches.
The already powerful and wealthy ideologues who want to control the world first gained control of academia and media. Then they prepared the narrative which was presented to politicians and citizens, beginning when those politicians and citizens were in kindergarten. The narrative is that human-produced CO2 from fossil fuels is pollution and dangerous to humans and the planet. This narrative is then expanded into all fields of endeavor in all countries and repeated endlessly. This has already happened 4 decades ago. The people you believed were teaching you were in fact indoctrinating you so that you would willingly become feudal slaves, willingly give up your freedoms, own no private property or money, take the drugs they hand out and be happy.
The truth is more CO2 would be good for the planet. You may be familiar with the Jurassic period of earth’s history, a jungle-covered earth with dinosaurs and abundant life, and imagined in the famous Jurassic Park movie. Millions of years of abundant and growing life happened when CO2 atmospheric concentration was ten times today’s concentration. As of today, UN, EU, Joe, Boris, Klaus, Jacinda, actors, “journalists” and journals, bankers and many oil companies claim doubling of CO2 is dangerous, and some claim or imply it is already too late, beyond the point of return.
The truth is humans cannot change net global average atmospheric CO2 concentration by using fossil fuels and making cement. We can not increase it nor can we reduce it. It is not in our hands. It is above our pay grade.Net global average atmospheric CO2 concentrationis controlled by the laws of chemistry and physics, the laws of nature created by God. Every breath you take is dependent on those same laws. Net global average CO2 concentration in the air today is the same as it would be if humans never existed.
Humans can neither increase nor decrease net global average CO2 concentration, that is, unless we allow crazy billionaire ideologues, politicians and governments to attempt to re-engineer the climate by insane, and if successful then genocidal, projects such as creating artificial clouds to block the sun. That insane idea could create a new ice age and wipe out life. The same people pushing such insane geo-engineering concepts are also pushing the overpopulaton lie, vaccines, tests for viruses, and of course the human-CO2-caused global warming fraud.
The truth presented in this post normally is not presented online in wiki pages, nor by NGOs, nor in most schools, universities, worldwide, definitely not in mainstream media and governments. For example, Al Gore’s propaganda movie “An Inconvenient Truth” was presented to the student body at my son’s high school 12 years ago. I personally visited the headmaster before the movie was shown and requested to present a rebuttal to the movie. My request was denied. This was a headmaster to whom I had donated thousands of dollars for his private school in excess of the expensive tuition. Already by that date, a high court in London, England had decided that the movie contained major misstatements and ordered English schools to present a rebuttal whenever Gore’s movie was shown. Probably very few educators know that, or if they do they ignore it. Even the UN IPCC removed the scary graphs from its reports.
The late philosopher at University of Chicago, Allan Bloom, called out this mis-education phenomenon and titled his 1987 book, The Closing of the American Mind: How Higher Education Has Failed Democracy and Impoverished the Souls of Today’s Students. This phenomenon is a nefarious human invention not limited to America, nor even primarily created in America, nor is it limited to the AGW fraud. Bloom was not part of the so-called “vast right-wing conspiracy.” He was a self-claimed lifetime liberal, gay, professor at Cornell and University of Chicago. There are other intellectuals of Bloom’s status carrying that message in philosophy, psychology, social studies, for example Jordan Peterson and Václav Klaus, Czech economist and politician who served as the second president of the Czech Republic from 2003 to 2013.
There are also tens of thousands of scientists in many countries who put their careers on the line to speak out publicly against the global warming fraud and the viral/vaccine fraud. But they are ignored, banned, cancelled and scorned. Lists of these honorable and brave scientists, doctors, engineers, etc and be found on my blog, for example:
budbromley 
You must be logged in to post a comment.