principiascientificinternational--2020-06-01--Study: Arctic Waters Were 4°C Warmer And Sea Ice-Free ~ 2100 BC

Today , the region north of Svalbard is encrusted with sea ice for all but a few weeks per year , and summer sea surface temperatures ( SSTs ) hover near 0°C .
Scientists ( Brice et al.
, 2020 ) have determined this same region had sea ice-free conditions last about 10 months per year while SSTs reached 4°C just ~4,100 years ago .
In early September 2019 , Arctic explorers once again needed to be rescued from the “ disappearing ” sea ice that had captured their ship in central Svalbard .
This region is presently free of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ per year ( late August ) .
Observational measurements ( Rösel et al.
, 2018 ) of the sea ice north of Svalbard indicate the ice has actually been significantly thicker in recent years ( 1.56 to 1.65 meters in 2015 , 2017 ) than it was in 1955 ( 0.94 of a meter ) .
A study site northeast of Svalbard ( Brice et al.
, 2020 ) reveals today ’ s sea surface temperatures of “ < 0°C ” are at least 4°C colder than they were just a few thousand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ice-free for all but “ a couple of months ” every year .
Notice the graphics that show today ’ s sea ice monthly duration ( ~11 months per year ) and summer sea surface temperatures ( zero degrees Celsius ) are among the highest and lowest ( respectively ) of the Holocene .
Per Brice et al .
( 2020 ) , the much warmer Arctic climate and absence of sea ice reached an “ optimum ” during “ the interval around 3000-2000 cal yr BP ” such that late Stone Age @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feasible ” .
“ Although our core was collected offshore , far from human settlement , the data compiled here and the reconstruction we propose provide some clues on the regional climate and marine environmental history .
Hence , our study yields some information about the fact that the interval around 3000–2000 cal yr BP was probably the most favorable time window of the Holocene for human occupation in the area of northern Svalbard .
Such a finding does not support directly the hypothesis of Stone Age settlements in Svalbard proposed by Christiansson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a climatological and oceanographical framework that would make it feasible.
” Read more at No Tricks Zone PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

Study: Arctic Waters Were 4°C Warmer And Sea Ice-Free ~ 2100 BC
Written by Kenneth Richard
Today, the region north of Svalbard is encrusted with sea ice for all but a few weeks per year, and summer sea surface temperatures (SSTs) hover near 0°C.
Scientists (Brice et al., 2020) have determined this same region had sea ice-free conditions last about 10 months per year while SSTs reached 4°C just ~4,100 years ago.
In early September 2019, Arctic explorers once again needed to be rescued from the “disappearing” sea ice that had captured their ship in central Svalbard.
This region is presently free of sea ice for only a few weeks per year (late August).
Observational measurements (Rösel et al., 2018) of the sea ice north of Svalbard indicate the ice has actually been significantly thicker in recent years (1.56 to 1.65 meters in 2015, 2017) than it was in 1955 (0.94 of a meter).
A study site northeast of Svalbard (Brice et al., 2020) reveals today’s sea surface temperatures of “<0°C” are at least 4°C colder than they were just a few thousand years ago when the Arctic was sea ice-free for all but “a couple of months” every year.
Notice the graphics that show today’s sea ice monthly duration (~11 months per year) and summer sea surface temperatures (zero degrees Celsius) are among the highest and lowest (respectively) of the Holocene.
Per Brice et al. (2020), the much warmer Arctic climate and absence of sea ice reached an “optimum” during “the interval around 3000-2000 cal yr BP” such that late Stone Age human settlements north of Svalbard were “feasible”.
“Although our core was collected offshore, far from human settlement, the data compiled here and the reconstruction we propose provide some clues on the regional climate and marine environmental history. Hence, our study yields some information about the fact that the interval around 3000–2000 cal yr BP was probably the most favorable time window of the Holocene for human occupation in the area of northern Svalbard. Such a finding does not support directly the hypothesis of Stone Age settlements in Svalbard proposed by Christiansson and Simonsen (1970) but provides a climatological and oceanographical framework that would make it feasible.”
Read more at No Tricks Zone
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related


principiascientificinternational--2020-06-01--Alarmists & Media Blame Cyclical Locust Plagues On Climate Change

Parts of India are undergoing their worst locust invasion in decades , following a cycle that has occurred throughout recorded history .
Climate alarmists and their media ventriloquist dummies are claiming climate change must be to blame .
“ India is facing its worst desert locust invasion in nearly 30 years , and the climate crisis is partly to blame , ” says an article published in Ecowatch .
Nevertheless , the Ecowatch article presents no evidence this cyclical locust invasion is either caused by climate change or is especially severe compared to other historical locus invasions .
The article @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assertion because no such evidence exists .
“ Locusts are not uncommon in the northwest Indian state of Rajasthan , but this year they have also entered the states of Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh for the first time since 1993 and the state of Maharashtra for the first time since 1974 , ” writes Ecowatch .
As the article admits , these events have happened repeatedly before , with the 1974 locust plague occurring during a 30-year global cooling period when the mainstream media were warning about a coming ice age .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ with some regularity all over the globe throughout history .
The Wikipedia entry on locust notes , “ [ t ] he ancient Egyptians carved them on their tombs and the insects are mentioned in the Iliad , the Bible , and the Quran .
Swarms have devastated crops and been a contributory cause of famines and human migrations.
” And academic papers also show locust plagues have even been common across Europe , with one paper noting , As a 2013 article in Farm Progress notes in the United States , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of locusts , particularly the Rocky Mountain locust , would have once been a fact of life for a sweep of American farmers from California to Texas to Minnesota.
” The worst locust plague recorded in the United States since European colonization was recorded in 1875 , which was 150 years of global warming ago , during the late stages of the Little Ice Age .
Abundant rainfall in recent years has brought more abundant water , crops , plants , and vegetation .
This has benefited people , desirable wildlife , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and food for all life do not become a crisis – or even a politically advantageous climate crisis , simply because locusts also benefit from better conditions for all life .
Another natural but , in some sense , a unique factor contributing to the locus plague this year was its coincidental arrival with the COVID-19 pandemic .
Amidst the Coronavirus pandemic and lockdowns , however , many of these normal monitoring and response mechanisms were abandoned .
A recent article in Wired discusses the problems that occurred with monitoring and response to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , where the current locust eruption first arose , above-average rainfall , heavy vegetation , and multiple years of good crop production made conditions ripe of the locust population boom .
The Global Locust Initiative at Arizona State University working with the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization operates a network of monitoring and response teams across much of North Africa , the Middle East , and the Indian subcontinent .
The current locust population explosion occurred in fairly wild and remote areas in the Middle East and Africa , areas with limited roads @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the Coronavirus shutdown was hitting .
These factors combined to hamper locust monitoring and response across the region .
In other regions , political instability also prevented an effective response to the booming locust population .
Yemen has been ravaged by years of war , leaving it unable no to deploy the specially trained crews the government had previously used to spray common pesticides that effectively kill locusts in mere hours .
The ongoing civil war there also made it too dangerous for farmers and other regular folks to spray the pesticides @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have contributed to the current locust plague striking large parts of Africa , Asia , and the Middle East , but there is no evidence that they are historically unusual .
To the extent any particular weather or climate factors can be blamed , it would be weather and climate factors that greatly benefit humans , wildlife , vegetation , and crop production .
Climate alarmists , however , don ’ t want people to hear that .
Instead , they pick out the small downside and implicitly tell people that an ideal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crop failure , water shortages , and sparse plant growth to deprive food for locusts – and everything else .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

Alarmists & Media Blame Cyclical Locust Plagues On Climate Change
Written by H Sterling Burnett
Parts of India are undergoing their worst locust invasion in decades, following a cycle that has occurred throughout recorded history.
Climate alarmists and their media ventriloquist dummies are claiming climate change must be to blame.
They are lying.
“India is facing its worst desert locust invasion in nearly 30 years, and the climate crisis is partly to blame,” says an article published in Ecowatch.
Nevertheless, the Ecowatch article presents no evidence this cyclical locust invasion is either caused by climate change or is especially severe compared to other historical locus invasions.
The article presents no evidence to back up its assertion because no such evidence exists.
“Locusts are not uncommon in the northwest Indian state of Rajasthan, but this year they have also entered the states of Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh for the first time since 1993 and the state of Maharashtra for the first time since 1974,” writes Ecowatch.
As the article admits, these events have happened repeatedly before, with the 1974 locust plague occurring during a 30-year global cooling period when the mainstream media were warning about a coming ice age.
Locust plagues have struck periodically, but with some regularity all over the globe throughout history.
The Wikipedia entry on locust notes, “[t]he ancient Egyptians carved them on their tombs and the insects are mentioned in the Iliad, the Bible, and the Quran. Swarms have devastated crops and been a contributory cause of famines and human migrations.”
And academic papers also show locust plagues have even been common across Europe, with one paper noting,
“The history of locust plagues shows how pervasive plagues were, and when records are more complete in later history seemingly almost continuous in occurrence. If it was like this in Europe where the majority of historical records come from, how much more so must it have been in Africa where conditions were much more conducive to locusts?”
As a 2013 article in Farm Progress notes in the United States, “the speed, ferocity, and devastation of locusts, particularly the Rocky Mountain locust, would have once been a fact of life for a sweep of American farmers from California to Texas to Minnesota.”
The worst locust plague recorded in the United States since European colonization was recorded in 1875, which was 150 years of global warming ago, during the late stages of the Little Ice Age.
Farm Progress says:
“In 1875, the largest locust swarm in history was recorded over the Midwest — 198,000 square miles. (For a size reference, California covers 163,696 square miles.) The 1875 swarm was estimated to contain several trillion locusts and probably weighed several million tons. That was the largest locust cloud in world history, according to Jeffrey Lockwood, author of ‘The Devastating Rise and Mysterious Disappearance of the Insect that Shaped the American Frontier.’”
Abundant rainfall in recent years has brought more abundant water, crops, plants, and vegetation. This has benefited people, desirable wildlife, and locusts.
The benefits of more water and food for all life do not become a crisis – or even a politically advantageous climate crisis, simply because locusts also benefit from better conditions for all life.
Another natural but, in some sense, a unique factor contributing to the locus plague this year was its coincidental arrival with the COVID-19 pandemic.
As Wikipedia notes,
“Recently, changes in agricultural practices and better surveillance of locations where swarms tend to originate, have meant that control measures can be used at an early stage. The traditional means of control are based on the use of insecticides from the ground or the air, but other methods using biological control are proving effective.”
Amidst the Coronavirus pandemic and lockdowns, however, many of these normal monitoring and response mechanisms were abandoned.
A recent article in Wired discusses the problems that occurred with monitoring and response to the 2020 locust eruption.
In Africa, where the current locust eruption first arose, above-average rainfall, heavy vegetation, and multiple years of good crop production made conditions ripe of the locust population boom.
The Global Locust Initiative at Arizona State University working with the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization operates a network of monitoring and response teams across much of North Africa, the Middle East, and the Indian subcontinent.
The current locust population explosion occurred in fairly wild and remote areas in the Middle East and Africa, areas with limited roads and infrastructure, and really erupted just as the Coronavirus shutdown was hitting.
These factors combined to hamper locust monitoring and response across the region.
In other regions, political instability also prevented an effective response to the booming locust population.
Yemen has been ravaged by years of war, leaving it unable no to deploy the specially trained crews the government had previously used to spray common pesticides that effectively kill locusts in mere hours.
The ongoing civil war there also made it too dangerous for farmers and other regular folks to spray the pesticides themselves.
In short, myriad factors have contributed to the current locust plague striking large parts of Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, but there is no evidence that they are historically unusual.
To the extent any particular weather or climate factors can be blamed, it would be weather and climate factors that greatly benefit humans, wildlife, vegetation, and crop production.
Climate alarmists, however, don’t want people to hear that.
Instead, they pick out the small downside and implicitly tell people that an ideal climate would be one of drought, crop failure, water shortages, and sparse plant growth to deprive food for locusts – and everything else.
Yeah, ok.
Read more at Climate Realism
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related


principiascientificinternational--2020-06-02--‘Fact Checkers’ Should Not Censor Science

Our world is ruled by a conflict of interest .
In global health , a single person is the top donor of the World Health Organization ( WHO ) 1 , directly through the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation1 and indirectly through the GAVI vaccine alliance1 , which is almost entirely funded by the same charity2 .
The director-general of the WHO , a former Health Minister and Foreign Minister of Ethiopia , was previously a board director of GAVI3 .
In the last year on record1 , the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation donated to the WHO 228,970,196 US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ indirectly through GAVI .
The second donor to the WHO is the United States of America with 281,063,159 US $ , then the United Kingdom , with 205,262,406 US $ .
and Germany with 154,539,249 US $ .
While no other donor is above 100,000,000 US $ , the list of ( smaller ) donors includes many pharmaceutical companies and other corporations .
Regarding GAVI , the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation donated to the GAVI alliance ’ s 2016-2020 strategic plan 1,560,000,000 US $ 2 .
As the ID2020 Digital id @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Charity ( through GAVI ) and has one of the major players in Microsoft5 , in this context , each “ conspiracy theory ” of forced “ vaccination and microchipping ” promoted by one individual1,2,3,4 may also become a “ conspiracy reality ” .
In global health , corruption is a problem from the top to the bottom .
As outlined in The Lancet article “ Corruption in global health : the open secret , ” every health professional knows this , but no one addresses it6 .
While conflicts of interest are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 0.01 % controlling the 99.99 % , and global health affected not less , but likely more than every other aspect of our society , “ fact-checkers ” paid by the wealthiest individuals are pretending to check that the inconvenient science is solid .
It is not surprising that these “ fact-checkers ” are targeting Prof. Didier Raoult ( photo , below ) for his works on Chloroquine/HydroxyChloroquine , a drug that costs almost nothing , is off-patent , and may work under specific circumstances also for Covid19 patients , making less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” or even the social distancing being promoted by the wealthy .
“ Retraction Watch ” 7 and “ PubPeer ” 8 have thus been unleashed on Prof. Didier Raoult .
A search for publication with the keyword “ Raoult ” in PubPeer8 returns 35 ( thirty-five ) recent papers that are under scrutiny .
Retraction Watch is not less interested in the smearing campaign .
The Mainstream Media in the west is not less interested in joining the efforts to bias science .
The most questioned work , also targeted by Retraction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the International Journal of antimicrobial agents19 .
One of the main arguments against the work is the fact that the editor of the journal is coauthor of the manuscript .
There has never been in the peer review prohibition for an editor to be the author of one paper published in the same journal .
Another argument is that the editor and Prof. Didier Raoult work in the same public hospital .
This is again not something forbidden by the rules of the peer review .
The list of personal arguments is endless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these two web sites are questioning the messengers more than the message .
The more than legitimate question is therefore who is behind them .
Both these organizations are funded by the wealthy men , actually the same wealthy man .
Tracing this conflict of interest is as easy as a Wikipedia search9 of “ Retraction Watch ” under the section on funding states about this limited liability corporation ( LLC ) that they “ received grants from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation , the Helmsley Charitable Trust , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Regarding the MacArthur Foundation , again it only takes a Wikipedia search10 to learn that “ John D. MacArthur owned Bankers Life and Casualty and other businesses , as well as considerable property holdings in Florida and New York.
” and “ Their attorney , William T. Kirby , and Paul Doolen , their chief financial officer , suggested that the family create a foundation to be endowed by their vast fortune .
One of the reasons MacArthur originally set up the Foundation was to avoid taxes.
” Another open secret is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and they serve their interests and not the interest of the people .
Regarding the Laura and John Arnold Foundation , again it is quite easy to uncover the facts , in Wikipedia11 where it is written : “ Arnold Ventures formerly known as The Laura and John Arnold Foundation is run by John D. Arnold , a former Enron trader , and American hedge fund manager.
” ( photo , below ) Additionally , “ The organization has also been described as “ another example of billionaire donors becoming ever more sophisticated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy—wielding exponentially more power in American life than ordinary citizens of more modest means.
” The other open secret is that charities are used to bias in favor of their owner every function of our society .
Also , PubPeer is sponsored by the same Laura and John Arnold Foundation .
This fact is missing on Wikipedia page12 which does not include any details of this other LLC established in the United States by an American citizen employed by the French Government Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique ( CNRS ) 13,14,15,16 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ some facts on these other “ fact-checkers ” 17 .
“ In 2015 , The PubPeer Foundation was created as a charitable organization to receive funding in the USA , and at the end of 2016 , the PubPeer Foundation received funding ( US $ 412,000 ) from a philanthropic organization , the Laura and John Arnold Foundation .
Several of these details were not indicated in the older version of the “ About ” page at PubPeer .
Other aspects of that page are opaque.
” 17 .
Regarding Enron , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of 2001 , it was revealed that Enron ’ s reported financial condition was sustained by an institutionalized , systemic , and creatively planned accounting fraud , known since as the Enron Scandal .
Enron has since become a well-known example of willful corporate fraud and corruption.
” We believe Prof. Didier Raoult , an honest man , and a great scientist , who decided to put his reputation on the line for something that he believes , deserves more respect .
He is trying his best to help humanity , and this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be recognized that there is no need for “ fact-checkers ” playing pretending to defend the integrity of science but receiving money by wealthy men .
In a just world , these web sites simply would not exist , and as it is , the scientific community should ignore them .
Under legitimate peer review , papers satisfying the proper professional protocol should be published , with readers more than welcome to raise questions after publication and get answers through the proper avenue of comments and replies .
In a just world , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be prevented from taking a position on a subject in which they have vested interests and will reap profit or gain power from one outcome vs. the other .
The papers published by Prof. Didier Raoult in general , and the specific paper19 published in the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents on Chloroquine , must not be removed in response to the pressure of fact-checkers , or by the compromised judgments by putatively independent but , in fact , openly dependent supranational organizations .
There are too many narratives in our society that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There are too many charities that care more for themselves than the people they ought to be serving .
There are too many pharmaceutical companies that care too little about science and too much about their patented products .
Organizations funded by individuals serve selective agendas and do not serve the interests of the people .
We , the 99.99 % , we do not need these narratives funded by the 0.01 % of billionaires controlling our lives .
If we want not only good science but freedom , equality , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ solution is simple .
Start asking big corporations and wealthy men to pay taxes rather than using tax-dodging schemes to destroy our society and promote their interests through charities .
Crackdown on these charities that pursue their interests , rather than the interests of the people .
If we also make lean , efficient , transparent , and accountable public administration , there will be only advantages for humanity .
Maybe not the 0.01 % , but certainly the 99.99 % .
6 García , P.J.
, 2019 .
Corruption in global health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
394 ( 10214 ) , pp.2119-2124 .
doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736 ( 19 ) 32527-9 16 Ramirez , J.E .
and Stell , B.M.
, 2016 .
Calcium imaging reveals coordinated simple spike pauses in populations of cerebellar purkinje cells .
Cell reports , 17 ( 12 ) , pp.3125-3132 .
19 Gautret , P. , Lagier , J.C. , Parola , P. , Meddeb , L. , Mailhe , M. , Doudier , B. , Courjon , J. , Giordanengo , V. , Vieira , V.E.
, Dupont , H.T .
and Honoré , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ azithromycin as a treatment of COVID-19 : results of an open-label non-randomized clinical trial.
” International journal of antimicrobial agents , p.105949 .
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.105949 Albert Parker PhD : Received his MSc and PhD in Engineering before the age of the commercial universities .
After 30 years working in industry and teaching in universities Albert took to researching and writing about climate change in his retirement in Australia .
John O ’ Sullivan John is CEO and co-founder ( with Dr Tim Ball ) of Principia Scientific International ( PSI ) .
John is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who assisted Dr Ball in defeating world leading climate expert , Michael ‘ hockey stick ’ Mann in the ‘ science trial of the century ‘ .
O ’ Sullivan is credited as the visionary who formed the original ‘ Slayers ’ group of scientists in 2010 who then collaborated in creating the world ’ s first full-volume debunk of the greenhouse gas theory plus their new follow-up book .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester @ @ @ @ @ @ @ DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

‘Fact Checkers’ Should Not Censor Science
Written by Albert Parker PhD & John O'Sullivan
Our world is ruled by a conflict of interest. In global health, a single person is the top donor of the World Health Organization (WHO)1, directly through the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation1 and indirectly through the GAVI vaccine alliance1, which is almost entirely funded by the same charity2.
The director-general of the WHO, a former Health Minister and Foreign Minister of Ethiopia, was previously a board director of GAVI3. In the last year on record1, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation donated to the WHO 228,970,196 US$ directly and 158,545, 964 US$ indirectly through GAVI. The second donor to the WHO is the United States of America with 281,063,159 US$, then the United Kingdom, with 205,262,406 US$. and Germany with 154,539,249 US$. While no other donor is above 100,000,000 US$, the list of (smaller) donors includes many pharmaceutical companies and other corporations. Regarding GAVI, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation donated to the GAVI alliance’s 2016-2020 strategic plan 1,560,000,000 US$2.
As the ID2020 Digital id Alliance4 is sponsored indirectly by the same Charity (through GAVI) and has one of the major players in Microsoft5, in this context, each “conspiracy theory” of forced “vaccination and microchipping” promoted by one individual1,2,3,4 may also become a “conspiracy reality”. In global health, corruption is a problem from the top to the bottom. As outlined in The Lancet article “Corruption in global health: the open secret,” every health professional knows this, but no one addresses it6.
While conflicts of interest are spreading rapidly across our society, with the 0.01{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} controlling the 99.99{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}, and global health affected not less, but likely more than every other aspect of our society, “fact-checkers” paid by the wealthiest individuals are pretending to check that the inconvenient science is solid.
It is not surprising that these “fact-checkers” are targeting Prof. Didier Raoult (photo, below) for his works on Chloroquine/HydroxyChloroquine, a drug that costs almost nothing, is off-patent, and may work under specific circumstances also for Covid19 patients, making less relevant the forced “vaccination and microchipping” or even the social distancing being promoted by the wealthy.
“Retraction Watch”7 and “PubPeer”8 have thus been unleashed on Prof. Didier Raoult. A search for publication with the keyword “Raoult” in PubPeer8 returns 35 (thirty-five) recent papers that are under scrutiny. Retraction Watch is not less interested in the smearing campaign. The Mainstream Media in the west is not less interested in joining the efforts to bias science.
The most questioned work, also targeted by Retraction Watch, is a paper published in the International Journal of antimicrobial agents19. One of the main arguments against the work is the fact that the editor of the journal is coauthor of the manuscript. There has never been in the peer review prohibition for an editor to be the author of one paper published in the same journal. Another argument is that the editor and Prof. Didier Raoult work in the same public hospital. This is again not something forbidden by the rules of the peer review. The list of personal arguments is endless. The anonymous “scientists” using these two web sites are questioning the messengers more than the message. The more than legitimate question is therefore who is behind them.
Both these organizations are funded by the wealthy men, actually the same wealthy man. Tracing this conflict of interest is as easy as a Wikipedia search9 of “Retraction Watch” under the section on funding states about this limited liability corporation (LLC) that they “received grants from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Helmsley Charitable Trust, and the Laura and John Arnold Foundation.
”Regarding the MacArthur Foundation, again it only takes a Wikipedia search10 to learn that “John D. MacArthur owned Bankers Life and Casualty and other businesses, as well as considerable property holdings in Florida and New York.” and “Their attorney, William T. Kirby, and Paul Doolen, their chief financial officer, suggested that the family create a foundation to be endowed by their vast fortune.
One of the reasons MacArthur originally set up the Foundation was to avoid taxes.” Another open secret is that charities are often tax-dodging schemes, and they serve their interests and not the interest of the people. Regarding the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, again it is quite easy to uncover the facts, in Wikipedia11 where it is written: “Arnold Ventures formerly known as The Laura and John Arnold Foundation is run by John D. Arnold, a former Enron trader, and American hedge fund manager.” (photo, below)
Additionally, “The organization has also been described as “another example of billionaire donors becoming ever more sophisticated about using private wealth to influence public policy—wielding exponentially more power in American life than ordinary citizens of more modest means.”
The other open secret is that charities are used to bias in favor of their owner every function of our society. Also, PubPeer is sponsored by the same Laura and John Arnold Foundation. This fact is missing on Wikipedia page12 which does not include any details of this other LLC established in the United States by an American citizen employed by the French Government Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)13,14,15,16.
If not Wikipedia, somebody else published some facts on these other “fact-checkers”17. “In 2015, The PubPeer Foundation was created as a charitable organization to receive funding in the USA, and at the end of 2016, the PubPeer Foundation received funding (US$ 412,000) from a philanthropic organization, the Laura and John Arnold Foundation. Several of these details were not indicated in the older version of the “About” page at PubPeer.
Other aspects of that page are opaque.” 17. Regarding Enron, as written in Wikipedia18 “At the end of 2001, it was revealed that Enron’s reported financial condition was sustained by an institutionalized, systemic, and creatively planned accounting fraud, known since as the Enron Scandal. Enron has since become a well-known example of willful corporate fraud and corruption.”
In conclusion:
We believe Prof. Didier Raoult, an honest man, and a great scientist, who decided to put his reputation on the line for something that he believes, deserves more respect. He is trying his best to help humanity, and this must be acknowledged. It should also be recognized that there is no need for “fact-checkers” playing pretending to defend the integrity of science but receiving money by wealthy men. In a just world, these web sites simply would not exist, and as it is, the scientific community should ignore them.
Under legitimate peer review, papers satisfying the proper professional protocol should be published, with readers more than welcome to raise questions after publication and get answers through the proper avenue of comments and replies. In a just world, people having a conflict of interest should be prevented from taking a position on a subject in which they have vested interests and will reap profit or gain power from one outcome vs. the other.
The papers published by Prof. Didier Raoult in general, and the specific paper19 published in the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents on Chloroquine, must not be removed in response to the pressure of fact-checkers, or by the compromised judgments by putatively independent but, in fact, openly dependent supranational organizations.
There are too many narratives in our society that serve to confuse issues rather than inform. There are too many charities that care more for themselves than the people they ought to be serving. There are too many pharmaceutical companies that care too little about science and too much about their patented products. Organizations funded by individuals serve selective agendas and do not serve the interests of the people. We, the 99.99{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}, we do not need these narratives funded by the 0.01{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of billionaires controlling our lives.
If we want not only good science but freedom, equality, and fraternity, within our society, the solution is simple. Start asking big corporations and wealthy men to pay taxes rather than using tax-dodging schemes to destroy our society and promote their interests through charities. Crackdown on these charities that pursue their interests, rather than the interests of the people. If we also make lean, efficient, transparent, and accountable public administration, there will be only advantages for humanity. Maybe not the 0.01{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}, but certainly the 99.99{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}.
References
1 www.who.int/about/finances-accountability/reports/A72_INF5-en.pdf?ua=1
2 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAVI
3 www.gavi.org/gavi-welcomes-election-of-new-who-chief
4 id2020.org/
5 id2020.org/alliance
6 García, P.J., 2019. Corruption in global health: the open secret. The Lancet. 394(10214), pp.2119-2124. doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32527-9
7 retractionwatch.com/2020/04/12/elsevier-investigating-hydroxychloroquine-covid-19-paper/
8 pubpeer.com/search?q=raoult
9 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retraction_Watch
10 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacArthur_Foundation
11 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Ventures_LLC
12 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubPeer
13 www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/08/pubpeer-s-secret-out-founder-controversial-website-reveals-himself
14 www.nature.com/news/pioneer-behind-controversial-pubpeer-site-reveals-his-identity-1.18261
15 www.wiley.com/network/researchers/submission-and-navigating-peer-review/why-we-need-whistleblowing-for-research-integrity-part-2-a-q-a-with-brandon-stell-of-pubpeer
16 Ramirez, J.E. and Stell, B.M., 2016. Calcium imaging reveals coordinated simple spike pauses in populations of cerebellar purkinje cells. Cell reports, 17(12), pp.3125-3132.
17 www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/OIR-06-2017-0191/full/html
18 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron
19 Gautret, P., Lagier, J.C., Parola, P., Meddeb, L., Mailhe, M., Doudier, B., Courjon, J., Giordanengo, V., Vieira, V.E., Dupont, H.T. and Honoré, S., 2020. “Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as a treatment of COVID-19: results of an open-label non-randomized clinical trial.” International journal of antimicrobial agents, p.105949. doi.org/10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.105949
About the authors:
Albert Parker PhD: Received his MSc and PhD in Engineering before the age of the commercial universities. After 30 years working in industry and teaching in universities Albert took to researching and writing about climate change in his retirement in Australia.
John O’Sullivan John is CEO and co-founder (with Dr Tim Ball) of Principia Scientific International (PSI). John is a seasoned science writer and legal analyst who assisted Dr Ball in defeating world leading climate expert, Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann in the ‘science trial of the century‘. O’Sullivan is credited as the visionary who formed the original ‘Slayers’ group of scientists in 2010 who then collaborated in creating the world’s first full-volume debunk of the greenhouse gas theory plus their new follow-up book.
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related


principiascientificinternational--2020-06-02--Media Fail: Climate Change NOT Making Trees Shorter

Among the top Google News results for “ climate change ” is a National Public Radio ( NPR ) article with the headline , “ Climate Change and Deforestation Mean Earth ’ s Trees Are Younger and Shorter.
” The article ’ s title and desired message to casual Internet surfers are that warmer temperatures stunt tree height and make trees shorter .
In reality , the article merely ( mis ) reports on a study asserting that deforestation is resulting in younger forests with trees that have yet to reach their full height .
Fashion NPR ’ s fake @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As scientists have repeatedly documented , more atmospheric carbon dioxide and global warming are assisting trees to grow taller and more rapidly .
NPR references an article in Science finding that a variety of factors are putting pressure on old-growth forests worldwide .
These factors include logging , clear-cutting , and land-use changes .
After deforestation removes disproportionately old-growth forests , the remaining trees and forests tend to be younger .
Younger forests don ’ t have as many very tall trees as older forests .
Thus , the authors of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forests , in which tree size will be shorter than fully mature trees in older forests .
The authors of the Science study noted this while asserting that climate change may be causing an increase in forest fires .
Drought is the climate factor that would impact forest fires , yet objective data and even the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) report there is no documented evidence that climate change is increasing the frequency or severity of droughts .
In fact , as documented in Climate at a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a decline in drought as our planet modestly warms .
Accordingly , the only asserted link between climate change and forest fires – drought – does not exist .
Even if such a link did exist , the result would be that climate change hypothetically causes more forest fires , not that climate change is making trees shorter .
Shame on you , NPR , for deliberately misrepresenting scientific facts .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

Media Fail: Climate Change NOT Making Trees Shorter
Written by James Taylor
Among the top Google News results for “climate change” is a National Public Radio (NPR) article with the headline, “Climate Change and Deforestation Mean Earth’s Trees Are Younger and Shorter.”
The article’s title and desired message to casual Internet surfers are that warmer temperatures stunt tree height and make trees shorter.
In reality, the article merely (mis)reports on a study asserting that deforestation is resulting in younger forests with trees that have yet to reach their full height. Fashion NPR’s fake tree-height scare as click-bait misrepresenting sound science.
As scientists have repeatedly documented, more atmospheric carbon dioxide and global warming are assisting trees to grow taller and more rapidly.
NPR references an article in Science finding that a variety of factors are putting pressure on old-growth forests worldwide. These factors include logging, clear-cutting, and land-use changes.
After deforestation removes disproportionately old-growth forests, the remaining trees and forests tend to be younger. Younger forests don’t have as many very tall trees as older forests.
Thus, the authors of the Science article claimed deforestation leads to younger forests, in which tree size will be shorter than fully mature trees in older forests.
The authors of the Science study noted this while asserting that climate change may be causing an increase in forest fires.
Drought is the climate factor that would impact forest fires, yet objective data and even the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report there is no documented evidence that climate change is increasing the frequency or severity of droughts.
In fact, as documented in Climate at a Glance: Drought, objective data show a decline in drought as our planet modestly warms.
Accordingly, the only asserted link between climate change and forest fires – drought – does not exist.
Even if such a link did exist, the result would be that climate change hypothetically causes more forest fires, not that climate change is making trees shorter.
Shame on you, NPR, for deliberately misrepresenting scientific facts.
Read more at Climate Realism
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related


principiascientificinternational--2020-06-02--Quarantines & Lockdowns Do Not Change Global CO2 Levels

The COVID-19 , aka Coronavirus pandemic , is causing a worldwide shutdown in economic activity as businesses close , airlines cancel flights , energy production is reduced , and people shelter in their homes and drive less .
Climate activists expected this economic downtown to translate to less energy usage , and therefore less CO2 emissions globally .
While that has indeed happened , with China seeing a 40 % emissions drop , and an expected 11 % reduction in energy-related CO2 emissions in the U.S. this year , it didn ’ t translate into the proof they were seeking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any evidence of a decline in global atmospheric CO2 concentrations that would be strong enough to attribute to the economic downturn .
University of Alabama climate scientist Dr. Roy Spencer used a simple method1 for removing the large seasonal CO2 cycle2 , due to plant photosynthesis increases/decreases with seasons , from the Mauna Loa CO2 data , and well as the average effects from El Nino and La Nina events , which change the rate of ocean outgassing of CO2 .
The result : no obvious downtown in global CO2 levels has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Figure 1 , the latest CO2 data show no downtrend , but instead just a ripple , that is not unlike other ripples in the graph when there was no crisis and resulting economic downturn .
The newspaper USA Today did a fact check on this issue and found the same result .
NOAA ’ s Earth System Research Laboratories also studied the issue5 and concluded : Clearly , there is no indication that the forced reductions have had any effect on global CO2 levels , suggesting that natural forces , such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contributions .
This further suggests that the calls from climate alarmists to reduce fossil fuel use , automobile use , airline travel , beef consumption , and an entire litany of complaints they make about modern life-enhancing energy use applications will have little or no effect if implemented as they demand .
• Is the COVID-19 Economic Downturn Affecting Atmospheric CO2 ?
Mauna Loa Data Say , Not Yet by Dr. Roy Spencer March 22 , 2020. https : //www.drroyspencer.com/2020/03/is-the-covid-19-economic-downturn-affecting-atmospheric-co2-mauna-loa-data-say-not-yet/ • Seasonal Changes in Carbon Dioxide NASA ’ s Scientific Visualization Studio May @ @ @ @ @ @ @ March 2020 CO2 Levels at Mauna Loa Show No Obvious Effect from Global Economic Downturn Dr. Roy Spencer April 7 , 2020. https : //www.drroyspencer.com/2020/04/march-2020-co2-levels-at-mauna-loa-show-no-obvious-effect-from-global-economic-downturn/ • Why the Current Economic Slowdown Won ’ t Show Up in the Atmospheric CO2 Record by Dr. Roy Spencer May 15 , 2020. http : //www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/why-the-current-economic-slowdown-wont-show-up-in-the-atmospheric-co2-record/ • Can we see a change in the CO2 record because of COVID-19 ?
NOAA Earth System Research Laboratories May 2020. https : //www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/covid2.html Read more at Climate At A Glance PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

Quarantines & Lockdowns Do Not Change Global CO2 Levels
Written by climateataglance.com
The COVID-19, aka Coronavirus pandemic, is causing a worldwide shutdown in economic activity as businesses close, airlines cancel flights, energy production is reduced, and people shelter in their homes and drive less.
Climate activists expected this economic downtown to translate to less energy usage, and therefore less CO2 emissions globally.
While that has indeed happened, with China seeing a 40{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} emissions drop, and an expected 11{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} reduction in energy-related CO2 emissions in the U.S. this year, it didn’t translate into the proof they were seeking.
What scientists are looking for is any evidence of a decline in global atmospheric CO2 concentrations that would be strong enough to attribute to the economic downturn.
University of Alabama climate scientist Dr. Roy Spencer used a simple method1 for removing the large seasonal CO2 cycle2, due to plant photosynthesis increases/decreases with seasons, from the Mauna Loa CO2 data, and well as the average effects from El Nino and La Nina events, which change the rate of ocean outgassing of CO2.
The result: no obvious downtown in global CO2 levels has been observed 3,4.
As can be seen in Figure 1, the latest CO2 data show no downtrend, but instead just a ripple, that is not unlike other ripples in the graph when there was no crisis and resulting economic downturn.
The newspaper USA Today did a fact check on this issue and found the same result.
NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratories also studied the issue5 and concluded:
“That drop in emissions needs to be large enough to stand out from natural CO2 variability caused by how plants and soils respond to seasonal and annual variations of temperature, humidity, soil moisture, etc. These natural variations are large, and so far the “missing” emissions do not stand out.”
Clearly, there is no indication that the forced reductions have had any effect on global CO2 levels, suggesting that natural forces, such as ocean outgassing of CO2 overwhelm man-made contributions.
This further suggests that the calls from climate alarmists to reduce fossil fuel use, automobile use, airline travel, beef consumption, and an entire litany of complaints they make about modern life-enhancing energy use applications will have little or no effect if implemented as they demand.
Further reading:
Is the COVID-19 Economic Downturn Affecting Atmospheric CO2? Mauna Loa Data Say, Not Yet by Dr. Roy Spencer March 22, 2020. https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/03/is-the-covid-19-economic-downturn-affecting-atmospheric-co2-mauna-loa-data-say-not-yet/ Seasonal Changes in Carbon Dioxide NASA’s Scientific Visualization Studio May 4, 2017. https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4565 March 2020 CO2 Levels at Mauna Loa Show No Obvious Effect from Global Economic Downturn Dr. Roy Spencer April 7, 2020. https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/04/march-2020-co2-levels-at-mauna-loa-show-no-obvious-effect-from-global-economic-downturn/ Why the Current Economic Slowdown Won’t Show Up in the Atmospheric CO2 Record by Dr. Roy Spencer May 15, 2020. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/why-the-current-economic-slowdown-wont-show-up-in-the-atmospheric-co2-record/ Can we see a change in the CO2 record because of COVID-19? NOAA Earth System Research Laboratories May 2020. https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/covid2.html
Read more at Climate At A Glance
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related


principiascientificinternational--2020-06-02--Potential Energy is Fake Science

Potential Energy is Fake Science

Potential energy was created to explain the increase in kinetic energy of falling objects .
Its creation was not the result of observation but from the need to adapt reality to conform to the theory of gravity .
With the adoption of a concept of energy and that energy could not be created or destroyed something was needed to explain how an object could increase in energy without another object losing or transferring energy to it .
If energy is indestructible then it can not just disappear so there must be some physical form of this potential energy .
Einstein @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being different forms of the same thing ( E=mc^2 ) provided an excuse for the storage of the energy as potential energy .
The mass of an object varied depending on the amount of potential energy it contained even though this solution poses more questions than it answers .
What is the mechanism that allows matter to gradually convert to energy and energy to gradually change to matter ?
What is the reference point for the potential energy ?
An asteroid can strike any of the planets or moons .
Does its mass @ @ @ @ @ @ @ collisions and what happens to this mass when the asteroid hit one object ?
As its mass increases from potential energy doesn ’ t the force of gravity between it and the other object also increase thereby increasing the potential energy ?
If the potential energy gradually increases with increasing distance doesn ’ t that mean that mass must gradually increase and there can ’ t be discrete units of mass ?
If matter is an analog system how many units of energy ( photons ) are needed to create an electron and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ energy is creating mass how are the opposite electrical charges being created ?
There is no evidence to support potential energy and in fact the evidence contradicts it .
If a gas molecule descending in the atmosphere gains kinetic energy from the conversion of potential energy , how can the same molecule , when descending in the thermosphere or stratosphere , be losing kinetic energy ( cooling ) and potential energy simultaneously without violating the conservation of energy ?
Do we now need to invent “ dark ” potential energy with magical powers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matter and “ dark ” energy in order to preserve the theory that gravity is a function of mass ?
Mass or matter creates inertia .
Energy creates motion .
Gravity is a function of energy , not mass , where objects do not travel in straight lines but equalize with the energy field around them .
Objects with less energy move into higher energy fields ( move closer ) gaining energy while objects with more energy move into weaker fields losing energy .
A massive meteor in equilibrium with the sun ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Earth ’ s energy field , not because of the scarce oxygen atoms it encounters in the high atmosphere , but because it sheds particles and kinetic energy in order to equalize with the Earth ’ s energy field .
The gas molecules in the atmosphere rise and expand because as they gain energy from the sun they move into a weaker Earth ’ s energy field trying to lose that energy and equalize with the field .
At night they contract they try to re-establish equilibrium with the Earth ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ space .
The data used by Sir Isaac Newton to develop his theory of gravity was Kepler ’ s law , distance of a planet from the sun times the planet ’ s velocity squared is the same for all the planets , contained no mass .
It states that the planets equalize with the energy coming from the sun .
Newton invented the gravitational constant creating mass as a source for gravity because the concept of energy as a thing had not been developed .
It is time for physics to abandon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to rectify this mistake and discard the potential energy , dark matter , dark energy , black holes , and other nonsense and return to reality .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

Potential Energy is Fake Science
Written by Herb Rose
Potential energy was created to explain the increase in kinetic energy of falling objects. Its creation was not the result of observation but from the need to adapt reality to conform to the theory of gravity.
With the adoption of a concept of energy and that energy could not be created or destroyed something was needed to explain how an object could increase in energy without another object losing or transferring energy to it.
If energy is indestructible then it cannot just disappear so there must be some physical form of this potential energy. Einstein’s theory of mass and energy being different forms of the same thing (E=mc^2) provided an excuse for the storage of the energy as potential energy. The mass of an object varied depending on the amount of potential energy it contained even though this solution poses more questions than it answers.
What is the mechanism that allows matter to gradually convert to energy and energy to gradually change to matter?
What is the reference point for the potential energy?
An asteroid can strike any of the planets or moons. Does its mass contain potential energy for all its possible collisions and what happens to this mass when the asteroid hit one object?
As its mass increases from potential energy doesn’t the force of gravity between it and the other object also increase thereby increasing the potential energy?
If the potential energy gradually increases with increasing distance doesn’t that mean that mass must gradually increase and there can’t be discrete units of mass?
If matter is an analog system how many units of energy (photons) are needed to create an electron and are there partial electron charges?
If energy is creating mass how are the opposite electrical charges being created?
There is no evidence to support potential energy and in fact the evidence contradicts it.
If a gas molecule descending in the atmosphere gains kinetic energy from the conversion of potential energy, how can the same molecule, when descending in the thermosphere or stratosphere, be losing kinetic energy (cooling) and potential energy simultaneously without violating the conservation of energy?
Do we now need to invent “dark” potential energy with magical powers to go along with “dark” matter and “dark” energy in order to preserve the theory that gravity is a function of mass?
Mass or matter creates inertia. Energy creates motion. Gravity is a function of energy, not mass, where objects do not travel in straight lines but equalize with the energy field around them. Objects with less energy move into higher energy fields (move closer) gaining energy while objects with more energy move into weaker fields losing energy.
A massive meteor in equilibrium with the sun’s energy field is destroyed when entering the Earth’s energy field, not because of the scarce oxygen atoms it encounters in the high atmosphere, but because it sheds particles and kinetic energy in order to equalize with the Earth’s energy field.
The gas molecules in the atmosphere rise and expand because as they gain energy from the sun they move into a weaker Earth’s energy field trying to lose that energy and equalize with the field. At night they contract they try to re-establish equilibrium with the Earth’s energy field as they radiate energy into space.
The data used by Sir Isaac Newton to develop his theory of gravity was Kepler’s law, distance of a planet from the sun times the planet’s velocity squared is the same for all the planets, contained no mass. It states that the planets equalize with the energy coming from the sun.
Newton invented the gravitational constant creating mass as a source for gravity because the concept of energy as a thing had not been developed. It is time for physics to abandon the never ending creation of excuses trying to rectify this mistake and discard the potential energy, dark matter, dark energy, black holes, and other nonsense and return to reality.
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related


principiascientificinternational--2020-06-03--Models Can’t Predict Next Week’s Weather or Climate Change

It ’ s curious … SpaceX has all the money in the world , and they didn ’ t hire someone who could have accurately predicted the afternoon weather in Florida on May 27 , 2020 .
It seems like a huge oversight , doesn ’ t it ?
And to think there are scores of nonprofit leaders and academics in Washington , DC , who can accurately predict global temperatures 10 , 15 , even 50 years into the future .
Oh , stop it with the “ climate isn ’ t weather ” rebuttal .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say “ food isn ’ t cuisine ” is a food critic , and by default , haughty and obnoxious .
How about this one : science isn ’ t semantics .
We all wish we could predict the future .
Intellectually , empirically , rationally , we know we can ’ t , but some still try .
Throughout Washington , DC , where I live , in addition to the elite intelligentsia , the kind who read their own books on the NY-bound Acela , are multiple Tarot Card readers and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And we hear the stories .
The buddy who picked a good stock because “ he was sure ” it would go up .
Or the other guy who proclaims , “ I just knew the Nationals would win the World Series.
” It ’ s not true .
Not possible .
Not even logically defensible .
It ’ s syntax , not the truth .
We make decisions for the future , not based on preternatural intelligence , but data .
Market trends and balance sheets guide stock picks , but there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go up .
Wouldn ’ t we all be rich if that were the case ?
In baseball , injuries , rotation and roster , and team loyalty form our hunches , but there ’ s no guarantee your team will win .
No one “ knew ” the weather would cancel the SpaceX flight , but rather scientists used data to make the best-educated guess which is part of the scientific method we learned about in third grade .
And similarly , no one “ knows ” what will happen to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 50 years because of climate change .
So quite frankly I ’ m tired of hearing about it .
Now I ’ ll answer that next question before you ask it : no , there is no data which says the world temperatures will rise to an uninhabitable level .
There are models , and models are very , very human .
Climate change models are computer generated and the code is written by biased individuals .
It ’ s not scientific following rigorous methodology ; it ’ s prediction , based @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may not be accurate .
Remember the model which predicted 2.2 million deaths from Coronavirus ?
Garbage in , garbage out , just like in every other computer-generated scenario .
Maybe one day the Artificial Intelligence will actually be intelligent and correct the programmer , but for now , it ’ s just following the program as written by the very fallible human .
This is why the outrage at Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ’ s comment “ The world is going to end in 12 years if we don ’ t address climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stupid ( it is ) , not because it ’ s wrong ( it is ) , but because it ’ s so deliberately misleading .
It is a perfect example of speculation turned into fact and for the sole purpose of pushing a political agenda , which just makes it an affront to my wallet .
It dumbs down discourse .
It turns off reasonable people like me who do this for a living .
There ’ s little point in having a conversation about climate change or mankind ’ s contribution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , more and more government policy is crafted and tax dollars are spent based on this type of illogical thinking .
Climate is the great unknown , and politicians and the media love to scare the crap out of regular Americans by feigning some great insight into tomorrow making us quiver in our seats .
Climate change will kill us .
Paul Ehrlich in the 1970s said that overpopulation would mean England would cease to exist by 2000 .
England !
Poor Queen , like she doesn ’ t have enough on her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ago predicted no Arctic ice , and he got an Oscar for it .
Last I checked both the UK and the Arctic ice are fine , shapes of both changing constantly .
These were predictions of fact .
They were models , based on data , meant to scare and push an agenda .
We can ’ t even predict a few weeks into the future .
On March 20 of this year , the Washington Post predicted an “ abnormally warm spring ” across the entire country using models based on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) presented as fact including an ominous “ this may be a first.
” A month after that article ran , the same author in the same publication pointed out that DC had already been experiencing below-average temperatures for two weeks , meaning the doomsday article couldn ’ t ’ even foresee 2 weeks ahead .
A few days later , the same publication acknowledged weather 1-2 degrees below average that was likely to continue .
Then the same Washington Post puts out an article with the title “ Exceptionally Cold Weather for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Bitter Wind Chills.
” The following day they wrote about Washington , DC , hitting its coldest day in more than a decade and Baltimore its coldest day on record saying May had temperatures 25 degrees below average .
What gives ?
It ’ s simple : the first article , the scary , scary climate change article , was based on models ( but presented as fact ) .
The subsequent “ holy crap it ’ s cold ” articles were based on…facts .
Which are not as scary , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world end because of climate change ?
I don ’ t know .
Will the seas rise and the lakes boil ?
I don ’ t know .
And you know what , neither does anyone else .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

Models Can’t Predict Next Week’s Weather or Climate Change
Written by Daniel Turner
It’s curious … SpaceX has all the money in the world, and they didn’t hire someone who could have accurately predicted the afternoon weather in Florida on May 27, 2020.
It seems like a huge oversight, doesn’t it? And to think there are scores of nonprofit leaders and academics in Washington, DC, who can accurately predict global temperatures 10, 15, even 50 years into the future.
Oh, stop it with the “climate isn’t weather” rebuttal. It’s trite and silly. The guys who say “food isn’t cuisine” is a food critic, and by default, haughty and obnoxious.
How about this one: science isn’t semantics.
We all wish we could predict the future. Intellectually, empirically, rationally, we know we can’t, but some still try.
Throughout Washington, DC, where I live, in addition to the elite intelligentsia, the kind who read their own books on the NY-bound Acela, are multiple Tarot Card readers and psychics offering their services of clairvoyance.
And we hear the stories. The buddy who picked a good stock because “he was sure” it would go up. Or the other guy who proclaims, “I just knew the Nationals would win the World Series.”
It’s not true. Not possible. Not even logically defensible. It’s syntax, not the truth.
We make decisions for the future, not based on preternatural intelligence, but data. Market trends and balance sheets guide stock picks, but there’s no certainty the price will go up.
Wouldn’t we all be rich if that were the case? In baseball, injuries, rotation and roster, and team loyalty form our hunches, but there’s no guarantee your team will win.
No one “knew” the weather would cancel the SpaceX flight, but rather scientists used data to make the best-educated guess which is part of the scientific method we learned about in third grade.
And similarly, no one “knows” what will happen to the earth in 5, 10, 15, 50 years because of climate change. So quite frankly I’m tired of hearing about it.
Now I’ll answer that next question before you ask it: no, there is no data which says the world temperatures will rise to an uninhabitable level. There are models, and models are very, very human.
Climate change models are computer generated and the code is written by biased individuals. It’s not scientific following rigorous methodology; it’s prediction, based on available data, which may or may not be accurate.
Remember the model which predicted 2.2 million deaths from Coronavirus?
Whoopsie.
Garbage in, garbage out, just like in every other computer-generated scenario. Maybe one day the Artificial Intelligence will actually be intelligent and correct the programmer, but for now, it’s just following the program as written by the very fallible human.
This is why the outrage at Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s comment “The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change.”
Not because it’s stupid (it is), not because it’s wrong (it is), but because it’s so deliberately misleading.
It is a perfect example of speculation turned into fact and for the sole purpose of pushing a political agenda, which just makes it an affront to my wallet. It dumbs down discourse.
It turns off reasonable people like me who do this for a living. There’s little point in having a conversation about climate change or mankind’s contribution or lack thereof to it.
Yet, more and more government policy is crafted and tax dollars are spent based on this type of illogical thinking.
Climate is the great unknown, and politicians and the media love to scare the crap out of regular Americans by feigning some great insight into tomorrow making us quiver in our seats.
Climate change will kill us. Paul Ehrlich in the 1970s said that overpopulation would mean England would cease to exist by 2000. England!
Poor Queen, like she doesn’t have enough on her royal plate. Al Gore 20 years ago predicted no Arctic ice, and he got an Oscar for it.
Last I checked both the UK and the Arctic ice are fine, shapes of both changing constantly. These were predictions of fact. They were models, based on data, meant to scare and push an agenda.
We can’t even predict a few weeks into the future. On March 20 of this year, the Washington Post predicted an “abnormally warm spring” across the entire country using models based on data (winter temperatures, polar vortex) presented as fact including an ominous “this may be a first.”
Scary global warming type stuff. Yikes.
A month after that article ran, the same author in the same publication pointed out that DC had already been experiencing below-average temperatures for two weeks, meaning the doomsday article couldn’t’ even foresee 2 weeks ahead.
A few days later, the same publication acknowledged weather 1-2 degrees below average that was likely to continue.
Huh.
Then the same Washington Post puts out an article with the title “Exceptionally Cold Weather for May Arrives Tonight with Near Freezing Temperatures and Bitter Wind Chills.”
The following day they wrote about Washington, DC, hitting its coldest day in more than a decade and Baltimore its coldest day on record saying May had temperatures 25 degrees below average.
What gives? It’s simple: the first article, the scary, scary climate change article, was based on models (but presented as fact).
The subsequent “holy crap it’s cold” articles were based on…facts. Which are not as scary, and not as much fun.
Will the world end because of climate change? I don’t know. Will the seas rise and the lakes boil? I don’t know. And you know what, neither does anyone else.
Read more at Daily Caller
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related


principiascientificinternational--2020-06-03--Lancet Issues Major Disclaimer On Anti-HCQ Study

The Lancet has issued a major disclaimer regarding a study which prompted the World Health Organization to halt global trials of hydroxychloroquine ( HCQ ) , an anti-Malaria drug currently being used around the world to treat COVID-19 .
As we noted last week , major data discrepancies have called the entire study into question – though the lead author says it does not change the study ’ s findings that patients who received HCQ died at higher rates and experienced more cardiac complications than without .
Until the data has been audited , The Lancet issued the following “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Important scientific questions have been raised about data reported in the paper by Mandeep Mehra et al , ” reads the “ expression of concern ” from The Lancet .
“ Although an independent audit of the provenance and validity of the data has been commissioned by the authors not affiliated with Surgisphere and is ongoing , with results expected very shortly , we are issuing an Expression of Concern to alert readers to the fact that serious scientific questions have been brought to our attention .
We will update this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ information.
” Of course , this is yet more evidence of the manufactured disinformation surrounding HCQ that Richard Moss , MD , ( via AmericanThinker.com ) exposes below… I took hydroxychloroquine for two years .
A long time ago as a visiting cancer surgeon in Asia , in Thailand , Nepal , India , and Bangladesh .
From 1987 to 1990 .
Malaria is rife there .
I took it for prophylaxis , 400 milligrams once a week for two years .
Never had any trouble .
It was inexpensive and effective .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ was supposed to continue it through my stay and four weeks after returning .
But I stopped it after two years .
I was worried about potential side effects of which there are many , as with all drugs right down to Tylenol and aspirin .
These , however , are rare .
At a certain point , I was prepared to take my chances with mosquitoes and plasmodium , and so I stopped .
Chloroquine , the precursor of HCQ , was invented by Bayer in 1934 .
Hydroxychloroquine was developed during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ synthetic alternative and approved for medical use in the U.S. in 1955 .
The World Health Organization considers it an essential medicine , among the safest and most effective medicines , a staple of any healthcare system .
In 2017 , US doctors prescribed it 5 million times , the 128th most commonly prescribed drug in the country .
There have been hundreds of millions of prescriptions worldwide since its inception .
It is one of the cheapest and best drugs in the world and has saved millions of lives .
Doctors also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ patients who may consume it for their lifetimes with few or no ill effects .
Then something happened to this wonder drug .
From savior of the multitudes , redeemer and benefactor of hundreds of millions , it transformed into something else : a purveyor of doom , despair , and unspeakable carnage .
It began when President Trump discussed it as a possible treatment for COVID-19 on March 19 , 2020 .
The gates of hell burst forth on May 18 when Trump casually announced that he was taking it , prescribed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and this otherwise harmless little molecule poured in .
The heretofore respected , commonly used , and highly effective medicinal became a major threat to life , a nefarious and wicked chemical that could alter critical heart rhythms , resulting in sudden cataclysmic death for unsuspecting innocents .
Trump , more than irresponsible , was evil incarnate for daring to even mention it .
While at it , the salivating media trotted out the canard about Trump ’ s nonrecommendation for injecting Clorox and Lysol or drinking fish-tank cleaner to combat COVID .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Before a nation of non-cardiologists , the media agonized over , of all things , the prolongation of the now infamous “ QT interval , ” and the risk of sudden cardiac death .
The FDA and NIH piled on , piously demanding randomized , controlled , double-blind studies before physicians prescribed HCQ .
No one mentioned that the risk of cardiac arrest was far higher from watching the Superbowl .
Nor did the media declare that HCQ and chloroquine have been used throughout the world for half a century , making them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ history with not a single reported case of “ arrhythmic death ” according to the sainted WHO and the American College of Cardiology .
Or that physicians in the field , on the frontlines , so to speak , based on empirical evidence , have found benefit in treating patients with a variety of agents including HCQ , Zinc , Azithromycin , Quercetin , Elderberry supplements , Vitamins D and C with few if any complications .
Or that while such regimens may not cure , they may help and carry little or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world was aflame once again with a nonstory driven by the COVID media .
The HCQ divide within the nation is only a continuation of innumerable divides that have surfaced since the pandemic began — and before .
One will know the politics of an individual based on his position on any number of pandemic issues : lockdowns , sheltering in place , face masks , social distancing , “ elective surgery , ” and “ essential businesses.
” The closing of schools and colleges .
Blue states and Red states .
Governor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or federalism .
The WHO and Red China .
Or , pre-pandemic , Brexit , open borders , DACA , and amnesty .
CBD oil , turmeric , and legalizing marijuana .
Russia Collusion , Trump ’ s taxes , the 25th amendment , Stormy Daniels , the Ukraine non-scandal , and impeachment .
Or Obamagate .
And now HCQ .
HCQ is only another bellwether .
It represents the latest nonevent in a long string of fabricated media nonscandals .
If a nation can be divided over HCQ it can be divided @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as many of the other non-issues did , whether one embraces the U.S. , our history , culture , and constitutional system , or rejects it .
Whether one believes in Americanism or despises it .
It is part of the ongoing civil war , thus far cold , but who knows ?
The passions today are no less jarring than they were in 1860 .
One would have thought that a man taking a medicine prescribed by his physician , even a President , would be a private matter .
But no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an ocean of manufactured disinformation created by a radical COVID media , our fifth column .
They inflame the nation one way or another based on political whims .
The propagandists seek victory at all costs including dismantling the economy , culture , and our governing system .
Dr. Moss is a practicing Ear Nose and Throat Surgeon , author , and columnist , residing in Jasper , IN .
He has written A Surgeon ’ s Odyssey and Matilda ’ s Triumph available on amazon.com .
Find more of his essays at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

Lancet Issues Major Disclaimer On Anti-HCQ Study
Written by Dr. Richard Moss
The Lancet has issued a major disclaimer regarding a study which prompted the World Health Organization to halt global trials of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), an anti-Malaria drug currently being used around the world to treat COVID-19.
As we noted last week, major data discrepancies have called the entire study into question – though the lead author says it does not change the study’s findings that patients who received HCQ died at higher rates and experienced more cardiac complications than without.
Until the data has been audited, The Lancet issued the following “expression of concern” regarding the study.
“Important scientific questions have been raised about data reported in the paper by Mandeep Mehra et al,” reads the “expression of concern” from The Lancet. “Although an independent audit of the provenance and validity of the data has been commissioned by the authors not affiliated with Surgisphere and is ongoing, with results expected very shortly, we are issuing an Expression of Concern to alert readers to the fact that serious scientific questions have been brought to our attention. We will update this notice as soon as we have further information.” -The Lancet
Of course, this is yet more evidence of the manufactured disinformation surrounding HCQ that Richard Moss, MD, (via AmericanThinker.com) exposes below…
I took hydroxychloroquine for two years. A long time ago as a visiting cancer surgeon in Asia, in Thailand, Nepal, India, and Bangladesh. From 1987 to 1990. Malaria is rife there. I took it for prophylaxis, 400 milligrams once a week for two years. Never had any trouble. It was inexpensive and effective.
I started it two weeks before and was supposed to continue it through my stay and four weeks after returning. But I stopped it after two years. I was worried about potential side effects of which there are many, as with all drugs right down to Tylenol and aspirin. These, however, are rare. At a certain point, I was prepared to take my chances with mosquitoes and plasmodium, and so I stopped.
Chloroquine, the precursor of HCQ, was invented by Bayer in 1934. Hydroxychloroquine was developed during World War II as a safer, synthetic alternative and approved for medical use in the U.S. in 1955.
The World Health Organization considers it an essential medicine, among the safest and most effective medicines, a staple of any healthcare system. In 2017, US doctors prescribed it 5 million times, the 128th most commonly prescribed drug in the country. There have been hundreds of millions of prescriptions worldwide since its inception. It is one of the cheapest and best drugs in the world and has saved millions of lives. Doctors also prescribe it for Lupus and Rheumatoid arthritis patients who may consume it for their lifetimes with few or no ill effects.
Then something happened to this wonder drug.
From savior of the multitudes, redeemer and benefactor of hundreds of millions, it transformed into something else: a purveyor of doom, despair, and unspeakable carnage.
It began when President Trump discussed it as a possible treatment for COVID-19 on March 19, 2020. The gates of hell burst forth on May 18 when Trump casually announced that he was taking it, prescribed by his physician.
Attacks on Trump and this otherwise harmless little molecule poured in. The heretofore respected, commonly used, and highly effective medicinal became a major threat to life, a nefarious and wicked chemical that could alter critical heart rhythms, resulting in sudden cataclysmic death for unsuspecting innocents. Trump, more than irresponsible, was evil incarnate for daring to even mention it. While at it, the salivating media trotted out the canard about Trump’s nonrecommendation for injecting Clorox and Lysol or drinking fish-tank cleaner to combat COVID. It was Charlottesville all over again.
Before a nation of non-cardiologists, the media agonized over, of all things, the prolongation of the now infamous “QT interval,” and the risk of sudden cardiac death. The FDA and NIH piled on, piously demanding randomized, controlled, double-blind studies before physicians prescribed HCQ. No one mentioned that the risk of cardiac arrest was far higher from watching the Superbowl.
Nor did the media declare that HCQ and chloroquine have been used throughout the world for half a century, making them among the most widely prescribed drugs in history with not a single reported case of “arrhythmic death” according to the sainted WHO and the American College of Cardiology.
Or that physicians in the field, on the frontlines, so to speak, based on empirical evidence, have found benefit in treating patients with a variety of agents including HCQ, Zinc, Azithromycin, Quercetin, Elderberry supplements, Vitamins D and C with few if any complications. Or that while such regimens may not cure, they may help and carry little or no risk.
And so, the world was aflame once again with a nonstory driven by the COVID media. The HCQ divide within the nation is only a continuation of innumerable divides that have surfaced since the pandemic began — and before. One will know the politics of an individual based on his position on any number of pandemic issues: lockdowns, sheltering in place, face masks, social distancing, “elective surgery,” and “essential businesses.”
The closing of schools and colleges. Blue states and Red states. Governor Cuomo or Governor DeSantis. Nationwide injunctions or federalism. The WHO and Red China. Or, pre-pandemic, Brexit, open borders, DACA, and amnesty. CBD oil, turmeric, and legalizing marijuana. Russia Collusion, Trump’s taxes, the 25th amendment, Stormy Daniels, the Ukraine non-scandal, and impeachment. Or Obamagate. And now HCQ.
HCQ is only another bellwether. It represents the latest nonevent in a long string of fabricated media nonscandals. If a nation can be divided over HCQ it can be divided over anything. It shows neatly, as many of the other non-issues did, whether one embraces the U.S., our history, culture, and constitutional system, or rejects it. Whether one believes in Americanism or despises it. It is part of the ongoing civil war, thus far cold, but who knows?
The passions today are no less jarring than they were in 1860. One would have thought that a man taking a medicine prescribed by his physician, even a President, would be a private matter. But no. Not today.
We swim in an ocean of manufactured disinformation created by a radical COVID media, our fifth column. They inflame the nation one way or another based on political whims. The propagandists seek victory at all costs including dismantling the economy, culture, and our governing system.
* * *
Dr. Moss is a practicing Ear Nose and Throat Surgeon, author, and columnist, residing in Jasper, IN. He has written A Surgeon’s Odyssey and Matilda’s Triumph available on amazon.com. Find more of his essays at richardmossmd.com.
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related