Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
Football fans are being encouraged to ‘score green goals’ for their teams and win prizes by taking up climate-friendly behaviours.
More than 80 clubs – including Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool and Manchester United – are backing Green Football Weekend, which runs from 3-5 February.
Every action supporters take will earn points for their club, helping one win the ‘Green Football Cup’.
Some players are wearing green armbands this weekend to publicise the campaign, which aims to promote sustainable behavioural shifts among sports fans.
“Do you have a loved one or just friend who needs to escape a mental rut about climate alarm and forced energy transformation? Someone with intellect and passion to examine the other side of a supposedly ‘closed’ debate? Someone who might even reverse course to challenge climate exaggeration, energy statism, and global government? This conference is for them.”
“Do you have a loved one or just friend who needs to escape a mental rut about climate alarm and forced energy transformation? Someone with intellect and passion to examine the other side of a supposedly ‘closed’ debate? Someone who might even reverse course to challenge climate exaggeration, energy statism, and global government? This conference is for them.”
Even as we begin to emerge from the stress of the pandemic year, mental-health professionals are noting a steady uptick in a different form of anxiety—the worry over climate change and the future that it will bring.
He refers to surveys showing “about forty per cent of Americans feeling ‘disgusted’ or ‘helpless’ about global warming, and a poll from the American Psychiatric Association finding that more than half of the respondents were concerned about the effects of climate change on their mental health.” McKibben added:
The effects seem particularly harsh on new mothers, and, indeed, a fear of adding to the climate problem and of the disintegration it might cause seems to be deterring large numbers of young people from having kids of their own. Understandably, the fear of a wrecked future increases as you descend the age scale: a March survey of Gen-Z Americans aged between fourteen and twenty-four found that eighty-three per cent are concerned about the health of the planet (although nearly half said that they have been feeling a little better since Biden took office).
Climate Cure: Education
If this polling data is true (push polling can get the desired answers), there is an off-the-shelf, nonprescription strategy to address climate angst: reading, studying, and deciding for yourself. This brings me to the 15th International Conference on Climate Change this February 23–25, hosted by the Heartland Institute.
“The True Crisis: Climate Change or Climate Policy?” (registration here) is described by the organizers as follows:
Make plans NOW to join The Heartland Institute at the 15th edition of the most-important and informative conference on climate science and energy policy in the world.
Held at the Hilton Lake Buena Vista in Orlando, Florida – a location we picked to honor Florida’s status as by-design “free state” – the 15th International Conference on Climate Change will once again bring together the world’s best experts to analyze the latest climate science and the wrong-headed energy and policy solutions the world’s governments are determined to impose on us all.
From the green energy boondoggles in the so-called “Inflation Reduction Act” in the United States, to the ongoing wind-power disaster in Germany, and threats of energy cuts in the winter in the UK, the climate policy “solutions” are a real and growing problem for the people of the world. Why are we making life poorer and more miserable for most of the people on the planet when there is no climate crisis?
Attend this conference to learn the truth, and inspire your own passion to spread that truth around the globe.
Again, those with climate anxiety or a general sense of eco-hopelessness have one-stop-shopping to learn about the optimistic side of CO2 enrichment and the benefits of global lukewarming (particularly in months like February). To learn about energy density and the benefits of stock energies over dilute, intermittent alternatives. To grasp the wind-turbine-sized hypocrisy of an intellectual/political elite basking in the benefits of modern living and jetting around, while telling others to stay poor or do with less.
Do you have a loved one or just friend who needs to escape a mental rut about climate alarm and forced energy transformation? Someone with intellect and passion to examine the other side of a supposedly ‘closed’ debate? Someone who might even reverse course to challenge climate exaggeration, energy statism, and global government? This conference is for them.
The moral high ground and intellectual case for freedom await. See you there!
——————-
P.S. Dear Harvard Medical School: don’t double down on climate alarm, attend the Heartland conference. Good Grief Network: have a better message to share with those in need. No, Smithsonian Magazine, “crushing anxiety about the climate crisis” is not normal. Ecotherapist Phoenix Smith: bring your patients to the event to replace denial, fear, anger, and sadness with realism and hope–and a new mission to rescue those programmed in climate cultism.
This list can go on and on, so spread the invitation throughout the climate-anxiety community.
Rex Murphy writes at National Post If CBC cared about diversity, it would host Jordan Peterson global warming talk Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.
There is no other issue over the past 20 and probably 30 years that has more obtained the attention of the world’s press than global warming.
I know there have been others. But none has had such a continuous and insistent presence.
No other issue has had the sweet, soft, giddy support of the big networks, the great corporations, the trendy school boards, every mad virtue-signalling politician (the chieftain of which is Prime Minister Justin Trudeau), and the whole wide and multitudinous, amoeba-replicative (and dreadful) NGOS — think of the various foundations, of which I nominate the Suzuki Foundation as the Canadian prince of these dull harrying grouplets — as global warming.
I am aware I am using the old and opportunistically discarded brand-name here: global warming.
Global warming was the term du jour when the thesis was we were heading into thermal crisis, the snow caps were to disappear, glaciers would go all water in the next 30 years or so, skiers would stare down snow-clean slopes, the seas would swamp New York and Tokyo, and children would weep at bared un-snowed hill-slides.
Alas. Snow kept falling. Seas refused to swell to city-destroying levels. Some winters remained … cold. Ski slopes had snow. And children still in all their sweet joy sledded down the still snow-blanketed hills.
Imagine — the planet’s weather refused to follow Greenpeace’s furious warnings.
Elizabeth May’s hothouse weepings, the latest bulletins from various second-tier folk singers, and people who slept on multimillion-dollar yachts on the French Riviera who deplored those who drove pickup trucks in Northern Alberta.
It was for naught. The Earth has its own ideas. And may probably continue to have them. Presuming the cosmos itself doesn’t go woke.
So it was obvious that “global warming,” the doomster’s environmental taglinerequired what the communication shops call a “re-branding.” And there being no set more adjusted to the miracles of communications management than the herd of apocalyptic global warming warriors, they — perhaps with much polling, and certainly with much cuteness — changed the brand to “climate change.”
Climate change. There’s a conceptual “get out of jail” brand.
A useful digression: I come from dear, sweet Newfoundland. And I know this will not mean much for you who are not from my province — but I grew up in Placentia Bay.
In Placentia Bay the climate changes every six minutes. And on rough days, every four. Climate change is a beautiful redundancy. It always changes. And if it didn’t … well, it wouldn’t be climate.
So the new brand of “climate change” had this going for it — it gave a blanket rationalefor every twitch and tingle or every “weather event” of any kind, wet or cold, hot or dry, a justification under its pure and infinitely elastic designation.
CBC and TV Ontario kept up the silly surmise, having aired Al Gore’s ridiculous, abysmally ignorant An Inconvenient Truth as if it was a script from Sinai, not on stone tablets of course, but “verified” by the “scientists” at the Academy Awards.
Climate change as a brand and a switch-name has gone unchallenged by the main media. Most of them have endorsed a silence on respectable, authoritative, independent and resolute minds who offer more than a different view, but a neutral, rational, and science-based contesting opinion on what has become more of a doxology than matter for exchange, debate, and informed challenge.
Consider Dr. Richard Lindzen. His qualifications on atmospheric science are superb. He is not a “culture warrior.” He is not “political.” He is a great thinking mind — that last term is a very high compliment.
He recently gave a long — nearly two hours — interview with Jordan Peterson, on “climate change,” all conducted with great calm and a backand-forth that followed no script. It was, to my view, one of the cleanest discussions of this issue I have seen.
Dr. Lindzen has the authority of real knowledge on this topic, and therefore his reasonings are worth full and wide attention.
The interview is a model of intellectual exchange, something long lost on our big networks with their fixed views and hollow coverage.
Dr. Lindzen is a font of clear thought, non-agenda-driven deliberation, and direct statement.
It would be a wild wish to see Peterson’s interview with Dr. Lindzen on CBC or TVO. It would break the hearts of their morning agenda meeting attendees. And would threaten their “diversity” and climate change mandates, which are, apparently, whatever the Suzuki foundation and Steven Guilbeault think are correct must be correct.
Watch this interview, even if you are committed to “global warming” theorizations.
And, to Ms. Catherine Tait, CBC president currently wandering the great Canadian landscape arguing CBC’S relevance and point. Here’s a thought: diversity is a quality of mind and intellect. It is not a submission to current faddishness.
Try airing the interview with Dr. Lindzen as an experiment with diversity of thought.
It may be a strange thing to say, but a broadcaster, subsidized and leaning on past glories, should earn its present-day respect by looking around and giving a glimpse at opinions and perspectives outside the glass case of its own treasured ever-so-correct eidolons of virtue-speak.
You may remember Steve Hilton during his time as David Cameron’s policy advisor. He has been in the US for years since then and now works with Fox News.
Here is his tale of how Biden wants to ban gas stoves, and how Big Tech is trying to suppress the story:
I recently learned that my local district council has signed-up to the 15-minute scheme that is rolling out across the UK. Residents are worried, and quite rightly so, for a semi rural community like ours relies heavily on private transport, there being few bus services to speak of: no car, no cake!
Any sensible transport planner would undertake surveys both before and after introduction of a new policy so they can quantify the benefits. Not so our council. Schemes they are going to design themselves will go ahead whether residents like it or not and whether they actually work or not. There’s a fair chance the knock-on effect will be increased travel and emissions as residents find ways around the road blocks and closures.
The Big Scheme
But there has been a rather big emissions reduction scheme in operation; a global scheme, in fact, and in place of flower beds and bollards placed across residential roads our respective governments have gone and locked us all away for weeks on end. Businesses have gone bust, shops have closed for good and vehicles have rusted. In the height of incarceration some wag joked that they’re now getting three months to the gallon. Quite. So did this big scheme have a big impact on atmospheric CO2? Please place your bets now and let’s go find out…
Scripps CO2 Program
If you want decent data on atmospheric CO2 your best bet is the Scripps CO2 program. There’s a fascinating history to this institute, which lies right at the heart of the global warming story. I’m not going to chew on that bone today for I want to get ahead and pull down monthly and weekly in situ reference data from the Mauna Loa Observatory (MLO). Yes, I know that the MLO is stuck on top of a volcano that also belches CO2, and agree this is well weird. The idea was to get up as high as possible, away from as much vegetation as possible, and as far away from any continent as possible, for all these things affect readings enormously.
Spot The Ball
Although I can run both the monthly and weekly data series back to 1958 this doesn’t give us a decent visual for our eyeballs to dance over. I have thus chosen the period 2015 to 2022 to give us a better flavour, marking in the period March 2020 to April 2021 to remind us of the most intense lockdown period. Here’s the slide for the monthly mean series followed by the slide for the weekly series. Note the strong seasonal pattern:
Like you I could not detect any noticeable impact of the global pandemic and all the extraordinary restrictions this entailed. Were it not for those two dashed lines I’d have no clue as to when the world closed down!
The Big Spanner
This is one of those moments when we need to reach for the big spanner of Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) intervention modelling.
We’re looking at time series data so we better use a proper-job time series technique to see if we can spot anything our eyes have missed by dialling-up a fancy method for outlier detection. Believe it or not there are no less than 7 outlier types defined within the ARIMA module of my stats package and here they all are:
Being a reckless sort I decided to flip them all on to see what came out in the wash.
Monthly Wash
The monthly series yielded a rather pleasing ARIMA(1,1,0)(0,1,1) structure with the following primary outputs (please follow this Wiki link to see what this gibberish means):
his tells us that monthly CO2 follows a strong seasonal pattern (MA seasonal Lag 1, p<0.001), with a modest degree of ‘memory’ (AR Lag 1, p<0.001); that is to say this month’s value for CO2 will depend on last month’s. This is all well and good but I want you to ignore everything apart from the lower table, for this tells us if anything unusual has happened at any point.
We observe that the model detected a slight drop in atmospheric CO2 to the tune of -0.957ppm (p<0.001) back in April 2017 and another slight drop to the tune of -1.066ppm (p=0.001) back in March 2022.
Before alarmists get too excited at this point we should note the March 2022 drop is earmarked as a transient with a decay factor of 0.915. What this means is that there was an immediate drop that dissipated back to normal.
If you take a magnifying glass to the monthly chart you can see this blip for yourself – it looks like somebody took a small bite out of the spring 2022 series.
This bite is not unique, and if you study the monthly chart carefully you’ll see an odd kink each March or thereabouts going all the way back to 2015 and before.
I am hoping folk have figured for themselves what is causing this, for it is a wonderful realisation… those regular nibbles in the CO2 record are the plants of the northern hemisphere coming back to life and fixing CO2 like crazy as new growth gets underway.
For some reason the plants of the northern hemisphere were pretty hungry during spring of 2022, and this may well be the impact of global greening (i.e. there are more hungry plants wanting dinner).
No doubt there are alarmists who will try to pin this seasonal nibble on the impact of global lockdowns but global lockdowns over an extended period are not going to cause a single transient dip a year or so later.
Weekly Wash
Here’s the same approach used on the weekly time series data, which yielded a sophisticated model structure of ARIMA(2,1,2):
This tells us that atmospheric CO2 has a 2-week ‘memory’ (AR lag 2, p<0.001) over which it is subject to random shocks (MA Lag 2, p<0.001). Those wacko four digit numbers in the outliers table refer to the week number since w/e 29 March 1958.
It would indeed be lovely for the stats package to print dates instead of cryptic week numbers but that is how the cookie crumbles! I shall therefore announce that the first pandemically-flavoured observation in March 2020 (w/e 7 March) possesses a week number of 3161, with global lockdowns ending sometime around week 3216.
If we are to detect an impact of global shutdown we must therefore be seeking negative coefficients for outlier weeks occurring after week 3161.
Clearly there ain’t any! The closest we get is a transient lowering of the mean weekly atmospheric CO2 by -2.350ppm (p<0.001) during week 3112 (w/e 23 March 2019). Now, lockdowns weren’t even born back then but I can tell you what was being born and that was the flowering spring of 2019.
Ain’t that just wonderful? If you squint at the weekly slide you’ll see this sharp drop, which is mirrored in notable spring drops for 2020 and 2022. We might call this the ‘spring signal’. Setting the spring signal aside my eyeballs cannot detect any impact of global lockdown, and neither can the ARIMA procedure.
Wood For Trees
OK, so we have been unable to detect the impact of lockdown on weekly and monthly values for atmospheric CO2, but what about longer timescales? Are we missing the wood because of the trees?
At this point we can either resort to an analysis of annual means or do something sophisticated and rather elegant using seasonal decomposition. As Wiki states this is an important statistical technique, being one that decomposes a periodic data series into a seasonal component, a combined trend and cycle component, and an error component.
In plain English this technique separates the seasonal ‘wobble’ from a wobbly series so we can look at both the wobbly bit and the underlying trend bit. Here’s the wobbly bit for the period Jan 2015 – Dec 2022 followed by the seasonally adjusted data (i.e. wobbly bit removed), with global shutdown marked by two dashed lines:
Can we spot anything yet? I say not! Atmospheric CO2 carried on rising just as if total global shutdown of business, schooling, social life, travel and pretty much everything we do as a civilisation meant absolutely nothing.
Now that’s pretty darn compelling evidence of the utter futility of Net Zero, especially when we stop to consider geologists measured the impact of global lockdown on movement of the Earth’s crust!
Grab The Spanner!
At this stage we’ve got a lovely run of seasonally adjusted monthly time series data, so what we can now do is conjure an indicator variable to define the period of global shutdown, as indicated by those dashed grey lines in the plots, and stuff this into our ARIMA modelling as an independent (predictor) variable.
The resulting best-fit ARIMA(0,1,3) model yields the following:
We observe that our indicator for the lockdown period of March 2020 – April 2021 is utterly insignificant as a predictor of seasonally adjusted atmospheric CO2 (p=0.846). Again there is zero evidence to support Net Zero but, of course, that won’t stop globalists doing exactly what they want regardless of what the science actually says.
More, Bigger, Better
So… we’ve not detected any impact of global shutdown in a weekly or monthly time series, and we’ve not detected any impact using an indicator variable to mark out a sustained period of 12 months for seasonally adjusted data.
But should we be thinking bigger? I’m thinking in terms of a sustained impact of global lockdown that kicks off in March 2020 and runs right through to the end of the series in December 2022.
Perhaps this ain’t some short, sharp shock but a more genteel affair draped over many months. The BIG problem is that atmospheric CO2 will be greatly dependent on many factors over this extended time frame I can’t possibly hope to account for.
Chief among these will be land surface and sea surface temperature. Fortunately for us these are brought together in one handy super yummy data series that goes by the natty name of HadCRUT.5.0.1.0.
In two shakes of a locust’s leg I had the monthly time series for the HadCRUT5 northern hemisphere temperature anomaly bolted onto the Mauna Loa in situ reference data ready for action. The resulting best-fit ARIMA(0,1,1)(0,1,1) model for the prediction of atmospheric CO2 (raw data rather than seasonally adjusted) using an indicator variable to mark a sustained effect of global shutdown yields the following:
There’s a big surprise here and that is the HadCRUT5 northern hemisphere combined land and sea surface temperature anomaly failed to perform as a statistically significant predictor of atmospheric CO2 at the global reference laboratory at Mauna Loa (p=0.435).
This indicates that not only is Net Zero a nonsensical political farce but there’s also no empirical evidence of a link between current levels of CO2 and surface temperatures. I didn’t expect that! What I did suspect was that my indicator for a sustained effect of global shutdown would be a flop, and I was right (p=0.375). So there you go, computer says no!
Less, Smaller, Worse
Just to prove I’m not playing tricks we are going to go down the alternative route of looking at annual mean atmospheric CO2. The time series since 2000 is pretty boring:
And my eyeballs still can’t detect any change to the incessant rise in CO2 despite the mother of all global shutdowns! Sure puts my local council’s grand scheme of a few annoying traffic bollards into perspective, I can tell you.
Dessert
I guess I better end this article with the results of an ARIMA(1,1,1) model for the prediction of mean annual atmospheric CO2 that will cheer up despondent alarmists. Try this for size:
Tada! Now that we’ve smoothed the data out to the creamy texture of the annual mean we suddenly find HadCRUT5 northern hemisphere anomaly bursting back into statistical significance as a predictor of atmospheric CO2 as measured over at Mauna Loa (p=0.001).
This is interesting because that relationship is simply not there down at the monthly level of data resolution.
Alarmists should find this pudding more palatable but there’s no getting away from the fact that a global shutdown indicator marking out 2020 failed to reach significance as a predictor of atmospheric CO2 as measured at the global reference laboratory at Mauna Loa (p=0.977).
In plain English this means we locked down the world like never before and it had no detectable effect on CO2 concentration.
Net Zero must be referring to common sense.
Wriggling Free
I think it fair to say we’ve covered a few half-decent classical ideas on how to assess the immediate impact of global lockdown on atmospheric CO2 only to find there ain’t any detectable evidence.
However, it’s very easy for clued-up alarmists to wriggle out of this by playing the residency card. They’ll argue that since residency is up around 200 years then the concentration of CO2 we are measuring today is the product of 200 years worth of human emissions of which a decline in just one year will be an undetectable drop in the ocean.
If residency is a genuine thing, and is up at 200 years, then this will indeed be the case and we won’t be able to detect anything as paltry as a year of global shutdown. This harsh fact cuts both ways for it means Net Zero (or any means of slashing ‘fossil fuel’ use) is not going to have the slightest impact on the climate for a very long time.
Thus, all those desperate souls throwing soup on paintings, those folk scared sh*tless about the future, and those folk seething with anger are basically screaming at the wind.
Nothing they can do, say, think or believe will make any difference in their lifetime or that of their children even if all ‘fossil fuel’ was banned globally at midnight tonight.
The only solid option these souls have open to them is to learn to live with the weather like our ancestors did.
All this, of course, assumes that The Science™ we’re all supposed to follow is 100 percent correct, yet it is abundantly clear that it is fatally flawed and requires serious revision.
NY Post: Experts are now recommending that doctors reduce their use of certain kinds of anesthesia in order to combat the effects of climate change. Dr. Mohamed Fayed, a senior anesthetist at Detroit’s Henry Ford Health, made the suggestion during the American Society of Anesthesiologists’ annual conference last Friday in Orlando, Florida. “Global warming is affecting our daily life more and more, and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions has become crucial,” he said. Dr. Fayed added, “No matter how small each effect is, it will add up. As anesthesiologists, we can contribute significantly to this cause by making little changes in our daily practice — such as lowering the flow of anesthetic gas — without affecting patient care.”
Research notes that inhaled anesthesia accounts for up to 0.1% of the world’s carbon emissions, which are regarded as the primary driver of global climate change. An hour of surgery using an inhaled anesthetic is equivalent to driving as many as 470 miles, according to a 2010 study.
#
Flashback 2020 Study in American Cancer Society Journal in 2020 Fretted over ‘carbon footprint of cancer care’ – ACS Journal: “Climate change and cancer” – Excerpt: “To date, no studies have estimated the carbon footprint of cancer care…The energy expenditure associated with operating cancer treatment facilities and medical devices, as well as the manufacturing, packaging, and shipment of devices and pharmaceuticals, contributes significantly to greenhouse gas emissions in cancer care…Some cancer treatment facilities have begun to consider their own carbon footprint and started a process to achieve carbon neutrality.”
Climate Depot’s Morano: “Here is a question for the American Cancer Society: If you need cancer treatment, would you go to a cancer treatment center that was worried about its carbon footprint? Or one that was worried about delivering the best possible modern care possible?”
“Global warming is affecting our daily life more and more, and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions has become crucial,” he said.
Dr. Fayed added, “No matter how small each effect is, it will add up. As anesthesiologists, we can contribute significantly to this cause by making little changes in our daily practice — such as lowering the flow of anesthetic gas — without affecting patient care.”
Research notes that inhaled anesthesia accounts for up to 0.1% of the world’s carbon emissions, which are regarded as the primary driver of global climate change.
An hour of surgery using an inhaled anesthetic is equivalent to driving as many as 470 miles, according to a 2010 study.
Most general anesthesia procedures require a high fresh gas flow at the start and end of a procedure to quickly achieve the desired effect. But, according to Fayed, it is safe and effective to lower the flow at other times.
Anesthesia must be expertly administered: Too much of a drug can result in brain damage, coma or even death. But too little can mean a patient waking up during the procedure and experiencing intense pain, not to mention psychological trauma.
For their study, researchers from Henry Ford Health dialed down gas flow in an effort to reduce anesthesia use to under 3 liters every minute per surgery whenever possible.
This effort focused on the use of inhaled anesthetics only and produced a substantial decrease in use of the drugs, sometimes by as much as half.
Medical experts at Henry Ford Health also removed the drug desflurane from all operating rooms, noting that it produces the most significant carbon-dioxide emissions.
Data was gathered from 13,000 patients who underwent anesthesia from March 2021 to July 2021. Prior to the intervention, 65% of cases were limited to the 3 L/m threshold. By the end, 93% of cases achieved that.
“For a long time, there was a notion that the greenhouse effect caused in health care settings was an inevitable and unavoidable cost of providing patient care,” said Dr. Fayed.
“But we have learned that reducing anesthetic gas flow is one of the many ways health care can lessen its contribution to the global warming crisis, along with reducing waste, turning off lights and equipment when not in use and challenging practice habits, as long as they don’t compromise patient care.”
The researchers now are aiming to reduce the level of fresh gas flow to less than 2 L/m throughout the system.
#
Study in American Cancer Society Journal in 2020 Fretted over ‘carbon footprint of cancer care’ – From 2020: ACS Journal: “Climate change and cancer” – Excerpt: “To date, no studies have estimated the carbon footprint of cancer care…The energy expenditure associated with operating cancer treatment facilities and medical devices, as well as the manufacturing, packaging, and shipment of devices and pharmaceuticals, contributes significantly to greenhouse gas emissions in cancer care…Some cancer treatment facilities have begun to consider their own carbon footprint and started a process to achieve carbon neutrality. However, the proportion of health care institutions reporting environmental sustainability activities lags behind other economic sectors”
Climate Depot’s Morano: “Here is a question for the American Cancer Society: If you need cancer treatment, would you go to a cancer treatment center that was worried about its carbon footprint? Or one that was worried about delivering the best possible modern care possible?”
Claim: Surgical General Anesthetic is Contributing to Climate Change– Switching from general to regional anaesthetics may help cut greenhouse emissions and ultimately help reduce global warming, a new study claims. While regional anaesthetics numb a certain part of the body, general anaesthetics make patients totally unconscious for what tend to be more serious procedures. But unlike regional anaesthetics, generals use volatile and environmentally-unfriendly halogenated agents, such as desflurane, or nitrous oxide. … ‘Green-gional’ anesthesia: the non-polluting benefits of regional anesthesia to decrease greenhouse gases and attenuate climate change.
The BBC thinks we should agonise over our ‘carbon footprint’ in relation to computer data centres, due to their massive use of electricity (and water). It’s supposed to be a ‘crisis for which we are all to blame’.
Hyperscale data center in Dublin developed by EdgeConneX. (Image credit: EdgeConneX)
The BBC thinks we should agonise over our ‘carbon footprint’ in relation to computer data centres, due to their massive use of electricity (and water). It’s supposed to be a ‘crisis for which we are all to blame’. Another question then: how is this not also a problem for advocates of expanding electric power into transport and other areas of energy usage with lithium batteries, which are produced with huge volumes of water in the mining process and soak up vast amounts of electricity when collectively recharged? – – – Today Monday 6 February 2023, there is a new episode of Panorama. Is the Cloud Damaging the Planet?
The Cloud is fantastic, and we all have come to rely on it, says Memorable TV.
It’s where all of our memories and correspondence live, the engine behind all of our web searches, and the conduit for all of our television binges.
Cloud computing, however, requires massive data centres that consume tremendous quantities of both water and electricity behind the scenes.
Going online has a cumulative effect of increasing its carbon footprint. Richard Bilton delves into the expanding ecological crisis for which we are all to blame.
– – – Related — RTE (Irish broadcaster):The rise and rise of data centres in Ireland (Aug. 2022) ‘Analysis: Data centres in Ireland are now consuming more metered electricity than all of our rural homes put together’
Dr. Deborah Birx, who served as the White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator under President, has admitted in a new book that she quietly called her own shots during the COVID-19 plandemic.
Birx confessed to manipulating data and quietly altering CDC guidance without the administration’s knowledge or authorization.
In “Silent Invasion,” she discusses how she “devised” a “strategic sleight-of-hand” method of reporting she described as “subterfuge.”
"Virtually every page of Birx’s monstrosity of a book, Silent Invasion, reads like a how-to guide in subverting a democratic superpower from within, as could only be told through the personal account of someone who was on the front lines doing just that" https://t.co/O1zw1FM50O
— Andrew Bostom, MD, MS (@andrewbostom) July 16, 2022
Michael Senger: "[H]ere we have Deborah Birx—the woman who did more than almost any other person in the United States to promote and prolong Covid lockdowns, silencing anyone who disagreed with her, to the incessant praise of mainstream media outlets."https://t.co/l1YFsZeHqK
https://t.co/8PvWrLElAS If you only read one more article in 2022, make it this. Senger's incredible review of Birx's book illuminates the extent to which arrogant bureaucrats manipulated the public to persuade it to adopt some of the most catastrophic policies in modern history.
Birx insisted, contrary to the White House and the CDC, that the asymptomatic spread of COVID-19 was significant.
She says that “eight months into the pandemic, many at both the White House and the CDC still refused to see that silent spread played a prominent role in viral spread and that it started with social gatherings, especially among the younger adults.”
Birx opposed the advice of then-coronavirus adviser Dr. Scott Atlas to limit testing on the premise that asymptomatic transmission was minimal and not driving the pandemic.
She and then CDC Director Robert Redfield “agreed to quietly rewrite the guidance and post it to the CDC website.”
“We would not seek approval. Because we were both quite busy, it might take a week or two, but we were committed to subverting the dangerous message that limiting testing was the right thing to do,” she writes.
Birx recalls a phone call from White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows: “What the hell do you think you’re doing? You rewrote and posted the CDC testing stuff,” said Meadows, according to Birx’ account.
“Yes, I did, but – ” Birx replied.
“There’s no ‘buts’ here. You went over my head,” Meadows said, according to Birx.
Birx, who appeared alongside Fraudci and Trump during briefings, was instrumental in paving the way for destructive COVID policies such as testing, lockdowns, and masking.
“I devised a work-around for the governor’s reports I was then writing,” Birx admits in her new book.
“Instead of including those recommendations in the common bulleted list, I’d include them in the pandemic summary and state-specific recommendations in the governor’s reports, where they wouldn’t be so obvious.”
Birx goes on in her memoir to explain in detail how she would go through covid documents and manipulate the information in such a way as to make it minimally detectable by her superiors.
“After the heavily edited documents were returned to me, I’d reinsert what they had objected to, but place it in those different locations,” she admits.
“I’d also reorder and restructure the bullet points so the most salient – the points the administration objected to most – no longer fell at the start of the bullet points. I shared these strategies with the three members of the data team also writing these reports.”
Birx’s Saturday and Sunday report-writing routine, she brags, “soon became: write, submit, revise, hide, resubmit,” a strategic sleight-of-hand that she says “worked” as planned.
Alas, to that end, my book has been upstaged by the work of Deborah Birx, White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator, one of the “Trifecta” of three leading officials behind Covid lockdowns in the United States. Virtually every page of Birx’s monstrosity of a book, Silent Invasion, reads like a how-to guide in subverting a democratic superpower from within, as could only be told through the personal account of someone who was on the front lines doing just that.
Notably, though Birx’s memoir has earned relatively few reviews on Amazon, it’s earned rave reviews from Chinese state media, a feat not shared even by far-more-popular pro-lockdown books such as those by Michael Lewis and Lawrence Wright.
The glowing response from Chinese state media should come as no surprise, however, because every sentence of Birx’s book reads like it was written by the CCP itself. Chapter 1 opens with what she claims was her first impression of the virus.
I can still see the words splashed across my computer screen in the early morning hours of January 3. Though we were barely into 2020, I was stuck in an old routine, waking well before dawn and scanning news headlines online. On the BBC’s site, one caught my attention: “China Pneumonia Outbreak: Mystery Virus Probed in Wuhan.”
Indeed, as recounted in Snake Oil, that BBC article, which was posted at approximately 9:00 AM EST on January 3, 2020, was the first in a western news organization to discuss the outbreak of a new virus in Wuhan. Apparently, Birx was scanning British news headlines just as it appeared. What are the odds!
Birx wastes no time in telling us where she got her philosophy of disease mitigation, recalling how she immediately thought Chinese citizens “knew what had worked” against SARS-1: Masks and distancing.
Government officials and citizens across Asia knew both the pervasive fear and the personal response that had worked before to mitigate the loss of life and the economic damage wrought by SARS and MERS. They wore masks. They decreased the frequency and size of social gatherings. Crucially, based on their recent experience, the entire citizenry and local doctors were ringing alarm bells loudly and early. Lives were on the line—lots of them. They knew what had worked before, and they would do it again.
Birx spends countless pages tut-tutting the CCP for its “cover-up” of the virus (though Chinese state media apparently didn’t mind, as they gushed about her book anyway), which is funny because then she tells us:
On January 3, the same day the BBC piece ran, the Chinese government officially notified the United States of the outbreak. Bob Redfield, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, was contacted by his Chinese counterpart, George F. Gao.
Note, January 3 is also the same day the hero whistleblower Li Wenliang was supposedly admonished by authorities for sending a WeChat message about a “cover-up” of the outbreak. So on the same day Li was “admonished,” the head of China’s CDC literally called US CDC Director Robert Redfield to share the exact same information Li supposedly shared.
It is all about control. The principle holds true for any person or expert in any field who challenges the experts put forth by almost any large bureaucracy.
Big government cannot control the people if any medical doctor (M.D.) is able to challenge big government’s appointed experts. Contrary to the rhetoric and propaganda from big government, in a large bureaucracy the top management of the bureaucracy is protecting the bureaucracy, regardless the original intent or purpose of the organization when it was established, and regardless the purpose presently stated by the manager. It is all about control. The principle holds true for any person or expert in any field who challenges the experts put forth by almost any large bureaucracy.
“Technique has taken over the whole of civilization. Death, procreation, birth all submit to technical efficiency and systemization.” ― Jacques Ellul.
Ellul means by this: the technicians (be they appointed or defacto administrators and experts in any field, whether inside or outside the bureaucracy, who are deemed necessary to the bureaucracy’s end goals) they have no responsibility. The politicians (and thus the voters) have full responsibility, or so they believe.
Fauci, like NAZI’s, will claim he was following orders.
Thus government “ofthepeople, bythepeople, forthepeople” tends to transition into ever-larger government with full control of the people, because government was allowed to protect itself from criticism, transparency and removal.
Governments in every country use secrecy at their own discretion and any force it deems necessary. (Did you have the opportunity to vote for that? Was there a debate in your legislature? Do you realize that you pay for that secrecy bureaucracy whose size and cost is unknown to you and probably unknown to your representatives?) The government or large bureaucracy become a part of a machine for producing efficiency of a plan; the people become “capital” at the disposal of the machine.
An M.D. who can prescribe off-label or otherwise do what’s best for their patient, including the pre-born patient or the patient seeking assisted suicide, regardless the so-called “standard of care” and CDC/WHO/FDA/AMA etc, is a threat to the power and control of management.
Thereby that M.D. is also a threat to the power and control of the entire chain of large bureaucracies including: governments, licensing boards and professional associations, medical journals, hospital groups, pharmaceutical and medical supply companies, and pharmacies. The “cancel culture” writ large.
Thus, the immorality and eugenics of killing a child, totally millions of children per year, or assisting suicidea, is translated and excused as politically expedient, operationally and technically efficient, and profitable by organizations with Orwellian-newspeak-names such as The Department of Health and Human Services and Planned Parenthood.
Morally and politically, this is no different than gas chambers for Jews, killing fields for all non-conformists as done by CCP, Pol Pot, Stalin, Saddam Hussein, and Iran’s mullahs, granting clemency, commutation of sentence, and pardons to felons who donate their body parts, or government enabling cartels to traffic in humans, drugs and guns (think Obama/Holdren/ATF ‘fast & furious’), as well as any of the many deadly “false flag” operations (think 9-11, the Iraq War, the “color revolutions”, the Russia-Ukraine War, etc.
The end goals and the plan justify any means in the minds of the tiny minority who manage and protect the bureaucracies. And, in the mind of the technical experts working for the bureaucracy, politicians and voters absolve these technical experts of their moral responsibility. They are only following orders. Morality is not an issue, or so they believe. God will not be mocked.
You must be logged in to post a comment.