This was in 2005. Dr. Fauci knew then HydroxyChloroQuine was effective against Covid type viruses. “In the 1985-86 edition of Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine [a highly recommended book for students studying medicine in medical colleges], Dr. Fauci wrote that HCQ worked an anti-viral agent despite being an anti-malarial drug. There was no Covid-19 back then, but HCQ’s anti-viral properties were already well known.
In 2015 the only level-4 virus lab in the U.S. conducting defensive research against “Gain of function” viruses was closed because of the inherent danger to the population should the virus escape. Not to worry, President Obama, Melinda Gates and Dr Fauci started to look for a new place to conduct the research. They found it in Wuhan, China; the Chinese have no such scruples as danger to the people. This lab was taken over in 2017 by the Chinese army, conducting bio-weapon research (defensive only, of course), so the research continued, this time controlled by the Chinese.
In January 2017 Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said there is “no doubt” Donald J. Trump will be confronted with a surprise infectious disease outbreak during his presidency.
It is getting interesting. The virus escaped the lab, sometimes in the fall of 2019, and the Chinese knew it but kept silent. They closed off Wuhan to all other Chinese, rail, car and air. But they kept international travel open, as if they wanted the virus to spread all around the world. And Dr. Fauci knew it!
Remember Donald Trump-touted hydroxychloroquine? Study in India backs it as Covid-19 cure.
Hydroxychloroquine, the malaria drug touted as a magical Covid-19 cure by former US President Donald Trump last year, has been found effective in a prophylactic study published in a prophylactic study published in the Journal of The Association of Physicians of India (JAPI) last week..
The study showed that hydroxychloroquine, popularly known as HCQ, could prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection in varying degrees depending on its dosing regimen. The highest prevention rate of 72 per cent was found among those given hydroxychloroquine over six weeks or a longer duration.
The study said, “[W]hen adjusted for other risk factors, HCQ dose as per government recommendations, 2-3, 4-5, 6 or more weeks reduced the probability of Covid positivity by 34 per cent, 48 per cent and 72 per cent.”
The study was conducted May-September last year when HCQ was still part of the Union health ministry’s recommendation in treatment protocol for Covid-19, and it began against the backdrop of contesting claims made by authorities and experts including Donald Trump and his advisor Dr Anthony Fauci, the US’s top infectious disease expert.
In March 2020, Donald Trump declared that hydroxichloroquine was a “game changer” drug in the fight against Covid-19. Dr Fauci dismissed the claim citing lack of study and evidence. Despite Fauci’s counter-positioning, Trump continued to be vocal about taking HCQ as prophylactic drug.
Incidentally, the Union health ministry on June 6 dropped hydroxychloroquine from Covid-19 treatment protocol. In its nine-page guidelines released on Sunday (June 6) by the directorate of health services, hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin and favipiravir find no mention.
The government’s decision came on the back of criticism by experts who pointed out a lack of study-based evidence to recommend hydroxychloroquine in Covid-19 cases. The government’s revised guidelines, however, contradicts the recommendations made by the Indian Council of Medical Research as released on May 17.
The ICMR guidelines prescribed the use of hydroxychloroquine in mild cases of Covid-19.
The authors of this prophylactic (relating to prevention of a disease) study said that this “is the largest multicenter study on HCQ prophylaxis on HCWs (healthcare workers), covering over 12,000 HCWs at the risk of Covid-19”.
The study was conducted in May-September last year across 44 hospitals in 17 states involving hundreds of doctors, who received doses of hydroxychloroquine.
One of the co-authors of the study, Dr Raj Kamal Choudhry said, “In the 1985-86 edition of Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine [a highly recommended book for students studying medicine in medical colleges], Dr. Fauci wrote that HCQ worked an anti-viral agent despite being an anti-malarial drug. There was no Covid-19 back then, but HCQ’s anti-viral properties were already well known.”
Dr Raj Kamal Choudhry, who was the nodal officer for the prophylaxis study of HCQ in Bihar’s Bhagalpur medical college, said, “We had given about 2,700 doctors and paramedical staff, laundry and kitchen people the prophylaxis of HCQs in the dose of HCQs 400 mg 1×2 for first day then 1 tab daily for 4 days.”
“We did not give to those who had palpitations and had QT prolongation [a measure of heart ailment]. Those who took this drug did not have Covid excepting 5 and 6. The effect was tremendous. Later, we gave this drug to all who had mild cases. Only those patients who were in ICU were not given.”
“Of 2,700 people who were given HCQs, 700 were doctors. Only five or six got infected with SARS-CoV-2 in Bhagalpur but none developed serious complications, and nobody died of Covid-19,” Dr Raj Kamal Choudhry told Indiatoday.in.
The evidence is piling up. There has been numerous, over 50 studies like this showing that HCQ is effective, both as prophylactic, and as an early cure. Yoo bad that the medical bureaucracy considered it more important to get rid of Donald Trump than to save over 100,000 lives in U.S. alone.
In addition HCQ is too cheap and generic to warrant a double blind study.
The other medication that may be as effective, and save lives is Ivermectin, an anti-parasite drug used to treat horses and other farm animals. You can buy it at Tractor Supply, so I have been told. I do not know proper dosages, but if done properly, it is safe for humans when treating parasitic infections. It also is too cheap for the medical community to take seriously.
One more thing, make sure you take supplemental Vitamin D3 (I take 5000 IU/day). An Indonesian study found that the death rate went from 95% if the values were less than 19 nanograms/milliliter to less than 5% if the D3 values were over 31 nanograms/milliliter. The study was made in Covid patients over 65 years old.
Quote from Alexandria Occasio-Cortez in January 2019: “Millennials and Gen Z and all these folks that come after us are looking up, and we’re like, ‘The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change, and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?’ ” she said.
I beg to differ.
We live in only one world. As a concerned citizen I realize we have immense environmental challenges before us, with water pollution; from plastics in the ocean, excess fertilizer in the rivers, poison from all kinds of chemicals, including antibiotics, birth control and other medicines flushed down the toilet after going through our bodies, animals fed antibiotics, pest control, weed control and so on. Increasing CO2 is not one of the problems, it will in fact help with erosion control, and allow us to feed more people on less agricultural land with proper management, and require less fertilizer and water to do so. In fact, proper water management is a larger problem, with some rivers no longer even reaching the ocean. All water is already spoken for, especially in the 10 to 40 degrees latitude, where most people live and want to live.
But before w go into that, allow me to be somewhat technical and give the background to why I know we will never experience the thermal runaway they are so afraid of.
Many years ago I worked at Hewlett Packard on an Atomic Absorption Detector. It was a huge technical success but a commercial failure, as it was too expensive to use for routine applications. However it found a niche and became the detector of choice when dismantling the huge nerve gas stockpiles remaining from the cold war. I was charged with doing the spectrum analysis and produce the final data from the elements. One day two salesmen came and tried to sell us a patented device that could identify up to 21 different elements with one analysis. They had a detector that divided the visual band into 21 parts, and bingo, with proper, not yet “fully developed” software you could now analyze up to 21 elements with one gas chromatography analysis. What could be better? We could only analyze correctly four or five elements simultaneously. It turns out the elements are absorbing in the same wavelength bands, scientifically speaking they are not orthogonal, so software massaging can only go so far. It turned out that the promised new detector was inferior to what we already had and could only quantify three or 4 elements at the most.
In the atmosphere the two most important greenhouse gases are water vapor and CO2 with methane a distant third. Water vapor is much more of a greenhouse gas everywhere except near the tropopause, high above the high clouds and around the poles when the temperature is below 0 F, way below freezing. A chart shows the relationship between CO2 and water vapor:
Even in Barrow, Alaska (renamed Utqiaġvik since 2016), water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas. Only around the South Pole (And North Pole) does CO2 dominate (but only in the winter).
All Climate models take this into account, and that is why they all predict that the major temperature increase will occur in the polar regions with melting icecaps and other dire consequences. But they also predict a uniform temperature rise from the increased forcing from CO2 and the additional water vapor resulting from the increased temperature.
This is wrong on two accounts. First, CO2 and H2O gas are not orthogonal, that means they both absorb in the same frequency bands. There are three bands where CO2 absorbs more than H2O in the far infrared band, but other than that H2O is the main absorber. If H2O is 80 times as common as CO2 as it is around the equator, water vapor is still the dominant absorber, and the amount of CO2 is irrelevant.
Secondly, gases cannot absorb more than 100% of the energy available in any given energy wavelength band! So if H2O did absorb 80% of the energy and CO2 absorbed 50%, the sum is not 130%, only 90%. (0.8 + 0.5×0,2 or 0.5 + 0.8×0.5). In this example CO2 only adds one quarter of what the models predict.
How do I know this is true? Lucky for us we can measure what increasing CO2 in the atmosphere has already accomplished. For a model to have credibility it must be tested with measurements, and pass the test. There is important evidence suggesting the basic premise is wrong. All greenhouse gases work by affecting the lapse rate in the tropics. They thus create a “hot spot” in the tropical troposphere. The theorized “hot spot” is shown in the early IPCC publications. (Fig A)
Fig. B shows observations. The hot-spot is not there. If the hot-spot is not there, the models must be wrong. So what is wrong with the models? This was reported in 2008 and the models still assume the additive nature of greenhouse gases, even to the point when more than 100% of the energy in a given band is absorbed.
How about Methane? Do not worry, it absorbs nearly exclusively in the same bands as water vapor and has no measurable influence on the climate.
But it will get warmer at the poles. That will cause melting of the ice-caps? Not so fast. When temperature rises the atmosphere can hold more water vapor, so it will snow more at higher latitudes. While winter temperatures will be higher with more snowfall, this will lower the summer temperatures until the extra snow has melted. And that is what is happening in the Arctics
As we can see from this picture, the winters were about 5 degrees warmer, but starting from late May through early August temperatures were lower. It takes time to melt all the extra snow that fell because of the warmer winter air, able to contain more ice crystals.
No, the real climate crisis is water, not enough of it in the areas of the world where people want to live, and nothing in the U.S. is more precarious than the American southwest, or the Colorado river basin.
Many years ago the city of Denver had a problem. The land east of the Rocky mountains is dry, rain is sparse and the aquifers were being depleted. The city was growing rapidly, still small by today’s standard, but they were thinking big and looked for a really good water supply. There was one fairly nearby: the Colorado river. There was only one small problem, it was on the other side of the continental divide. They were building a railroad tunnel under the continental divide anyway, so for a few million dollars extra they added a water tunnel, with a capacity of 36 m3/s of water flow, and it has been draining water from the Colorado River basin since 1936.
As an engineering feat it was quite impressive, and the population west of the Rocky Mountains was minuscule. This has changed and the demand for water in the Southwest is enormous and increasing. Las Vegas alone is now about the same size as the City of Denver. (The Denver Region is about 5.5 million)
Let us take a look at the Colorado River watershed:
Beside the Moffet tunnel that diverts Colorado River basin water to Denver and Colorado springs, Water is diverted to Salt Lake City, the upper Rio Grande in New Mexico, and the big one, water is diverted to Los Angeles and the lower Imperial Valley in California
Much of the water from the Colorado River basin is used for agricultural purposes. This is a picture of the irrigation in the lower Imperial valley and Mexico.
This is important: The Colorado River water is all spoken for. It never reaches the Gulf of California. Once upon a time there was a good shrimp harvest at the mouth of the Colorado River. No more.
There is one state left, Arizona. It is one of the fastest growing states in the U.S
All their water has to be drawn from the Colorado River basin.
So, how is the water situation in the South-west? Right now they are in the most severe drought since 2016. Here is the map:
But there is plenty of water in Lake Mead, right? Take a look:
But the major feeder into Lake Mead is the output from Lake Powell. How does that look today?
The extreme drought is nearly all over the South West. Mandatory water restrictions for the whole Colorado River basin seem inevitable this summer and for the foreseeable future. As long as people love to move to the U.S. Southwest, something must be done.
Yes, water is the critical resource we need to manage. It must be priority together with roads and bridges. The Eastern states has excess water. So let us build a large number of dams up the Missouri and Platte rivers and pump water up to Denver and Colorado Springs, and maybe even reverse the Moffet tunnel to supply the Colorado River basin with extra water.
This will take a lot of electrical energy. As long as we depend on fossil fuels to provide the electricity this is futile. We have to find another source to provide electricity.
These are my suggestions
Do not worry about increasing CO2 levels. The major temperature stabilizer is clouds, and they will keep the earth from overheating by reflecting back into space a large amount of incoming solar radiation. Always did, and always will, even when the CO2 concentration was more than 10000 ppm millions of years ago. Ice ages will still come, and this is the next major climate change, maybe 10000 years from now, probably less.
Clean up rivers, lakes and oceans from pollution. This is a priority.
Limit Wind turbine electric energy to areas not populated by large birds to save the birds. Already over 1.3 million birds a year are killed by wind turbines, including the bald and Golden Eagles that like to build their aeries on top of wind turbines.
Do not build large solar concentration farms. They too kill birds.
Solar panels are o.k. not in large farms, but distributed on roofs and on city parking lots to provide backup power.
Exploit geothermal energy in geologically stable areas.
Where ever possible add peak power generation and storage capacity to existing hydroelectric power plants by pumping back water into the dams during excess capacity.
Add peak power storage dams, even in wildlife preserves. The birds and animals don’t mind.
Develop Thorium based Nuclear Power. Russia, China, Australia and India are ahead of us in this. Streamline permit processes. Prioritize research. This should be our priority, for when the next ice age starts we will need all the CO2 possible.
Put fusion power as important for the future but do not rush it, let the research and development be scientifically determined. However, hybrid Fusion -Thorium power generation should be developed.
When Thorium power is built up and has replaced coal and gas fired power plants, then is the time to switch to electric cars, not before.
Standard Nuclear Power plants should be replaced by Thorium powered nuclear plants, since they have only 0,01% of the really bad long term nuclear waste.
Start thinking about recovering CO2 directly from the air to produce aviation fuel. This should be done as Thorium power has replaced coal and gas fired power plants.
This is but a start, but the future is not as bleak as all fearmongers state.
Thorium Nuclear Power is the only viable long term solution to our energy needs.
The United States, the world’s second-leading emitter after China, seeks to reclaim global leadership in the fight against global warming after former President Donald Trump withdrew the country from international efforts to cut emissions. President Joe Biden unveiled the goal to cut emissions by 50%-52% from 2005 levels at the start of a two-day virtual climate summit attended virtually by leaders of 40 countries including China, Russia and India.
How can that be?
China burned 51.2% of the world’s coal in 2012, USA produced 12.5%. China’s production was more than four times larger. This has now stabilized and was in 2018 47%, because India and the real developing world are increasing their dependence on coal for electricity production, and also for cooking meals.
This of course is with the Paris accord in mind. U.S. and the European countries are to limit their emissions and slowly diminish them, down to a per capita emission comparable to the mid 1800’s, while China, being a “developing” country is allowed to increase their emissions until 2030, and then stabilize them, not decrease them.
How can they be burning nearly half the world’s coal mined?
One reason is they are the world’s state controlled manufacturing company. They are also responsible for half the world’s Steel production. China produced 50.3% of the world’s crude Steel in 2015, USA produced 4.9%. China’s production was over 20 times larger than the U.S.Some of this steel was dumped below production cost to crush our domestic low end steel industry. An example: Rolled steel to make steel cans were exported at about $200 a ton, the production cost in the U.S. is more like $400 a ton. They can do this, since their environmental regulations only pay lip service to pollution. Remember how Pittsburgh was 60 years ago? China is much worse.
Cement production. China produced 51.4% of the world’s cement in 2015, USA produced 1.8%. China’s production was almost 30 times larger.
It takes a lot of concrete to build artificial islands so they can take control of the South China Sea. But they are building many other things, Ghost Cities, but also an impressive infrastructure with high speed trains on elevated concrete tracks.
Worrisome as that may be, it is nothing compared to China’s dominance in Rare Earth Metals. Let me explain why rare earth metals are so important to our modern economy.
First, rare earth metals re not rare at all, they exist in small quantities together with Thorium and sometimes Uranium wherever other metals are mined.
The Lanthanides occur in quantity in Monazite, a byproduct of mining Phosphates, but also as a byproduct of mining Titanium, and even from some Iron ores. The rare earth metals are free to begin extraction if it was not for one thing, they also contain Thorium, and Thorium is very weakly radio-active, so in the mid 1980’s the NRC and IAEA reclassified Monazite and anything containing Thorium as a “Source Material” and after that it became too costly to comply with all the regulations for nuclear material, so all production of rare earth minerals ceased in the U.S.
China saw an opportunity to grab the world market for Rare Earth Metals and is now controlling about 85% of the supply of all rare earth metals.
So what are rare earth metals used for?
China now has a de facto monopoly on all usages of rare earth metals, and in the case of war or an embargo, not only are our precious cell phones and computers in jeopardy, so is our defense, night vision goggles, aircraft engines, navigation systems, laser guidance, just to name a few uses.
And not only that, we import the completed parts from China, even for our most sophisticated military equipment, such as the F35 aircraft, after telling the Chinese how to make the components. The very same components are now in China’s version of the F35, still under development, but in a year or so China will have their faithful copies made! A F35 aircraft contains about 935 pounds of rare earth metals.
This is clearly unsustainable, so in 2014 Congress tried to pass HR 4883 and S 2006 to remedy the situation, but the bills got killed in review by none other than the defense department, citing National Security! Our only major rare earth metals mine reopened, only to go bankrupt in 2015. It has since reopened, but the ore is shipped to China for refining! One good point is that the Mountain Pass mine was scheduled to reopen the processing facilities late 2020, but full processing operations without the help from the Chinese rare earth refining giant corporation Shenghe Resources have been delayed to 2022
The idea was that we should change our electricity production into renewable sources, such as wind and solar.
Wind power uses a lot of rare earth metals to get the most efficient generators, all made by China. Wind power is about maxed out, that is, if you care about birds, especially eagles and raptors. The allowable bald eagle kill was upped from 1200 to 4200 a year for all U.S. wind turbines during the Obama administration. Killed golden eagles and storks has a S250,000 fine, paid by the electricity users, and if we build it out more, we may exterminate some species.
Solar power looked promising until pollution was taken into consideration. China added 53 GW solar capacity in 2017. The forecast for this year i 45 GW, and for next year 35 GW.
The efficiency of solar panels are drastically reduced by the layer of soot accumulating daily from air pollution. They have to be cleaned daily with water, and water is in short supply in northern China. The yellow river no longer reaches the ocean during large periods of the year, all water is spoken for. In southern India a solar farm used up so much water that the wells went dry and there was no more water for agriculture and people, except during the monsoon season. Germany has given up on their solar program except for special needs. The best places for large solar farms in the U.S. are in Arizona and Nevada, both are having severe and growing water problems. In addition, that is not where the energy is needed, so transmission losses must be taken into account, as well as the need to expand an increasingly vulnerable and in many parts undesirable national grid.
I am not against solar panels, and as soon as we are freed from total Chinese dominance on the material used in solar panels we should install them in open spaces, such as parking lots around factories and shopping malls, wherever there is adequate sunlight. Park the cars under them and the summer heat will be so much more bearable, and in the winter you will not have to scrape the windshield. When it snows, solar panels do not work anyway.
Where it rains, China pollutes. The Yang -Tse river carries nearly half the plastic waste that is dumped in the ocean. It can be stopped, but it will consume a lot of energy, both man-power and electricity to do all the cleanup.
The most practical solution is found in creating a massive effort in developing and installing Thorium nuclear power. Here is a list of reasons why we should jump on the opportunity to solve the energy crisis:
I have counted the u.s covid-19 cases cases and deaths for the first week of April, and divided them by states requiring mask wearing and not requiring wearing masks. The mask wearing states had a death rate of 0.91% while the non mask wearing states had a death rate of 1.59%. The non mask wearing states had 244 deaths per day. This means we could have saved 244 (1.59-0,91)/1.59 = 103 lives per day as a nation if all were forced to wear a mask, everything else being equal (which of course it isn’t). (Look at Appendix 1 to see how your state is faring.)
Are there any better ways to save lives?
In March 2020 President Trump became a proponent of using HydroxyChloroQuine as a remedy for Covid-19. It was met with strong opposition from CDC and even scorn from his political opponents. CDC even published strong advice against using it to treat Covid-19, while still recommending its use to treat Lupus and rheumatoid patients with essentially no restrictions, including pregnant women and nursing mothers. After all, it had an over 50 year safety record as treatment for Malaria. Even Dr Fauci acknowledged its safety and efficacy as a cure for Coronaviruses as early as 2005, (see Appendix 2). Many countries are using HCQ as a first defense against COVID-19, and they experience on average less than half the death rate of nations that do not use HCQ as a first defense. To complicate matters, HCQ is prescribed to between 16 and 30% of all Covid cases in the U.S. As a guess with today’s 491 death’s per day, we could have saved more than 40%, about 200 lives a day, or twice as many lives as are saved by the mask mandate. The biggest problem for CDC is that HCQ is generic, cheap and easy to produce, so there is no profit in making a double blind study. For Trump opponents it was far more important to defeat Trump than to save a hunded thousand lives. ( see https://lenbilen.com/2020/09/06/u-s-a-corona-virus-death-rate-as-of-september-5-is-3-00-41-countries-have-higher-death-rates-15-countries-giving-hcqzincz-pac-to-covid-19-patients-as-soon-as-symptoms-occur-have-much-lower-death/ )
But there are other interesting cures for COVID-19, Ivermectin is fantastic. It has one problem, through.You can buy it at Tractor-supply, it is used as an antiparasitic agent for dogs and horses, and it is generic. However the worldwide interest is so big that at least 50 trials have been conducted and there is a 76% decrease in mortality. That means,using it properly would save nearly 400 lives per day.
Climate change is now officially the new secular religion. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said Sunday, March 14 on ABC’s “This Week” “My most recent trip to the northern triangle, that would be Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador. You saw the impact of climate change. These people were leaving because of the drought. They couldn’t farm, and they were seeking other ways to survive. There are many reasons to go into this, but the fact we have to deal with it at the border, and some of the people coming there are seeking asylum.
The iconic Metronome digital clock sprawled across a 14th Street building in New York City facing Union Square normally counts time to and from midnight down to the fractions of a second, like a never-ending hour glass.
But in September 2020, the public installation was transformed into a “Climate Clock” that broadcasts the time remaining to avert an all-out climate catastrophe, or more specific, how much time we have left before the earth has warmed up 1.5 degree Celsius, the tipping point after which life as we know it would seize to exist.
Climate apocalypse alarmists also provide you with a climate clock to download which at the time of writing this blog looked like this:
The climate clock ticks down with remarkable precision, and the part of the total energy generated that is renewable is increased is displayed with ten digit precision.
So far, so good. But is it true? Let us take a look at the total ecosystem, including the clouds, rain and snow.
As CO2 warms up the poles
burned oil, gas and coal play their roles.
CO2 is still good;
makes plants green, grows more food,
and clouds are the climate controls.
We live in interesting times, the CO2 concentration has increased 50% since the beginning of industrialization. In the last 30 years the level has risen 17%, from about 350 ppm to nearly 410 ppm. This is what scares people. Is is time to panic and stop carbon emissions altogether as teenage Climate activist Greta Thunberg and N.Y. congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have suggested? As if on cue the climate models have been adjusted, and they suddenly show a much higher rate of temperature increase, in this case what is supposed to happen to global temperatures for a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial times, from 270ppm to 540ppm.
There are two ways to approach this problem. The models make certain assumptions about the behavior of the changing atmosphere and model future temperature changes. This is the approach taken by IPCC for the last 32 years. These models are all failing miserably when compared to actual temperature changes.
The other way i to observe what is actually happening to our temperature over time as the CO2 increases. We have 50 years of excellent global temperature data, so with these we can see where, when and by how much the earth has warmed.
The most drastic temperature rise on earth has been in the Arctic above the 80th latitude. In the winter of 2018 it was 8C above the 50 year average. See charts from the Danish Meteorological Institute:
Note, there is no increase at all in the summer temperatures!
The fall temperature saw an increase of 4C and the spring temperature saw an increase of about 2.5C.
The 2020 winter recorded an about 4c increase Source: DMI.
Notice: In this chart the there is no recorded summer temperature increase at all!
The 5 thru 8C winter rise of temperature is significant, most would even say alarming, and my response is, why is that?
To get the answer we must study molecular absorption spectroscopy and explain a couple of facts for the 97% of all scientists who have not studied molecular spectroscopy. IPCC and most scientists claim that the greenhouse effect is dependent on the gases that are in the atmosphere, and their combined effect is additive according to a logarithmic formula. This is true up to a certain point, but it is not possible to absorb more than 100% of all the energy available in a certain frequency band! For example: If water vapor absorbs 90% of all incoming energy in a certain band, and CO2 absorbs another 50% of the energy in the same band, the result is that 95% is absorbed, (90% + 50% * (100% – 90%)), not 140%, (90% + 50%).
The following chart shows both CO2 and H2O are absorbing greenhouse gases, with H20 being the stronger greenhouse gas, absorbing over a much wider spectrum, and they overlap for the most part. But it also matters in what frequency range s they absorb.
For this we will have to look at the frequency ranges of the incoming solar radiation and the outgoing black body radiation of the earth. It is the latter that causes the greenhouse effect. Take a look at this chart:
The red area represents the observed amount of solar radiation that reaches the earth’s surface, the white area under the red line represents radiation absorbed in the atmosphere. Likewise, the blue area represents the outgoing black body radiation that is re-emitted. The remaining white area under the magenta, blue or black line represents the retained absorbed energy that causes the greenhouse effect.
Let us now take a look at the Carbon Dioxide bands of absorption, at 2.7, 4.3 and 15 microns. Of them the 2.7 and 4.3 micron bands absorb where there is little black body radiation, the only band that is of interest is at 15 microns, and that is in a band where the black body radiation has its maximum. However it is also in a band where water vapor also absorb, not as much as CO2,only about 20% to 70% as much. Water vapor or absolute humidity is highly dependent on the temperature of the air, so at 30C there may be 50 times as much water vapor, at 0C there may be ten times as much water vapor, and at -25C there may be more CO2 than water vapor. At those low temperatures the gases are mostly additive. In the tropics with fifty times more water vapor than CO2, increased CO2 has no influence on the temperature whatsoever. Temperature charts confirm this assertion:
Here the temperature in the tropics displays no trend whatsoever. It follows the temperature of the oceans, goes up in an El Niño and down in a La Niña. The temperature in the southern hemisphere shows no trend. In the northern temperate region there is a slight increase, but the great increase is occurring in the Arctic. There is no increase in the Antarctic yet even though the increase in CO2 is greater in the Antarctic and the winter temperature in the Antarctic is even lower than in the Arctic. So CO2 increase cannot be the sole answer to the winter temperature increase in the Arctic.
There is an obvious answer. When temperatures increase the air can contain more moisture and will transport more moisture from the tropics all the way to the arctic, where it falls as snow. Is the snow increasing in the Arctic?
Let us see what the snow statistics show. These are from the Rutgers’ snow lab.
The fall snow extent is increasing, and has increased by more than 2 percent per year.
The winter snowfall has also increased but only by 0.04 percent per year. The snow covers all of Russia, Northern China, Mongolia, Tibet, Kashmir and northern Pakistan, Northern Afghanistan, Northern Iran, Turkey, Part of Eastern Europe, Scandinavia, Canada, Alaska, Greenland and part of Western and Northern United States.
In the spring on the other hand the snow pack is melting faster, about 1.6 percent less snow per year. One of the major reasons for an earlier snow-melt is that the air is getting dirtier, especially over China, and to some extent Russia. The soot from burning coal and mining and manufacturing changes the albedo of the snow. The soot is visible on old snow all the way up to the North Pole. The other reason is that the poles are getting warmer. In the fall and winter it is mostly due to increased snowfall, but in the spring, as soon as the temperature rises over the freezing point, melting occurs.
So the warming of the poles, far from being an impending end of mankind as we know it, may even be beneficial. Warmer poles in the winter means less temperature gradient between the poles and the tropics, leading to less severe storms. They will still be there, but less severe.
There is one great benefit of increased CO2, the greening of the earth.
Thanks to this greening, accomplished with only the fertilizing effect of CO2, the earth can now keep another 2 billion people from starvation, not to mention what it does to plants and wildlife. The people in El Salvador are, even with the drought, better off now with the air containing more CO2 than before. One extra benefit is that photosynthesis uses less water as CO2 increases.
Having said that, I am still a conservationist. Coal, oil and gas will run out at some time, and I for one would like to save some for my great grandchildren. In addition I would like to minimize the need for mining, which is quite destructive. As the great conservationist Sarah Palin so succinctly put it: “For when it’s gone, it’s gone.“
The best solution is to switch most electricity generation to Thorium molten salt nuclear power. There are multiple reasons why this should be done as a priority.
Maybe not, but who am I to judge. I am not a natural born citizen, not even a native born citizen or a native citizen, just a naturalized citizen.
When me and my wife immigrated to America many years ago as resident Aliens from day one, we were told we could do everything as Americans except vote, get called to Jury duty, and we and our future children could never be elected president of our new country, being not naturally born citizens. This was well understood at that time.
I still remember my arrival at Kennedy Airport. The lines were long, but were progressing fast. When it was my turn the inspector looked at my passport and sighed, Immigrant. Then he asked for my complete papers. I had the roll with me, as instructed, and he opened it all and read the documents, including the results of my Wasserman test, all vaccinations and medical history. Then he took out my chest rays and held them up to the light. It seemed like he took a long time looking, the line after me grew longer and longer. He scribbled down something, and then turned to me, smiled broadly and said “Welcome to the United States.”
My naturalization service was held in Valley Forge, and we were 140 people from more than 75 countries, one or two from each country. The only exception was 4 adopted Chinese girls, given up for adoption so their parents could apply for permission to get another child and not be subject to forced abortion (it was not a requirement, it was only necessary if you wanted to keep your Chinese government job). It was quite stirring: A Canadian teacher, selected among the inductees spoke well about the freedom and liberty enjoyed by all U.S. Citizens. Ah well, those were the days.
It was with great interest that I watched President Obama’s inauguration in 2009. It was quite stirring to watch the sea of people wishing him well.
When it came to the swearing in ceremony Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts managed to reverse the order of a few words in the oath. The oath was taken on a Bible, once used by Abraham Lincoln, who, even though Lincoln was a Republican and Obama is a Democrat, Obama, as had Lincoln risen to great prominence from humble beginnings in Illinois. There was great symbolism there. The fact that the word order of the oath had been reversed bothered some, so the next day the oath was repeated in the oval office, this time without a Bible.
The election had been unusual in many ways. One of them was that there was a question of John McCain’s eligibility to be president. He was born at Coco Solo Naval Air Station in the Panama Canal Zone, Panama, to naval officer John S. McCain, Jr. (1911–1981) and Roberta (Wright) McCain (1912 – 2020). At that time, the Panama Canal was under U.S. control. However, the small hospital where he was born was located in the civilian part of the Canal Zone, not under US control until 1941. John McCain is therefore not a native born citizen but a native Citizen.
Is he a natural born Citizen? This question was important enough for Congress to take up and decide before the election. Being born outside of U.S. this would automatically eliminate him from natural born status. But there is an out. Every child born on U.S. soil is a native born citizen with the exception of children born to parents in diplomatic service. They retain the citizenship of their parents. Since John McCain Jr. was under the command of the Commander in Chief (FDR) he therefore qualified as diplomatic emissary, and though his wife gave birth outside US soil, the exception did apply. Being legally married is important, because
“they twain shall be one flesh? Matt 19: 4-6 (KJV) And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female. And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
This is important because this is how marriage is legally defined. There is no better to illustrate the importance of this legal definition than in the case of Terri Schiavo. Her husband was the executor of her life, never mind that he for many years had lived with another woman and fathered two children with her. The legal document of marriage defined them as one flesh, and therefore the will of her father and siblings was of no legal consequence. It is ironic, that in this case the pro-life movement took the more liberal view of marriage that prolonged, unrepented and unreconciled adultery is a disqualifier, and the reproductive rights side held fast to the definition of marriage being one flesh so they must be treated as one unit.
After reading up on the amendments to the constitution and finding that the 27th amendment took 202 years to ratify, the next area of constitutional interest was the election of 2000. Gore won the national popular vote, and it came down to Florida, where there seemed to be a tie. The State Government, being Republican tried to certify Bush as the winner, and Gore sued, After the Florida Supreme Court, having Democrat majority had overturned the lower courts decisions which had been in favor of Bush, the U S Supreme court stepped in and declared Bush the winner by a 5 to 4 vote. The interesting point in this case is that Bush argued that Federal law took precedent, since the election is national, while Gore argued States’ rights. After all, we have the electoral system and that favors States’ rights. When it comes to matters of the Constitution it is not always the way you think it should be at first glance. Gore has come a long way from States’ Rights to Global Governance, but that is another story.
The US Senate decided in 2008 in their unanimous resolution proclaiming John McCain a “natural born citizen” of the Unites States of America, based upon the well-known fact that BOTH of his parents were indeed legal citizens of the United States at the time of John’s birth. In other words, by “divine power” and the “laws of growth,” “produced by nature” of the fact that his parents were US citizens, so was John McCain, by birth right via natural ancestry.
This ruling is remarkable, since this would automatically disqualify Obama, since his father was a British subject, Bobby_Jindal, Marco Rubio and maybe even Rick Santorum since their parents were not citizens but here as legal immigrants or on student visas visa at the time of their birth.
There was a noticeable lack of interest by the Senate to do for Obama what they had done for McCain. Yet one could argue that the Obama story is even more intriguing than McCain’s.
Let us see what we know about Obama.
The Obama team has released a Certification of birth registration on the web, not in hard copy form, that states the date of birth, the names of the parents, the address of permanent residence and the state of Hawaii.
Originally the birth hospital was Queen’s Hospital in Honolulu, but that got changed to Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children. They have yet to officially confirm that Obama was born there. So we have four possibilities for his birthplace
1. Queen’s Hospital, Honolulu, HI. Not Confirmed.
2. Kapiolani Medical Center, Honolulu, HI. Not Confirmed
3. Born in Hawaii, but not in a hospital.
4. Born elsewhere, but registered in Hawaii by his grandmother by virtue of his mother being a US citizen.
The long form Birth Certificate would clear up which of the four alternatives it is. It is a simple procedure to obtain a copy of the Long form Birth Certificate, but the Obama team has hitherto spent upwards of two millions prevent its release.
Then out of the blue, after Donald Trump started hounding him about the real birth certificate they produced a layered image with composites from at least three separate documents overlaid with a separate State Seal image and signature (The signature has a happy face in it just to vex you). This document would not have standing in any court since is an obvious generated document from multiple sources.
There is one more thing. We do not know if Obama’s parents were ever legally married. No marriage certificate has been produced. So we do not know if Obama’s father has legal standing. If he had, Obama would be disqualified on the ground that Obama’s father was a British subject at the time of his birth. Kenya was in the process of becoming a part of the Commonwealth rather than a Colony, so his status is unclear. In any way he was not a US Citizen, and Obama would not qualify as a Natural Born Citizen no matter where he was born. If they were never legally married it makes it easier; all we have to prove is that he was born in Hawaii. There is just one thing. Obama’s mother was not of age to claim him alone as a US Citizen at that time, so we still do not know how it would have turned out if Congress had acted to certify Obama eligible for the presidency.
All of this is moot however. No real journalist showed any interest in the case. There were WND, CNN’s Lou Dobbs and an occasional Fox news reporter that mentioned the case, but they are not “real news organizations” (Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod 10/17/2009).
Then a retired entrepreneur from Canada, J.B. Williams discovered something remarkable: Obama was never certified eligible to be president! He published this in
Canada Free Press.
At the Democratic National Convention Obama was elected their presidential candidate and a letter was sent to all 50 states and the District of Columbia stating that it was so. The letters were signed by Nancy Pelosi and the DNC Secretary, properly notarized, 51 originals in all. They were of two kinds. One went to the State of Hawaii and it contained the language:
“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democratic Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.”
The other 50 originals contained the wording:
“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democratic Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively:
Did you catch the typo, the same typo on all 51 originals?
So for the 49 States and the District of Columbia the certification step was never made.
The Electoral College duties are: First to certify themselves eligible to cast the ballots for their candidate, then to certify the candidates eligible to serve. After these two steps it is time to vote for President, mostly by winner takes all for their State, except Nebraska and Maine, where the vote is by congressional district and the two senatorial votes by State.
The certification step was never made, not at the Convention and not by the Electoral College.
So they made the effort to make sure the oath was perfect by repeating the taking of it so every letter of the Constitution could be fulfilled, but the certification step that would have made the oath binding in the first place was never made.
The conclusion: We have a president elect that has never taken a valid oath, because he was never certified eligible to take the oath.
Why are so few people interested in this? Is it because the constitution is no longer relevant?
Or is it because it is becoming a moot point anyway after the President signed the Copenhagen treaty in December 2009, and after the Senate ratifies it the Constitution will be no more?
And why was this missing certification step discovered by a Canadian (J.B. Williams), and the warning that ratifying the Copenhagen Treaty would sign away our sovereignty and Constitution to an unelected international body was discovered by a British subject, Lord Monckton ?
Is the press so in love with internationalism that it is forbidden to search into these matters? If so, this explains the treatment of Sarah Palin. She is a dangerous woman to internationalists, because she really loves the USA, its Constitution and the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This woman had to be stopped using all means of smear known to man. It all stars to make sense.
Fast forward to the 2020 election and another vice presidential candidate. Kamala Harris was born in the U.S, thus being a native born citizen, but none of her parents were citizens at the time of her birth. They were both students at the time, and probably had F-1 or H-1b visas, or possibly green cards, but in any case they were not citizens at the time of her birth. When I immigrated to the U.s I was told that my future children could not be president. At that time this was simple truth, nobody questioned it.
An old British saying used to be: “Everybody complains about the weather, but nobody does anything about it.” We may not be able to do much about the weather, but at least we can try to save the world from the “Climate Crisis”. The term used to be Climate Change, but with the new administration the term has been upgraded.
When I grew up a long time ago in Sweden the old folks used to say “If you make it through February, you will make it another year.” This was of course before electricity and central heating”.
There is a saying in Norway: “There is no bad weather, only bad clothes.” Here is an example, the souwester” It works well in freezing rain.
The long term weather forecast for February, issued January 21 by the weather channel looked like this:
Great, no need to buy that extra sweater, and Texans can go another season with thin t-shirts and designer pre-torn jeans.
But the weather forecast three weeks later looked like this:
But the windmills don’t work in freezing rain, so the electric grid was challenged when over half of the windmills froze just as the demand spiked. Normally coal and natural gas electrical plants would have kicked in, but many of the coal plants had been shut down due to environmental regulations, and the emergency request to restart them were denied due to environmental concerns. The natural gas plants ran full bore until the natural gas pressure in the pipelines started dropping below safe levels. This lead to rotating power-outs to preserve gas line pressure. But in the wisdom of the authorities the gas line pressure compressors had been switched from natural gas to electricity (environmental concerns), so if the compressors were in an area of electric blackout, there went the gas pressure, causing a chain reaction, and the whole power grid came within hours of a total collapse. Only nuclear power hummed along as if nothing had happened, but nuclear power is a base load and cannot increase the power above a certain level. Back in 2017, Secretary of Energy Rick Perry proposed paying Coal and Nuclear Power Stations to keep at least 90 days worth of coal onsite, for disaster resilience. At the time the resilience proposal was widely criticized as being a thinly disguised Trump scheme to pump government money into the coal and nuclear industries. So the plan was rejected by the bureaucracy. But in hindsight, a bit more resilience might have saved Texas from days of painful electricity blackouts, and even deaths.
The bill for these monumental miscalculations is yet to be paid. The cost of electricity for these 2 weeks off horror is yet to be paid. The Texans who were fortunate enough to have power have to pay the bill for intermittent electricity at a cost of two dollars per kilowatt-hour. A retired veteran on social security got a bill for over 16,000 dollars for part of February.
Since weather is so hard to predict, do we have any hope of being able to predict future climate? People keep trying. And they keep developing climate models. Here is a chart of most of them:
Not much has changed since this chart was first published. While the IPCC confidence in their climate models keep increasing, so does the difference between model prediction and actual temperature.
Climate finance continues to be the central issue in how the global community proposes to follow through with implementation of the Paris Agreement, which Joe Biden has decided to rejoin by executive fiat. This is in the opinion of his advisors, such as John Kerry appropriate in the context of the last IPCC report showing a USD 1.6-3.8 trillion energy system investment requirement to keep warming within a 1.5 degree Celsius scenario to avoid the most harmful effects of climate change (IPCC, 2018).
Ever since the election there have been loud voices proclaiming that the election was stolen. Most of the media have claimed that it was the greatest lie ever told by candidate Trump.
over 70% of Republican voters still believe that the election was stolen. Even about 30% of the Democrats believe so also, but many of them don’t mind, since it was for a greater purpose.
This is no way to try to unite the nation. There is a good way to resolve it, by conducting a forensic analysis of at least 6 states, all battleground states.
These are the allegations in the form of a handy chart.
In addition, such as the allegations from Antrim County in Michigan seem to question the validity of the whole voting system, with machines connected to the internet during counting and numerous other problems, and if these questions are not further investigated I will never believe in an election again.
If all of the allegations will be proven false, I stand corrected.
In early May, 2019, President Xi and Vice Premier Liu He, China’s top trade negotiator, visited a rare earth metals mine in Jiangxi province. This has led to the rumor that China is seriously considering restricting rare earth exports to the US. China may also take other countermeasures in the future. The trade negotiations between U.S. and China got a lot more serious. It extended far beyond tariffs and intellectual property, it began to involve control of strategic materials.
The first thing we must realize is that rare earth metals are not all that rare. They are a thousand times or more abundant than gold or platinum in the earth crust and easy to mine, but a little more difficult to refine. Thorium and Uranium will also be mined at the same time as the rare earth metals since they appear together in the ore.
U.S. used to be the major supplier of rare earth metals, which was fine up to around 1984. Then the U.S. regulators determined that Uranium and Thorium contained in the ore made the ore radioactive, so the regulatory agencies decided to make rare earth metal ore subject to nuclear regulations with all what that meant for record keeping and control. This made mining of rare earth metals in the U.S. unprofitable, so in 2001 the last domestic mine closed down. China had no such scruples, such as human or environmental concerns, so they took over the rare earth metals mining and in 2010 controlled over 95% of the world supply, which was according to their long term plan of controlling the world by 2025.
The U.S. used to have a strategic reserve of rare earth metals, but that was sold off in 1998 as being no longer cost effective or necessary. Two years later the one U.S. rare earth metals mine that used to supply nearly the whole world, the Mountain Pass Mine in California closed down, together with its refining capacity. From that day all rare earth metals were imported.
The U.S. used to have a strategic reserve of rare earth metals, but that was sold off in 1998 as being no longer cost effective or necessary. Two years later the one U.S. rare earth metals mine that used to supply nearly the whole world, the Mountain Pass Mine in California closed down, together with its refining capacity. From that day all rare earth metals were imported. In 2010 it started up again together with the refining capacity but went bankrupt in 2015, closed down the refining but continued selling ore to China. They restarted refining again late 2020.
So, why is this important? Just take a look at all the uses for rare earth metals. The most sought after pays all the cost of mining and refining, and the rest are readily available at nominal cost.
The Chinese almost got away with it, and that is but one reason the trade negotiations were so complicated and hard fought, but necessary. Donald Trump fought for reciprocity and fair competition.
For example, according to a 2013 report from the Congressional Research Service, each F–35 Lightning II aircraft requires 920 pounds of rare–earth materials. Who is making the most critical parts to this airplane? You guessed it – China, from our drawings and according to our specifications.
Here is a picture of the F-35
And here is a picture of the Chinese clone, the J-20, stealth capacity and all.
It is a lot cheaper to steal technology than to develop your own.
Not all rare earth metals are of equal importance, and this is reflected in their price. The rare earth metals mined in Myanmar are high in the most sought after metals, such as neodymium and dysprosium
November saw the prices of all major Chinese-sourced rare earths spike, but especially those used in magnets. In particular, the research note mentioned neodymium, which is the most common rare earth used in making magnets, which rose by 27% since early in November, up over 50% year to date. Several other key rare earths also increased in value last month, including dysprosium (+17%), gadolinium (+9%) and terbium (+27%).
Another factor in the price surge is a new law that came into force in China on December 1, Hamilton noted. Known as the Export Control Law, it creates new regulations that give the government more control over such exports as technology and rare earths.
It turns out that Myanmar provides half of China’s need for neodymium and dysprosium, so any disruption in the supply would be most unwelcome for China.
China has been hard at work trying to keep a near monopoly on rare earth metals, by securing patents> Here is a chart of recently issued patents
Yogi Berra once said: Predictions are hard, especially about the future Here are the predictions for rare earth metals prices:
On February 1 there was a coup in Myanmar, and the military took over power. Prices of some rare earth metals spiked to more than estimated 2025 levels.
China has been quietly exploring the economic damage it could inflict to US and European companies – including defense contractors – if they were to impose export ‘restrictions’ on 17 rare-earth materials, according to a report in the Financial Times.
FT added that “[t]he Ministry of Industry and Information Technology last month proposed draft controls on the production and export of 17 rare earth minerals in China, which controls about 80% of global supply.”
Before being voted out of office, President Trump and his administration sought to take steps that might help the US limit China’s resource dominance in this area, including signing an executive order declaring a “national emergency” in the US mining and minerals industry (much of which remains focused on digging coal out of the ground). China has been widely acknowledged as dominant in the rare-earth minerals market for decades.
But with Trump out, and a much more China-friendly administration back in power in Washington, it looks like Beijing is already considering playing hardball to get what it wants.
Meanwhile, the Biden administration is considering sanctions against Myanmar, a country that is poorer than Bangladesh.
China is the world’s dominant producer of rare earths, a group of 17 minerals used in consumer electronics and military equipment. But it relied on Myanmar for about half its heavy rare earth concentrates in 2020, says Adamas Intelligence managing director Ryan Castilloux.
Myanmar is therefore an “exceptionally critical supplier of … feedstocks that are essential ingredients in high-strength permanent magnets for electric vehicle traction motors, wind power generators, industrial robots and a wide array of defense-related applications”, he said.
There has been no sign of disruption for now, since Myanmar’s rare earth mines are under the control of autonomous militia groups, but the test will come after the Lunar New Year holiday, which has just ended.