principiascientificinternational--2020-09-23--Top Insiders Exposing Unreliable & Fake Big Pharma Medicine

Fraudulent scientific research is rife throughout the world due to the power of monetary influence wielded by Big Pharma , the giant cartel of multinational pharmaceutical corporations started over 100 years ago by the Rockefellers .
This fraudulent scientific research is now so widespread and pervasive it is become an open secret .
There is a long list of medical journal editors , doctors and professors on the “ outside ” , former Big Pharma employees and executives on the “ inside ” , as well as government officials somewhere in between , who have stepped forward as whistleblowers and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really surprising , given the history of Rockefeller Western medicine and the fact that Big Pharma ’ s business model is based on “ managing ” disease , “ treating ” symptoms and keeping patients on the hamster wheel , rather than actually healing them completely .
Everyone Knows How the “ Game ” Works Whistleblower Dr. Peter Rost , former vice president of Pfizer , a giant Big Pharma company , spelled it out .
In the video clip embedded above , taken from the documentary One More Girl , he reveals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” works : “ Universities , health organizations , everybody that I have encountered … are out there … .
begging for money .
( Big Pharma corporations ) use that money to basically buy influence … ( Big Pharma provides ) grants for various kinds of research … make sure they ( scientific researchers ) became beholden … Everyone obviously knows this is how things work.
” “ They ( scientific researchers ) are not going to continue to get money unless they ’ re saying what you ( i.e .
Big @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They know it , you know it , and it ’ s only maybe the public that doesn ’ t know it.
” In this way , the almost the entire medical scientific community has been compromised and has become thoroughly untrustworthy .
Look at what numerous key experts are saying about this epidemic of fraudulent scientific research .
Dr. Richard Horton is the current editor-in-chief of the British Lancet journal , which is respected as one of the best peer-reviewed medical journals in the world .
He came out and stated : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ former editor-in-chief of the esteemed New England Journal of Medicine ( NEJM ) , had to say about the pervasive fraudulent scientific research : Dr. John P.A .
Ioannidis , a professor of disease prevention at Stanford University , published a study in a PLoS One paper entitled Why Most Published Research Findings Are False .
He found that research conclusions are less likely to be true when study samples sizes are too small , when effect sizes are even smaller , and when there are major variances in study designs , definitions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ highlighted the corrupting influence of Big Pharma and concluded that : The pervasive fraudulent scientific research shows that most “ solid medical evidence ” may in fact be quackery Fraudulent scientific research has also been exposed by former executives and employees of the Big Pharma machine .
In addition to Dr. Peter Rost , another Big Pharma whistleblower include Dr. John Virapen , author of Side Effects : Death .
Confessions of a Pharma-Insider , who admits in this book that he “ bribed a Swedish professor to enhance the registration of Prozac @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years in the pharmaceutical industry internationally ( most notably as general manager of Eli Lilly and Company in Sweden ) where he was responsible for the marketing of several Big Pharma drugs ( all of them with side effects ) .
He exposes how Big Pharma invests more than USD $ 50,000 per physician per year to entice them to prescribe their products , how more than 75 % of leading scientists in the field of medicine are “ paid for ” , and how illnesses are invented by the pharmaceutical industry to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is Gwen Olsen , a former Big Pharma sales rep who really knew how to push for a hard sell .
She reveals the underhanded tactics she was taught by Big Pharma executives to ensure doctors were prescribing their drugs .
After her niece killed herself while taking antidepressants , she changed her tune and exposed the tactics .
Olsen admits that she used bribery and personal connections to sell Big Pharma meds , because she found it very difficult to sell drugs on their own merit , that the true purpose of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Big Pharma buys up real cures to disease , or sues companies not to release genuine cures .
She also reveals how drug effects or side effects were often separated to avoid full disclosure , e.g .
if the effect was on the CNS ( Central Nervous System ) then Big Pharma would break it down to say dizziness , fatigue , etc .
so effects would look smaller .
Sadly , patients were harmed or killed due to Olsen ’ s ( and other drugs reps like her ) intentional sidestepping/misinforming physicians @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Olsen refers to the “ Revolving Door Syndrome ” , meaning patients who are hospitalized continue to come back repeatedly , and each time lose more of their bodily functions .
The drugs were brain damaging , could induce violence and were slowly killing them .
Meanwhile , many drugs are found to be not more efficacious than a sugar pill ( placebo ) .
Lastly , it is also useful to note that fraudulent scientific research has been acknowledged by governmental officials too .
Dr. William Thompson of the CDC ( the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ headlines last year when he bravely came forth to publicly admit that he had cooked the books and fudged the data regarding vaccines .
Here is an excerpt of his public statement from August 27th , 2014 : Many people were harmed ( or killed ) by this instance of fraudulent scientific research , especially young black baby boys under the age of 3 .
Consequences for Thompson or the CDC for this fraudulent scientific research ?
Basically none .
Obama gave him legal immunity – but that ’ s not surprising since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the right to imprison any American indefinitely without charge or trial ) and initiated his weekly Kill Lists .
Don ’ t Fall for Appeals to “ Scientific ” or “ Clinical ” Research when Fraudulent Scientific Research is So Rife The lesson in all this is clear : don ’ t believe it when you are told by anyone involved with the Western Medical Establishment that their products are based on sound , valid , scientific , clinical evidence .
Fraudulent scientific research is so widespread you can ’ t know anything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use Western Medicine , or maybe you don ’ t , but don ’ t go in blindly believing everything you ’ re told .
The Big One : CDC whistleblower goes public Now 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 .

Top Insiders Exposing Unreliable & Fake Big Pharma Medicine
Written by Makia Freeman
Fraudulent scientific research is rife throughout the world due to the power of monetary influence wielded by Big Pharma, the giant cartel of multinational pharmaceutical corporations started over 100 years ago by the Rockefellers.
This fraudulent scientific research is now so widespread and pervasive it is become an open secret. There is a long list of medical journal editors, doctors and professors on the “outside”, former Big Pharma employees and executives on the “inside”, as well as government officials somewhere in between, who have stepped forward as whistleblowers and acknowledged the fraud.
Money buys favorable research. Period.
This is not really surprising, given the history of Rockefeller Western medicine and the fact that Big Pharma’s business model is based on “managing” disease, “treating” symptoms and keeping patients on the hamster wheel, rather than actually healing them completely.
Everyone Knows How the “Game” Works
Whistleblower Dr. Peter Rost, former vice president of Pfizer, a giant Big Pharma company, spelled it out. In the video clip embedded above, taken from the documentary One More Girl, he reveals that everyone knows how the “game” works:
“Universities, health organizations, everybody that I have encountered … are out there …. begging for money. (Big Pharma corporations) use that money to basically buy influence … (Big Pharma provides) grants for various kinds of research … make sure they (scientific researchers) became beholden … Everyone obviously knows this is how things work.” “They (scientific researchers) are not going to continue to get money unless they’re saying what you (i.e. Big Pharma) want them to say. They know it, you know it, and it’s only maybe the public that doesn’t know it.”
In this way, the almost the entire medical scientific community has been compromised and has become thoroughly untrustworthy.
Fraudulent Scientific Research Exposed by Medical Journal Editors and Professors
Look at what numerous key experts are saying about this epidemic of fraudulent scientific research. Dr. Richard Horton is the current editor-in-chief of the British Lancet journal, which is respected as one of the best peer-reviewed medical journals in the world. He came out and stated:
“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.”
Then look at what Marcia Angell, former editor-in-chief of the esteemed New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), had to say about the pervasive fraudulent scientific research:
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines … I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.”
Dr. John P.A. Ioannidis, a professor of disease prevention at Stanford University, published a study in a PLoS One paper entitled Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. He found that research conclusions are less likely to be true when study samples sizes are too small, when effect sizes are even smaller, and when there are major variances in study designs, definitions, outcomes and analytical modes. He highlighted the corrupting influence of Big Pharma and concluded that:
“There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false … it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true.”
The pervasive fraudulent scientific research shows that most “solid medical evidence” may in fact be quackery
Fraudulent Scientific Research Exposed by other Big Pharma Whistleblowers
Fraudulent scientific research has also been exposed by former executives and employees of the Big Pharma machine. In addition to Dr. Peter Rost, another Big Pharma whistleblower include Dr. John Virapen, author of Side Effects: Death. Confessions of a Pharma-Insider, who admits in this book that he “bribed a Swedish professor to enhance the registration of Prozac in Sweden.”
Virapen worked for 35 years in the pharmaceutical industry internationally (most notably as general manager of Eli Lilly and Company in Sweden) where he was responsible for the marketing of several Big Pharma drugs (all of them with side effects).
He exposes how Big Pharma invests more than USD$50,000 per physician per year to entice them to prescribe their products, how more than 75% of leading scientists in the field of medicine are “paid for”, and how illnesses are invented by the pharmaceutical industry to increase profit.
Another Big Pharma whistleblower is Gwen Olsen, a former Big Pharma sales rep who really knew how to push for a hard sell. She reveals the underhanded tactics she was taught by Big Pharma executives to ensure doctors were prescribing their drugs.
After her niece killed herself while taking antidepressants, she changed her tune and exposed the tactics. Olsen admits that she used bribery and personal connections to sell Big Pharma meds, because she found it very difficult to sell drugs on their own merit, that the true purpose of pharmaceutical drugs is social control, that Big Pharma buys up real cures to disease, or sues companies not to release genuine cures.
She also reveals how drug effects or side effects were often separated to avoid full disclosure, e.g. if the effect was on the CNS (Central Nervous System) then Big Pharma would break it down to say dizziness, fatigue, etc. so effects would look smaller.
Sadly, patients were harmed or killed due to Olsen’s (and other drugs reps like her) intentional sidestepping/misinforming physicians about a drug’s effects. Olsen refers to the “Revolving Door Syndrome”, meaning patients who are hospitalized continue to come back repeatedly, and each time lose more of their bodily functions. The drugs were brain damaging, could induce violence and were slowly killing them. Meanwhile, many drugs are found to be not more efficacious than a sugar pill (placebo).
Fraudulent Scientific Research Exposed by Governmental Whistleblower Too
Lastly, it is also useful to note that fraudulent scientific research has been acknowledged by governmental officials too. Dr. William Thompson of the CDC (the US Center for Disease Control) made headlines last year when he bravely came forth to publicly admit that he had cooked the books and fudged the data regarding vaccines. Here is an excerpt of his public statement from August 27th, 2014:
“My name is William Thompson. I am a Senior Scientist with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, where I have worked since 1998. I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed.”
Many people were harmed (or killed) by this instance of fraudulent scientific research, especially young black baby boys under the age of 3. Consequences for Thompson or the CDC for this fraudulent scientific research? Basically none. Obama gave him legal immunity – but that’s not surprising since he also singed the NDAA (claiming the right to imprison any American indefinitely without charge or trial) and initiated his weekly Kill Lists.
Don’t Fall for Appeals to “Scientific” or “Clinical” Research when Fraudulent Scientific Research is So Rife
The lesson in all this is clear: don’t believe it when you are told by anyone involved with the Western Medical Establishment that their products are based on sound, valid, scientific, clinical evidence. Fraudulent scientific research is so widespread you can’t know anything for sure. Maybe you have to use Western Medicine, or maybe you don’t, but don’t go in blindly believing everything you’re told.
Sources:
*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrCizlAOBAo
http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736%2815%2960696-1.pdf
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2004/jul/15/the-truth-about-the-drug-companies/
http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8ZFUq5hr7E
*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICnKzBMkV9Q
The Big One: CDC whistleblower goes public Now
http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/03/obama-admin-grants-immunity-to-cdc-scientist-that-fudged-vaccine-report-whistleblower-plans-to-testify-before-congress
http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/03/obama-admin-grants-immunity-to-cdc-scientist-that-fudged-vaccine-report-whistleblower-plans-to-testify-before-congress
http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/03/obama-admin-grants-immunity-to-cdc-scientist-that-fudged-vaccine-report-whistleblower-plans-to-testify-before-congress
http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/03/obama-admin-grants-immunity-to-cdc-scientist-that-fudged-vaccine-report-whistleblower-plans-to-testify-before-congress
Read more at www.thelibertybeacon.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


principiascientificinternational--2020-09-23--Solar Panels both Pollute & Heat The Earth

The problem of solar panel waste is now becoming evident .
As environmental journalist Emily Folk admits in Renewable Energy Magazine , “ when talking about renewable energy , the topic of waste does not often appear.
” She attributes this to the supposed “ pressures of climate change ” and alleged “ urgency to find alternative energy sources , ” saying people may thus be hesitant to discuss “ possible negative impacts of renewable energy.
” Ms .
Folk admits that sustainability requires proper e-waste management .
Yet she laments , “ Solar presents a particular problem .
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ toxic pollutants … [ and ] increasing concern regarding what happens with these materials when they are no longer viable , especially since they are difficult to recycle.
” This is the likely reason that ( except in Washington state ) , there are no U.S. mandates for solar recycling .
A recent article in Grist reports that most used solar panels are shipped to developing countries that have little electricity and weak environmental protections , to be reused or landfilled .
The near-total absence of end-of-life procedures for solar panels is likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ repeated , unsupported assertion ) that renewable energy is “ clean ” and “ green.
” Indeed , Mississippi Sierra Club state director Louie Miller recently claimed that unlike fossil fuels and nuclear energy , “ Sunshine is a free fuel.
” Well , sunshine is certainly free and clean .
However , there is a monumental caveat .
Harnessing sunshine ( and wind ) to serve humanity is not free – or clean , green , renewable , or sustainable .
The 1977 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act mandates that new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aside funds for full reclamation of mine properties .
The law also sets standards for restoring abandoned mine lands .
There is nothing akin to this for solar facilities and wastes .
Similarly , the 1980 Superfund law ( Comprehensive Environmental Response , Compensation , and Liability Act ) created a tax and trust fund to pay for preventing and fixing actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances that could endanger public health or the environment .
Again , still nothing for solar .
The 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act prioritizes deep geologic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ radioactive waste .
Unfortunately , 25 years after being designated as the disposal site , Nevada ’ s Yucca Mountain has never opened because of conflicts among politicians , locals , anti-nuclear activists , government officials , and the nuclear industry ; the U.S. still stores its nuclear waste at 75 scattered sites , including some near New York City , New Orleans , and Chicago .
But for solar no steps have been taken .
While coal , nuclear , and petrochemical companies must come up with detailed , costly plans for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of their operations , solar ( and wind ) companies have been “ rewarded ” with massive subsidies and absolutely no disposal standards or requirements .
No government grants require these solar companies to set aside money to dispose of , store or recycle wastes generated during manufacturing or after massive solar “ farms ” have ceased functioning and been torn down .
Solar ( and wind ) customers are likewise not charged for waste cleanup , disposal , or reuse and recycling .
This and the massive subsidies distort and hide the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the reality is starting to catch up .
Disposal ( or recycling ) costs will have to be paid , ultimately by consumers .
The more solar panels we have ( likely billions within a few years ) , the higher those costs will be .
Consumers in states like California that have committed to heavy reliance on solar ( and wind ) energy ( and already have the nation ’ s highest energy bills ) will have to pay even more .
California is also facing a secondary problem from the proliferation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2015 study jointly by Stanford University and the Carnegie Institution for Science found that nearly a third of the state ’ s solar development is occurring on former cropland , where many farmers are shifting from growing crops to using their land to generate electricity – rather than letting it become a wildlife habitat .
As Big Solar also moves into natural areas , California is losing even more habitat and scenic land , while the integrity of state and national parks suffers from the nearby glare of countless solar panels and towering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Stanford study highlights another problem : localized higher temperatures .
It found it will take an area the size of South Carolina filled with solar arrays to meet California ’ s goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions 80 % below 1990 levels by 2050 .
[ It would take at least eight South Carolinas if the California mandate were extended nationwide . ]
Other research has found that these large-scale solar power plants raise local temperatures , creating a significant solar heat island effect .
Temperatures around one solar power plant were 5.4°-7.2°F @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Imagine such manmade “ global warming ” across 20 million acres ( South Carolina ) or 160 million acres ( Texas ) , to meet California or U.S. greenhouse gas reduction goals !
Australia is already coping with this unwelcome reality .
Not until 2018 did Aussie environment ministers mandate fast-track development of new product stewardship schemes for photovoltaic ( PV ) solar panels , like those television and computer manufacturers and retailers have had to comply with since 2011 .
Total Environment Centre director Jeff Angel admitted that setting standards for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long overdue , ” and that the 30-year delay in imposing standards revealed a “ fundamental weakness ” in Australia ’ s waste policies .
He further noted that while solar panels contain hazardous substances , Aussies are “ sending hundreds of thousands of e-waste items to landfills ” and creating significant pollution problems .
And Australia has less than a tenth of the U.S. population !
Since 2002 , the European Union ’ s Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment ( WEEE ) Directive has required that the original producers of e-wastes guarantee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their wastes , so that end-user consumers aren ’ t surprised by additional disposal costs .
However , PV solar panel waste was not included in this mandate until July 2012 – and “ some uncertainty remains ” about the cutoff date for such wastes because the directive has yet to be implemented in national laws .
Producer financing of PV waste treatment thus can not be applied to older solar panels .
So who will pay ?
And how much ?
Ms .
Folk and others look to waste-to-energy plants , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its solar panel waste to incinerators – which many environmentalists oppose .
Landfilling is not a viable option in the U.S. , because toxins could leach out .
Unscrupulous companies ship solar panel waste to developing nations , but that is a stopgap solution that is environmentally irresponsible .
Tao Meng , the lead author of a new study , says “ the big blind spot in the U.S. for recycling is that the cost far exceeds the revenue ” – by nearly 10-to-1 , especially when including transportation costs .
Chemicals must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from silicon modules before they can be safely placed in landfills , Meng notes .
The problem of solar panel waste will continue to grow as more panels reach their end of life .
Four years ago the International Renewable Energy Agency estimated there were already about 250,000 metric tons of solar panel waste worldwide – and that total will explode to 78 million metric tons by 2050 !
So when you read that solar energy is already cheaper than natural gas , don ’ t be fooled .
They are omitting the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as habitat losses , solar heat islands , and the need for backup power generation or batteries – to lowball the true costs of solar .
We need some honest math now before it ’ s too late to turn back .
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 .

Solar Panels both Pollute & Heat The Earth
Written by Duggan Flanakin
The problem of solar panel waste is now becoming evident. As environmental journalist Emily Folk admits in Renewable Energy Magazine, “when talking about renewable energy, the topic of waste does not often appear.”
She attributes this to the supposed “pressures of climate change” and alleged “urgency to find alternative energy sources,” saying people may thus be hesitant to discuss “possible negative impacts of renewable energy.”
Ms. Folk admits that sustainability requires proper e-waste management. Yet she laments, “Solar presents a particular problem. There is growing evidence that broken panels release toxic pollutants … [and] increasing concern regarding what happens with these materials when they are no longer viable, especially since they are difficult to recycle.”
This is the likely reason that (except in Washington state), there are no U.S. mandates for solar recycling. A recent article in Grist reports that most used solar panels are shipped to developing countries that have little electricity and weak environmental protections, to be reused or landfilled.
The near-total absence of end-of-life procedures for solar panels is likely a byproduct of the belief (and repeated, unsupported assertion) that renewable energy is “clean” and “green.”
Indeed, Mississippi Sierra Club state director Louie Miller recently claimed that unlike fossil fuels and nuclear energy, “Sunshine is a free fuel.” Well, sunshine is certainly free and clean. However, there is a monumental caveat.
Harnessing sunshine (and wind) to serve humanity is not free – or clean, green, renewable, or sustainable.
The 1977 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act mandates that new surface coal mines include plans and set aside funds for full reclamation of mine properties.
The law also sets standards for restoring abandoned mine lands. There is nothing akin to this for solar facilities and wastes.
Similarly, the 1980 Superfund law (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act) created a tax and trust fund to pay for preventing and fixing actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances that could endanger public health or the environment. Again, still nothing for solar.
The 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act prioritizes deep geologic repositories for safe storage and/or disposal of radioactive waste.
Unfortunately, 25 years after being designated as the disposal site, Nevada’s Yucca Mountain has never opened because of conflicts among politicians, locals, anti-nuclear activists, government officials, and the nuclear industry; the U.S. still stores its nuclear waste at 75 scattered sites, including some near New York City, New Orleans, and Chicago.
But for solar no steps have been taken.
While coal, nuclear, and petrochemical companies must come up with detailed, costly plans for dealing with real or potential negative consequences of their operations, solar (and wind) companies have been “rewarded” with massive subsidies and absolutely no disposal standards or requirements.
No government grants require these solar companies to set aside money to dispose of, store or recycle wastes generated during manufacturing or after massive solar “farms” have ceased functioning and been torn down.
Solar (and wind) customers are likewise not charged for waste cleanup, disposal, or reuse and recycling. This and the massive subsidies distort and hide the true costs of solar power.
But the reality is starting to catch up. Disposal (or recycling) costs will have to be paid, ultimately by consumers. The more solar panels we have (likely billions within a few years), the higher those costs will be.
Consumers in states like California that have committed to heavy reliance on solar (and wind) energy (and already have the nation’s highest energy bills) will have to pay even more.
California is also facing a secondary problem from the proliferation of subsidized industrial solar installations.
A 2015 study jointly by Stanford University and the Carnegie Institution for Science found that nearly a third of the state’s solar development is occurring on former cropland, where many farmers are shifting from growing crops to using their land to generate electricity – rather than letting it become a wildlife habitat.
As Big Solar also moves into natural areas, California is losing even more habitat and scenic land, while the integrity of state and national parks suffers from the nearby glare of countless solar panels and towering transmission lines to distant cities.
The Stanford study highlights another problem: localized higher temperatures. It found it will take an area the size of South Carolina filled with solar arrays to meet California’s goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. [It would take at least eight South Carolinas if the California mandate were extended nationwide.]
Other research has found that these large-scale solar power plants raise local temperatures, creating a significant solar heat island effect. Temperatures around one solar power plant were 5.4°-7.2°F (3°-4°C) warmer than nearby wildlands.
Imagine such manmade “global warming” across 20 million acres (South Carolina) or 160 million acres (Texas), to meet California or U.S. greenhouse gas reduction goals!
Australia is already coping with this unwelcome reality. Not until 2018 did Aussie environment ministers mandate fast-track development of new product stewardship schemes for photovoltaic (PV) solar panels, like those television and computer manufacturers and retailers have had to comply with since 2011.
Total Environment Centre director Jeff Angel admitted that setting standards for life-of-product management for solar panels was “long overdue,” and that the 30-year delay in imposing standards revealed a “fundamental weakness” in Australia’s waste policies.
He further noted that while solar panels contain hazardous substances, Aussies are “sending hundreds of thousands of e-waste items to landfills” and creating significant pollution problems. And Australia has less than a tenth of the U.S. population!
Since 2002, the European Union’s Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive has required that the original producers of e-wastes guarantee and pay for taking back and recycling their wastes, so that end-user consumers aren’t surprised by additional disposal costs.
However, PV solar panel waste was not included in this mandate until July 2012 – and “some uncertainty remains” about the cutoff date for such wastes because the directive has yet to be implemented in national laws.
Producer financing of PV waste treatment thus cannot be applied to older solar panels. So who will pay? And how much?
Ms. Folk and others look to waste-to-energy plants, and indeed the EU does send much of its solar panel waste to incinerators – which many environmentalists oppose.
Landfilling is not a viable option in the U.S., because toxins could leach out. Unscrupulous companies ship solar panel waste to developing nations, but that is a stopgap solution that is environmentally irresponsible.
Tao Meng, the lead author of a new study, says “the big blind spot in the U.S. for recycling is that the cost far exceeds the revenue” – by nearly 10-to-1, especially when including transportation costs.
Chemicals must be used to remove silver and lead from silicon modules before they can be safely placed in landfills, Meng notes.
The problem of solar panel waste will continue to grow as more panels reach their end of life.
Four years ago the International Renewable Energy Agency estimated there were already about 250,000 metric tons of solar panel waste worldwide – and that total will explode to 78 million metric tons by 2050!
So when you read that solar energy is already cheaper than natural gas, don’t be fooled. They are omitting the pollution and disposal costs, as well as habitat losses, solar heat islands, and the need for backup power generation or batteries – to lowball the true costs of solar.
We need some honest math now before it’s too late to turn back.
Read more at climatechangedispatch.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


principiascientificinternational--2020-09-23--Who said ‘we are all in this together?’

Who said ‘we are all in this together?’

Who said ‘ we are all in this together ?
’ In reality , competition and one-upmanship is alive and well .
From “ pre-ordering ” millions of doses of a — yet to be developed vaccine – against an already mutated pathogenic virus , to space exploration , sorry , I mean claims of possession , there is fierce competition on planet Earth , wherever you look .
The U.S. has set its sight on exploiting the ( supposedly ) rich rock deposits on the Earth ’ s Moon ( though one wonders how much a pail full of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Most of the rock samples taken on the Moon and brought back to Earth nearly 50 years ago are collecting dust in various museums around the world .
Perhaps some of your offspring might find moon-sand neat for building sand castles in the backyard .
Seriously though , isn ’ t it an ancient idiom that : Possession is Nine/Tenth of the Law In case you missed the news , Russia ( or one of her up-and-coming disciples ) recently claimed planet Venus as property of the state ( www.ctvnews.ca and www.msn.com ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ easy it was to claim possession of anything “ out of this world.
” Probably should have thought of that sooner but let me quickly catch up and correct my past failure : • Possession of the Solar System , planets ( other than Venus ) and their moons , including those yet to be identified ; • Possession of all stars , planets , moon , comets , asteroids , cosmic dust , and – mostly importantly – all the black holes in this entire Galaxy ; • Possession of the Universe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ found there – or elsewhere .
Out of my boundless generosity , I ’ ll grant eternal claim of possession to TEN square miles of the place on any of the heavenly bodies that actually has had a living human set foot on – in the entire Universe ( apart from planet Earth ) .
If you agree to such terms , kindly send a bank-draft for FIVE U.S .
Dollars to my accountant !
p.s .
: What gave rise to the claim of possession of Venus ?
It was the ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) gas phosphine ( its chemical notation is PH3 ) in the atmosphere of the planet .
It is thought ( by some folks ) to be a “ biomarker ” for living organisms in an environment .
Expect to meet , any day now , not just a few Mars-lings but some Venus-lings as well .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Who said ‘we are all in this together?’
Written by Dr Klaus L E Kaiser
In reality, competition and one-upmanship is alive and well. From “pre-ordering” millions of doses of a — yet to be developed vaccine – against an already mutated pathogenic virus, to space exploration, sorry, I mean claims of possession, there is fierce competition on planet Earth, wherever you look.
The U.S. has set its sight on exploiting the (supposedly) rich rock deposits on the Earth’s Moon (though one wonders how much a pail full of that could even be worth). Most of the rock samples taken on the Moon and brought back to Earth nearly 50 years ago are collecting dust in various museums around the world. Perhaps some of your offspring might find moon-sand neat for building sand castles in the backyard.
Seriously though, isn’t it an ancient idiom that:
Possession is Nine/Tenth of the Law
In case you missed the news, Russia (or one of her up-and-coming disciples) recently claimed planet Venus as property of the state (www.ctvnews.ca and www.msn.com).
I didn’t realize how easy it was to claim possession of anything “out of this world.”
Probably should have thought of that sooner but let me quickly catch up and correct my past failure:
I Now Claim:
Possession of the Solar System, planets (other than Venus) and their moons, including those yet to be identified;
Possession of all stars, planets, moon, comets, asteroids, cosmic dust, and – mostly importantly – all the black holes in this entire Galaxy;
Possession of the Universe, including everything that may yet be found there – or elsewhere.
Out of Generosity
Out of my boundless generosity, I’ll grant eternal claim of possession to TEN square miles of the place on any of the heavenly bodies that actually has had a living human set foot on – in the entire Universe (apart from planet Earth).
If you agree to such terms, kindly send a bank-draft for FIVE U.S. Dollars to my accountant!
Sincerely Yours,
[The Author]
p.s.: What gave rise to the claim of possession of Venus?
It was the (spectroscopic) finding of the (toxic) gas phosphine (its chemical notation is PH3) in the atmosphere of the planet. It is thought (by some folks) to be a “biomarker” for living organisms in an environment.
Expect to meet, any day now, not just a few Mars-lings but some Venus-lings as well.
Dr. Klaus L.E. Kaiser is author of CONVENIENT MYTHS, the green revolution – perceptions, politics, and facts Convenient Myths
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--2020-09-23--COVID deaths 75 percent lower in nations using HCQ

With media solemnly spotlighting the passing of the 200,000 mark in deaths attributed to COVID-19 in the United States , a physicians association has a question .
“ Why is the death rate about 75 percent lower in many countries ?
” asked Dr. Jane Orient , executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons .
The reference is to a country-based analysis updated Sept. 20 that shows a gap between countries that treat COVID-19 early or prophylactically with hydroxychloroquine and those that , like the U.S. , discourage or prohibit its use .
The answer to Orient @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a white paper published by the Economic Standard this month titled “ Hydroxychloroquine and the Burden of Proof : An Urgent Call to Depoliticize Medicine in the COVID-19 Pandemic.
” “ The COVID-19 pandemic struck America nine months before a presidential election , turning basic medical activities like testing and treatment into partisan battlegrounds , ” writes Economic Standard Editor-in-Chief Erik Sass in the overview .
“ No subject has been more distorted than hydroxychloroquine ( HCQ ) , a safe , versatile medicine that has treated hundreds of millions of people for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ notes the paper was written in close collaboration with practicing physicians and infectious disease specialists in the United States and around the world .
Most Americans became aware of the drug in March , when President Trump mentioned it during a press conference , saying it showed “ very , very encouraging early results ” and “ could be a game changer.
” However , “ political opponents defied longstanding scientific and medical consensus to portray HCQ as harmful and Trump as a mortal danger to public health , ” Sass writes .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ published and promoted by media outlets eager to discredit Trump , while positive studies were impugned or ignored.
” “ This campaign persists even as evidence of HCQ ’ s benefit against COVID-19 grows – including scores of observational controlled trials showing therapeutic effect when administered early in disease progression.
” The paper points out that hundreds of drugs have been approved for both indication-specific and general usage on the basis of similar observational trials , “ especially when conducted in large numbers and subject to careful meta-analysis.
” “ The U.S. is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says Sass .
“ Right now , doctors around the world are prescribing HCQ to treat COVID-19 outside of hospitals , as well as prophylactically to prevent infection among healthcare workers and vulnerable populations.
” The paper argues that hydroxychloroquine “ has met the appropriate burden of proof and urges members of the U.S. news media , public health community , and regulatory agencies to stop politicizing the use of this medicine.
” “ Tens of thousands of lives still hang in the balance.
” Some of the key lessons : • Flawed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ promoted by media outlets eager to discredit Trump , while positive studies were impugned or ignored .
• HCQ is commonly prescribed for at least 25 indications in addition to malaria .
• The drug ’ s prolongation of the QT interval is in the mid-range of 30 commonly used drugs .
• Hundreds of drugs have been approved without randomized controlled trials , including the tetanus vaccine , insulin , tetracycline , warfarin , heparin , prednisone , Keflex and high-dose penicillin for neurosyphilis .
• Only 8.5 % of the American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by randomized controlled trials .
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 .

COVID deaths 75 percent lower in nations using HCQ
Written by WND staff
With media solemnly spotlighting the passing of the 200,000 mark in deaths attributed to COVID-19 in the United States, a physicians association has a question.
“Why is the death rate about 75 percent lower in many countries?” asked Dr. Jane Orient, executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.
The reference is to a country-based analysis updated Sept. 20 that shows a gap between countries that treat COVID-19 early or prophylactically with hydroxychloroquine and those that, like the U.S., discourage or prohibit its use.
The answer to Orient’s question can be found in a white paper published by the Economic Standard this month titled “Hydroxychloroquine and the Burden of Proof: An Urgent Call to Depoliticize Medicine in the COVID-19 Pandemic.”
“The COVID-19 pandemic struck America nine months before a presidential election, turning basic medical activities like testing and treatment into partisan battlegrounds,” writes Economic Standard Editor-in-Chief Erik Sass in the overview. “No subject has been more distorted than hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), a safe, versatile medicine that has treated hundreds of millions of people for numerous diseases for seven decades.”
Sass notes the paper was written in close collaboration with practicing physicians and infectious disease specialists in the United States and around the world.
Most Americans became aware of the drug in March, when President Trump mentioned it during a press conference, saying it showed “very, very encouraging early results” and “could be a game changer.”
However, “political opponents defied longstanding scientific and medical consensus to portray HCQ as harmful and Trump as a mortal danger to public health,” Sass writes. “Flawed and even falsified studies were published and promoted by media outlets eager to discredit Trump, while positive studies were impugned or ignored.”
“This campaign persists even as evidence of HCQ’s benefit against COVID-19 grows – including scores of observational controlled trials showing therapeutic effect when administered early in disease progression.”
The paper points out that hundreds of drugs have been approved for both indication-specific and general usage on the basis of similar observational trials, “especially when conducted in large numbers and subject to careful meta-analysis.”
“The U.S. is an international outlier on HCQ,” says Sass. “Right now, doctors around the world are prescribing HCQ to treat COVID-19 outside of hospitals, as well as prophylactically to prevent infection among healthcare workers and vulnerable populations.”
The paper argues that hydroxychloroquine “has met the appropriate burden of proof and urges members of the U.S. news media, public health community, and regulatory agencies to stop politicizing the use of this medicine.”
“Tens of thousands of lives still hang in the balance.”
Some of the key lessons:
Flawed and even falsified studies were published and promoted by media outlets eager to discredit Trump, while positive studies were impugned or ignored.
HCQ is commonly prescribed for at least 25 indications in addition to malaria.
The drug’s prolongation of the QT interval is in the mid-range of 30 commonly used drugs.
Hundreds of drugs have been approved without randomized controlled trials, including the tetanus vaccine, insulin, tetracycline, warfarin, heparin, prednisone, Keflex and high-dose penicillin for neurosyphilis.
Only 8.5% of the American Heart Association’s guidelines are supported by randomized controlled trials.
Read more at www.wnd.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


principiascientificinternational--2020-09-24--Russia mass releases first batches of pioneering Covid-19 vaccine

Russia ’ s homegrown Covid-19 formula is currently in the third and final stage of clinical trials , in which 40,000 Muscovites will take part .
While three-quarters will receive the jab , another quarter will be given a placebo .
On Wednesday , Moscow ’ s Deputy Mayor Anastasia Rakova announced that testing had begun , and over 35,000 residents had applied .
“ Clinical trials have begun in Moscow , ” Murashko said , adding that the ministry had also created “ the world ’ s first mobile application ” that allows participants to “ report on their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
On August 11 , Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that the country had registered the world ’ s first Covid-19 vaccine , named Sputnik V. It is being produced by Moscow ’ s Gamaleya Research Institute of Epidemiology and Microbiology .
The vaccine ’ s development process has been criticized by some Western countries for its supposedly unsafe rapid development and improper testing .
However , earlier this month , the respected British medical journal The Lancet published the Russian Ministry of Health ’ s Sputnik V study , showing the vaccine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ antibodies in all 76 participants of early-stage trials .

Russia’s homegrown Covid-19 formula is currently in the third and final stage of clinical trials, in which 40,000 Muscovites will take part. While three-quarters will receive the jab, another quarter will be given a placebo. On Wednesday, Moscow’s Deputy Mayor Anastasia Rakova announced that testing had begun, and over 35,000 residents had applied.
“Clinical trials have begun in Moscow,” Murashko said, adding that the ministry had also created “the world’s first mobile application” that allows participants to “report on their condition” throughout the lengthy trial period.
On August 11, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that the country had registered the world’s first Covid-19 vaccine, named Sputnik V. It is being produced by Moscow’s Gamaleya Research Institute of Epidemiology and Microbiology. The vaccine’s development process has been criticized by some Western countries for its supposedly unsafe rapid development and improper testing. However, earlier this month, the respected British medical journal The Lancet published the Russian Ministry of Health’s Sputnik V study, showing the vaccine to be 100 percent effective, producing antibodies in all 76 participants of early-stage trials.


principiascientificinternational--2020-09-24--Japan reveals first UV lamp to safely kill coronavirus

A Japanese company that teamed up with Columbia University has developed a first-of-its-kind ultraviolet lamp that can kill the coronavirus without harming people ’ s health , according to a report .
Light equipment maker Ushio ’ s Care 222 UV lamp is expected to be used to disinfect heavily trafficked spaces where people run the risk of contracting the deadly bug , including buses , trains , elevators and offices , Japan Today reported .
UV lamps have been widely used for sterilization , notably in the medical and food-processing industries , and JetBlue recently announced plans to use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , conventional UV rays can not be used when people are present because they cause skin cancer and eye problems .
But Ushio ’ s new UV lamp emits rays with a wavelength of 222 nanometers , as opposed to the conventional 254-nanometer wavelength , making them deadly to germs but harmless to humans , the news outlet reported .
At 222 nanometers , the UV rays can not penetrate the skin and eyes to cause cancer-causing genetic defects and other damage , according to Ushio .
When emitted from a ceiling , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out 99 percent of viruses and bacteria in the air and up to a 32-square-foot surface of objects about eight feet away from the lamp , in six to seven minutes , Japan Today reported .
The 2.6-pound Care 222 device , which is about the size of a hardcover book , costs about $ 2,800 .
Ushio said it only accepts orders from medical institutions for now , but that it will serve other customers once production catches up with demand .
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 .

Japan reveals first UV lamp to safely kill coronavirus
Written by Yaron Steinbuch
A Japanese company that teamed up with Columbia University has developed a first-of-its-kind ultraviolet lamp that can kill the coronavirus without harming people’s health, according to a report.
Light equipment maker Ushio’s Care 222 UV lamp is expected to be used to disinfect heavily trafficked spaces where people run the risk of contracting the deadly bug, including buses, trains, elevators and offices, Japan Today reported.
UV lamps have been widely used for sterilization, notably in the medical and food-processing industries, and JetBlue recently announced plans to use the technology aboard its planes.
However, conventional UV rays cannot be used when people are present because they cause skin cancer and eye problems.
But Ushio’s new UV lamp emits rays with a wavelength of 222 nanometers, as opposed to the conventional 254-nanometer wavelength, making them deadly to germs but harmless to humans, the news outlet reported.
At 222 nanometers, the UV rays cannot penetrate the skin and eyes to cause cancer-causing genetic defects and other damage, according to Ushio.
When emitted from a ceiling, the UV from the new machine snuffs out 99 percent of viruses and bacteria in the air and up to a 32-square-foot surface of objects about eight feet away from the lamp, in six to seven minutes, Japan Today reported.
The 2.6-pound Care 222 device, which is about the size of a hardcover book, costs about $2,800.
Ushio said it only accepts orders from medical institutions for now, but that it will serve other customers once production catches up with demand.
Read more at nypost.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


principiascientificinternational--2020-09-24--CDC Latest Confession: Almost No One Infected Died From COVID19!

CDC Latest Confession : Almost No One Infected Died From COVID19 !
The CDC last week released the latest survival @ @ @ @ @ , as usual , complete silence from the mainstream media ?
The reason ?
Astonishingly @ @ @ @ @ from this pandemic .
The US government ’ s official survival rates ( i.e.
, @ @ @ @ @ are as follows : Now keep in mind that the virus has never been isolated @ @ @ @ @ ‘ gold standard ’ – no scientist , no university , no lab claims to @ @ @ @ @ do so .
COVID19 thus does not pass Koch ’ s Postulates so it ’ @ @ @ @ @ considered irrefutable .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company @ @ @ @ @ Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Please DONATE TODAY @ @ @ @ @ To Defend The Scientific Method .

CDC Latest Confession: Almost No One Infected Died From COVID19!
Written by John O'Sullivan
The CDC last week released the latest survival rate figures from COVID19 and, as usual, complete silence from the mainstream media? The reason? Astonishingly LOW numbers of people dying from this pandemic.
The US government’s official survival rates (i.e., IF infected) for Covid19 are as follows:
0-19 99.997 percent
20-49 99.98 percent
50-69 99.5 percent
70+ 94.6 percent
Read the latest CDC update here: www.cdc.gov
Now keep in mind that the virus has never been isolated and replicated to create a ‘gold standard’ – no scientist, no university, no lab claims to have been the first to do so. COVID19 thus does not pass Koch’s Postulates so it’s existence cannot be considered irrefutable.
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--2020-09-24--UK Govt Play Fast & Loose on COVID Data to Justify More Restrictions

UK Govt Play Fast & Loose on COVID Data to Justify More Restrictions The retired former government scientist I have mentioned before , commented a few days ago about the apparent spike in virus cases and what it means .
He expressed the following concerns : The BBC and others were crowing yesterday about new cases reaching the 4000 mark .
As I have said many times before always read the clinical small print .
Setting aside the fact that these are not cases in the clinical sense of a case and are merely positive swab results ( i.e .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ be infectious and they may or may not be sick ) there is the critical issue of publication date vs. specimen date counts .
Publication date counts arise according to when the DHSC decide to release the latest figures , whereas specimen date counts are determined by the earliest known positive specimen for a particular person .
( Emphasis added ) The public , being sensible , are going to think the new ‘ case ’ figures released by the DHSC will bear some semblance to reality and will be totted according to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; the DHSC release a different set of rather surreal figures they call ‘ published ’ counts .
To reveal this game of musical swabs I have plotted out the actual ‘ case ’ count according to specimen date ( being the real and rather useful clinical McCoy ) against the case count according to the DHSC ’ s published figure confection .
Between 31st August and 5th September , the DHSC under reported actual case counts to the tune of 5698 and did so again between 7th September and 10th September , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ scare bank system ’ , making a total of 8757 unreported cases to release when the moment was ripe .
( Emphasis added ) That moment came on 13th September when they were able to reveal 3330 new cases instead of the 1972 we ’ d report using actual specimen dates .
They performed the same trick again on 15th September , reporting 3105 cases instead of 1375 .
The scare bank system enabled them to hit the magic 4000 mark on 16th September ( 3991 to be precise ) .
( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ find out what the real count should have been that day and I shall be waiting quietly in the wings to reveal more of what can only be described as a scam .
The same system was used to artificially inflate death counts back when folk were dying .
( Emphasis added ) They ’ re using the same technique of holding back some cases on some days to boost numbers later down the line .
There is absolutely no need for this since all the data they need are already there – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a couple of days later if there was a need to satisfy admin procedures ( figures signed off etc ) .
This suggests withholding cases is being done deliberately for some nefarious reason , like to justify another lockdown when none is needed .
What the media and authorities are calling a ‘ case ’ I ’ m calling a ‘ swab ’ because that ’ s what the stark reality is – something that is stuck up somebody ’ s nose regardless of how they feel and whether they are actually infectious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a swab ; physicians care for cases , governments care for swabs .
Graphwise I ’ m delighted to report the Positive Swab Rate is down and has stayed down these past few days .
This means the surge in new cases is not a new trend , it ’ s a spike .
Spikes are going to occur in any sampling system .
When three buses all turn up at once we don ’ t assume the bus company is laying on more vehicles especially for us , we assume the blighters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s the same with swabbing the populace over time but I ’ ve yet to see experts point this out .
( Emphasis added ) While we are cogitating like this it ’ s worth considering that any genuine new wave of infection isn ’ t going to produce sampling spikes , it ’ s going to produce a whopping great trend .
Herd immunity ( for want of a better phrase ) will do the same if former hotspots are targeted .
( Emphasis added ) There ’ s also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and that is these rates are for pillar 1 & 2 testing combined .
The government have yet to release data for pillar 3 & 4 testing five months down the line .
A complete void for key data is the sort of thing that makes me rather suspicious .
( Emphasis added ) After updating my database this morning , I thought I ought to pay attention to claims that COVID-19 hospital admissions are rising .
As we can see from the graph below this is indeed the case .
We should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ admission ’ on their online coronavirus dashboard webpage is not an admission in the strict sense of somebody being admitted to hospital but includes all those inpatients already in hospital , for one reason or another , who were found to test positive during their stay .
This doesn ’ t mean to say these people are infectious ( they may or may not be ) and this doesn ’ t mean to say they are exhibiting COVID-19 symptoms ( they may or may not be ) ; all it means is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dead – were found within a swab sample sufficient to yield a positive result .
A fully recovered case will still test positive long after the infection has gone , and some people will be rather surprised to learn they have tested positive .
( Emphasis added ) What we have then , is an indication of something definitely going on but we don ’ t know what , since the PCR test relied upon gives no indication of disease status .
This may be the beginning of a new , infectious wave @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concerned about ) and yet it may simply be the result of the PCR test detecting dead virus fragments .
The latter should also concern us because it means the government are relying on a test that is not fit for purpose .
Are these people sick and diseased with COVID-19 or not ?
I find it astonishing ( and somewhat alarming ) that the public are not given such basic information .
( Emphasis added ) Of all the results I have turned out to date the most mind-mangling is arguably the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ produce scatterplots of the weekly Test & Trace system data for NHS England for pillar 1 alone ( those in clinical care and frontline workers ) and pillar 2 alone ( the wider community and those self-isolating ) .
In the pillar 1 plot we see a rapid decline in the number of positive cases as testing increases .
In stark contrast the pillar 2 plot reveals a dramatic increase in the number of positive cases as testing increases .
Ouch !
Now here ’ s the mind-mangling thing… the plot for pillar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decline whereas the plot for pillar 2 is indicative of a pandemic that is getting into its stride , yet these two situations co-exist at the same time in England !
Either we are experiencing a parallel universe bleeding through the ether , or one of two things must be happening : 1 ) .
The pandemic is actually in decline ( pillar 1 test results are correct ) and pillar 2 testing in the wider community is picking up folk carrying dead virus fragments from an earlier infection and not genuinely infectious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immunity and calling it a ‘ new wave ’ ( n.b .
the PCR test can not distinguish between the live and dead virus ) .
( Emphasis added ) 2 ) .
The pandemic is actually developing like the government claim ( pillar 2 test results are correct ) but for some reason death isn ’ t a problem for the nation anymore , folk aren ’ t having to go to hospital in the first instance for the same miraculous reason and those already in clinical care are turning out to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Which explanation makes more sense to you ?
If there really was a deadly disease sweeping the world , we wouldn ’ t need to be rushing to test everyone to prove it exists .
Hospitals and morgues would be full , and millions of people would have died .
About the author : Andy Rowlands is a British Principia Scientific International researcher , writer and editor who co-edited the new climate science book , ‘ The Sky Dragon Slayers : Victory Lap ‘ PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

UK Govt Play Fast & Loose on COVID Data to Justify More Restrictions
Written by Andy Rowlands
The retired former government scientist I have mentioned before, commented a few days ago about the apparent spike in virus cases and what it means. He expressed the following concerns:
The BBC and others were crowing yesterday about new cases reaching the 4000 mark. As I have said many times before always read the clinical small print. Setting aside the fact that these are not cases in the clinical sense of a case and are merely positive swab results (i.e. the persons counted may or may not be infectious and they may or may not be sick) there is the critical issue of publication date vs. specimen date counts. Publication date counts arise according to when the DHSC decide to release the latest figures, whereas specimen date counts are determined by the earliest known positive specimen for a particular person. (Emphasis added) The public, being sensible, are going to think the new ‘case’ figures released by the DHSC will bear some semblance to reality and will be totted according to specimen date but this is not so; the DHSC release a different set of rather surreal figures they call ‘published’ counts. To reveal this game of musical swabs I have plotted out the actual ‘case’ count according to specimen date (being the real and rather useful clinical McCoy) against the case count according to the DHSC’s published figure confection. Between 31st August and 5th September, the DHSC under reported actual case counts to the tune of 5698 and did so again between 7th September and 10th September, giving them another 3059 cases in the ‘scare bank system’, making a total of 8757 unreported cases to release when the moment was ripe. (Emphasis added) That moment came on 13th September when they were able to reveal 3330 new cases instead of the 1972 we’d report using actual specimen dates. They performed the same trick again on 15th September, reporting 3105 cases instead of 1375. The scare bank system enabled them to hit the magic 4000 mark on 16th September (3991 to be precise). (Emphasis added) We have yet to find out what the real count should have been that day and I shall be waiting quietly in the wings to reveal more of what can only be described as a scam. The same system was used to artificially inflate death counts back when folk were dying. (Emphasis added) They’re using the same technique of holding back some cases on some days to boost numbers later down the line. There is absolutely no need for this since all the data they need are already there – they could easily report actual case counts a couple of days later if there was a need to satisfy admin procedures (figures signed off etc).
This suggests withholding cases is being done deliberately for some nefarious reason, like to justify another lockdown when none is needed.
He continues:
What the media and authorities are calling a ‘case’ I’m calling a ‘swab’ because that’s what the stark reality is – something that is stuck up somebody’s nose regardless of how they feel and whether they are actually infectious. A case is a detection is a swab; physicians care for cases, governments care for swabs. Graphwise I’m delighted to report the Positive Swab Rate is down and has stayed down these past few days. This means the surge in new cases is not a new trend, it’s a spike. Spikes are going to occur in any sampling system. When three buses all turn up at once we don’t assume the bus company is laying on more vehicles especially for us, we assume the blighters have all bunched up en route! It’s the same with swabbing the populace over time but I’ve yet to see experts point this out. (Emphasis added)
He further explains:
While we are cogitating like this it’s worth considering that any genuine new wave of infection isn’t going to produce sampling spikes, it’s going to produce a whopping great trend. Herd immunity (for want of a better phrase) will do the same if former hotspots are targeted. (Emphasis added) There’s also a skeleton in the closet to consider and that is these rates are for pillar 1 & 2 testing combined. The government have yet to release data for pillar 3 & 4 testing five months down the line. A complete void for key data is the sort of thing that makes me rather suspicious. (Emphasis added) After updating my database this morning, I thought I ought to pay attention to claims that COVID-19 hospital admissions are rising. As we can see from the graph below this is indeed the case. We should note that what the government call an ‘admission’ on their online coronavirus dashboard webpage is not an admission in the strict sense of somebody being admitted to hospital but includes all those inpatients already in hospital, for one reason or another, who were found to test positive during their stay. This doesn’t mean to say these people are infectious (they may or may not be) and this doesn’t mean to say they are exhibiting COVID-19 symptoms (they may or may not be); all it means is that fragments of the virus –alive or dead – were found within a swab sample sufficient to yield a positive result. A fully recovered case will still test positive long after the infection has gone, and some people will be rather surprised to learn they have tested positive. (Emphasis added) What we have then, is an indication of something definitely going on but we don’t know what, since the PCR test relied upon gives no indication of disease status. This may be the beginning of a new, infectious wave (and thus something to be most concerned about) and yet it may simply be the result of the PCR test detecting dead virus fragments. The latter should also concern us because it means the government are relying on a test that is not fit for purpose. Are these people sick and diseased with COVID-19 or not? I find it astonishing (and somewhat alarming) that the public are not given such basic information. (Emphasis added) Of all the results I have turned out to date the most mind-mangling is arguably the rather peculiar result we get if we produce scatterplots of the weekly Test & Trace system data for NHS England for pillar 1 alone (those in clinical care and frontline workers) and pillar 2 alone (the wider community and those self-isolating). In the pillar 1 plot we see a rapid decline in the number of positive cases as testing increases. In stark contrast the pillar 2 plot reveals a dramatic increase in the number of positive cases as testing increases. Ouch! Now here’s the mind-mangling thing… the plot for pillar 1 is indicative of a pandemic in decline whereas the plot for pillar 2 is indicative of a pandemic that is getting into its stride, yet these two situations co-exist at the same time in England! Either we are experiencing a parallel universe bleeding through the ether, or one of two things must be happening: 1). The pandemic is actually in decline (pillar 1 test results are correct) and pillar 2 testing in the wider community is picking up folk carrying dead virus fragments from an earlier infection and not genuinely infectious cases i.e. we are detecting herd immunity and calling it a ‘new wave’ (n.b. the PCR test cannot distinguish between the live and dead virus). (Emphasis added) 2). The pandemic is actually developing like the government claim (pillar 2 test results are correct) but for some reason death isn’t a problem for the nation anymore, folk aren’t having to go to hospital in the first instance for the same miraculous reason and those already in clinical care are turning out to be misdiagnosed or even faking symptoms. Which explanation makes more sense to you? If there really was a deadly disease sweeping the world, we wouldn’t need to be rushing to test everyone to prove it exists. Hospitals and morgues would be full, and millions of people would have died.
About the author: Andy Rowlands is a British Principia Scientific International researcher, writer and editor who co-edited the new climate science book, ‘The Sky Dragon Slayers: Victory Lap‘
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--2020-09-24--Van Morrison Releases Three Protest Songs Against Lockdown

The successful singer is releasing new tracks as he campaigns for live venues to operate with full audiences .
His @ @ @ @ @ response to the ongoing and insane UK government lockdown restrictions .
Born To Be Free @ @ @ @ @ , and No More Lockdown are songs of protest which question the measures the Government @ @ @ @ @ Morrison ( photo above , with Bob Dylan ) makes it clear in his new @ @ @ @ @ with the way the Government has taken away personal freedoms .
Politicians from his birthplace @ @ @ @ @ attack Van Morrison as a ” covidiot ” and there have been calls in Belfast @ @ @ @ @ revoke his Freedom of the City honor .
Speaking out against the heavy-handed and anti-civil @ @ @ @ @ pandemic , Morrison criticized the face diapers ( nappies ) and social distancing saying , @ @ @ @ @ up , fight the pseudo-science and speak up .
”

Van Morrison Releases Three Protest Songs Against Lockdown
Written by John O'Sullivan
The successful singer is releasing new tracks as he campaigns for live venues to operate with full audiences. His three new tracks are in response to the ongoing and insane UK government lockdown restrictions.
Born To Be Free, As I Walked Out, and No More Lockdown are songs of protest which question the measures the Government has put in place. Morrison (photo above, with Bob Dylan) makes it clear in his new songs how unhappy he is with the way the Government has taken away personal freedoms.
Politicians from his birthplace in Ireland were quick to attack Van Morrison as a”covidiot” and there have been calls in Belfast for Belfast City Council to revoke his Freedom of the City honor.
Speaking out against the heavy-handed and anti-civil liberties approach during the COVID-19 pandemic, Morrison criticized the face diapers (nappies) and social distancing saying, “Come forward, stand up, fight the pseudo-science and speak up.”
Morrison says;
““I’m not telling people what to do or think, the government is doing a great job of that already. It’s about freedom of choice, I believe people should have the right to think for themselves.” ”
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related


principiascientificinternational--2020-09-24--Climate Change Theory is Immunized from Falsification

In last week ’ s post , I provided a quote from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy that encapsulated the gist of the scientific method : “ [ T ] heories that are permanently immunized from falsification .
.
.
can no longer be classified as scientific.
” That seems simple enough .
Surely we ought to be able to keep track of that one basic precept to distinguish the science from the non-science .
In practice , it turns out to be not so simple at all .
To illustrate , let ’ s consider the latest from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ll put aside the grand foretellings of planet-wide climate doom , and focus instead on just one little question : whether the current wave of wildfires in the West has been caused by human-induced global warming resulting from the burning of fossil fuels .
There ’ s an important difference between these two questions that relate to the potential for falsification .
With the grand foretellings of doom , it is nearly impossible to pin the seers down to anything you might try to falsify .
Think about some of the phrasings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The world has a temperature and we are the cause.
” • “ Unless drastic measures are taken to reduce greenhouse gases , we face a point of no return.
” What is the potential evidence that might emerge that all could agree had falsified these predictions ?
You will never get a climate alarmist to give you an answer to that question .
But you would think that the question of the causation of the wildfires would be different .
There ought to be evidence out there that would bear directly on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the trend of wildfires worldwide during the past 20 or so years , when greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels have accelerated ?
Or , can we get evidence on the extent of wildfires in the West from the time period before either European settlement or any significant human greenhouse gas emissions ?
Meanwhile , of course , the question of the causation of the wildfires has gotten caught up in the maelstrom of our presidential election campaign and therefore is the subject of intense daily discussion from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden campaign .
Seemingly definitive statements are everywhere , attributing the wildfires to warming caused by human burning of fossil fuels , generally phrased in terms to vilify or ridicule anyone who might question that inference in any way .
To take one non-random example , there was Democratic candidate Joe Biden at an appearance on Monday , where he accused President Trump of being a “ climate arsonist ” for not “ heeding the science ” on the subject of climate change being the cause of the wildfires .
The headline at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump a ‘ climate arsonist , ’ accusing him of not heeding science.
” Excerpt : Politico then also quotes the head of California ’ s Natural Resources Agency , Wade Crowfoot , as follows : “ I think we want to work with you to really recognize the changing climate and what it means for our forests , and actually work together with that science.
” Or consider the piece from the LA Times on September 14 , with the headline “ A Climate Apocalypse Now.
” Excerpt : There are many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ care to look .
But suppose we are willing to open the door at least a crack to the idea that the proposition at hand — that warmer temperatures resulting from human burning of fossil fuels have brought about a great increase in wildfires in the West — could potentially be falsified .
Suppose further that we accept as given that temperatures in the relevant regions have increased at least a smidgeon during the era of human greenhouse gas emissions ; and even further that we accept for these purposes the proposition that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There remains this completely empirical question : has there actually been a meaningful increase in the extent of wildfires over some relevant time period ?
And the answer , of course , is that readily available data show that , notwithstanding an active wildfire season in the Western U.S. this year , the trend in wildfires over the relevant time , both worldwide and in the Western U.S. , is strongly down , not up .
First , consider the worldwide data .
In 1999 NASA began using satellites to study the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they published a 20-year summary of the accumulated data .
Here is the chart they provided : Obviously the overall trend is strongly down .
The downward-sloping trend line on the chart was drawn by NASA , who certainly would not be considered climate skeptics .
I can not provide an explanation of why the data seems to end sometime in 2015 when they say the report was published in 2019 .
In any event , here is the key relevant quote from NASA : But how about California ?
Surely , California @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by climate change ?
After all , everybody says so .
So let ’ s try comparing acreage burned by wildfires in California in recent years to acreage burned back in the “ pre-historic ” period ( before 1800 , at a time when human greenhouse gas emissions , let alone any other influences of settlers originating from Europe , could not have had any possible influence on the situation . )
Here is a California state government website called Cal Fire that has data on acreage burned by wildfires in California for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year ( 2019 ) through September 15 , and for the full year for each of the years 2016 to 2019 .
The figure for acreage burned this year through September 15 is 1,410,113 acres .
That sounds like a lot of acres .
Last year , for the full year , the figure was only 135,573 acres burned .
In 2018 , it was 876,147 acres ; in 2017 , 505,956 acres ; and in 2016 , 244,319 acres .
But how about in that pre-historic/pre-1800 period ?
You might consider this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Management , by S.L .
Stephens , R.E .
Martin , and N.E .
Clinton of the University of California at Berkeley , titled “ Prehistoric fire area and emissions from California ’ s forests , woodlands , shrublands , and grasslands.
” Here is the money quote : Wow !
In case you don ’ t know , a hectare ( abbreviated ha ) is about 2.5 acres .
So they are saying that the annual acreage burned in this “ pre-historic ” period ranged from about 4.5 million acres to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as much as an order of magnitude larger than the areas burned in the worst of modern fire seasons , such as the current year .
From the Conclusion of Stephens , et al .
: In short , readily available empirical data completely refutes the proposition that the Western U.S. is suffering some huge increase in wildfires brought about by human-caused climate change .
But of course , another approach is to ignore any and all empirical evidence , and repeat the mantra of “ climate apocalypse ” over and over again @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It is a proposition that must be , and therefore is , “ permanently immunized from falsification.
” 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 .

Climate Change Theory is Immunized from Falsification
Written by Francis Menton
In last week’s post, I provided a quote from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy that encapsulated the gist of the scientific method: “[T]heories that are permanently immunized from falsification . . . can no longer be classified as scientific.”
That seems simple enough. Surely we ought to be able to keep track of that one basic precept to distinguish the science from the non-science.
In practice, it turns out to be not so simple at all. To illustrate, let’s consider the latest from the climate apocalypse movement.
For today I’ll put aside the grand foretellings of planet-wide climate doom, and focus instead on just one little question: whether the current wave of wildfires in the West has been caused by human-induced global warming resulting from the burning of fossil fuels.
There’s an important difference between these two questions that relate to the potential for falsification. With the grand foretellings of doom, it is nearly impossible to pin the seers down to anything you might try to falsify.
Think about some of the phrasings you have likely encountered.
“The world has a temperature and we are the cause.”
“Unless drastic measures are taken to reduce greenhouse gases, we face a point of no return.”
What is the potential evidence that might emerge that all could agree had falsified these predictions? You will never get a climate alarmist to give you an answer to that question.
But you would think that the question of the causation of the wildfires would be different. There ought to be evidence out there that would bear directly on this question.
For example, what is the trend of wildfires worldwide during the past 20 or so years, when greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels have accelerated?
Or, can we get evidence on the extent of wildfires in the West from the time period before either European settlement or any significant human greenhouse gas emissions?
Meanwhile, of course, the question of the causation of the wildfires has gotten caught up in the maelstrom of our presidential election campaign and therefore is the subject of intense daily discussion from the media, as well as from the Biden campaign.
Seemingly definitive statements are everywhere, attributing the wildfires to warming caused by human burning of fossil fuels, generally phrased in terms to vilify or ridicule anyone who might question that inference in any way.
To take one non-random example, there was Democratic candidate Joe Biden at an appearance on Monday, where he accused President Trump of being a “climate arsonist” for not “heeding the science” on the subject of climate change being the cause of the wildfires.
The headline at the Politico article is “Biden labels Trump a ‘climate arsonist,’ accusing him of not heeding science.” Excerpt:
Joe Biden on Monday denounced President Donald Trump as a “climate arsonist” [for his] unwillingness to acknowledge the threat posed by climate change . . . . Biden’s remarks on Monday were meant to address the wildfires that have been raging across Western states for three weeks…
Politico then also quotes the head of California’s Natural Resources Agency, Wade Crowfoot, as follows: “I think we want to work with you to really recognize the changing climate and what it means for our forests, and actually work together with that science.”
Or consider the piece from the LA Times on September 14, with the headline “A Climate Apocalypse Now.” Excerpt:
In 2001, a team of international scientists projected that during the next 100 years, the planet’s inhabitants would witness higher maximum temperatures, more hot days and heatwaves, an increase in the risk of forest fires, and “substantially degraded air quality” in large metropolitan areas as a result of climate change. That projection has become a reality on the West Coast, as wildfires have cut across California, Oregon, and Washington, killing at least 33 people and charring more than 4 million acres.
There are many more similar pieces out there if you care to look.
But suppose we are willing to open the door at least a crack to the idea that the proposition at hand — that warmer temperatures resulting from human burning of fossil fuels have brought about a great increase in wildfires in the West — could potentially be falsified.
Suppose further that we accept as given that temperatures in the relevant regions have increased at least a smidgeon during the era of human greenhouse gas emissions; and even further that we accept for these purposes the proposition that the human emissions caused the temperature increase.
There remains this completely empirical question: has there actually been a meaningful increase in the extent of wildfires over some relevant time period?
And the answer, of course, is that readily available data show that, notwithstanding an active wildfire season in the Western U.S. this year, the trend in wildfires over the relevant time, both worldwide and in the Western U.S., is strongly down, not up.
First, consider the worldwide data. In 1999 NASA began using satellites to study the worldwide extent of wildfires. In 2019 they published a 20-year summary of the accumulated data.
Here is the chart they provided:
Obviously the overall trend is strongly down. The downward-sloping trend line on the chart was drawn by NASA, who certainly would not be considered climate skeptics.
I cannot provide an explanation of why the data seems to end sometime in 2015 when they say the report was published in 2019. In any event, here is the key relevant quote from NASA:
[O]ver recent decades human activities such as land management and agriculture, increasing population density and active fire suppression have succeeded in significantly reducing the global areas burned by wildfires, despite the rise in global temperatures.
But how about California? Surely, California is experiencing a wildfire apocalypse brought about by climate change? After all, everybody says so.
So let’s try comparing acreage burned by wildfires in California in recent years to acreage burned back in the “pre-historic” period (before 1800, at a time when human greenhouse gas emissions, let alone any other influences of settlers originating from Europe, could not have had any possible influence on the situation.)
Here is a California state government website called Cal Fire that has data on acreage burned by wildfires in California for this year through September 15, last year (2019) through September 15, and for the full year for each of the years 2016 to 2019.
The figure for acreage burned this year through September 15 is 1,410,113 acres. That sounds like a lot of acres. Last year, for the full year, the figure was only 135,573 acres burned. In 2018, it was 876,147 acres; in 2017, 505,956 acres; and in 2016, 244,319 acres.
But how about in that pre-historic/pre-1800 period? You might consider this 2007 article from the journal Forest Ecology and Management, by S.L. Stephens, R.E. Martin, and N.E. Clinton of the University of California at Berkeley, titled “Prehistoric fire area and emissions from California’s forests, woodlands, shrublands, and grasslands.”
Here is the money quote:
Using the estimates of MFRI [median fire return interval] and HFRI [high fire return interval] by vegetation type (Tables 5 and 6), the amount of area burned annually in California varied from 1,814,614 to 4,838,293 ha (excluding the desert region in Southeastern California) during the prehistoric period. With the land area of California equaling 40,396,822 ha (CCDB, 2003), this results in 4.5–12.0% of the state’s lands burning annually.
Wow! In case you don’t know, a hectare (abbreviated ha) is about 2.5 acres. So they are saying that the annual acreage burned in this “pre-historic” period ranged from about 4.5 million acres to up to 12 million acres — areas as much as an order of magnitude larger than the areas burned in the worst of modern fire seasons, such as the current year.
From the Conclusion of Stephens, et al.:
The idea that the US wildfire area of approximately 2 million ha [i.e., 5 million acres] annually is extreme is certainly a 20th- or 21st-century perspective. Skies were likely smoky in the summer and fall in California before fire suppression. An eye-witness account of smoke in northern California forests (C.H. Merriam 1898, quoted in Morford, 1993) reported ‘‘Of the hundreds of persons who visit the Pacific slope in California every summer to see the mountains, few see more than the immediate foreground and a haze of smoke which even the strongest glass is unable to penetrate.’’
In short, readily available empirical data completely refutes the proposition that the Western U.S. is suffering some huge increase in wildfires brought about by human-caused climate change.
But of course, another approach is to ignore any and all empirical evidence, and repeat the mantra of “climate apocalypse” over and over again until people come to believe it.
It is a proposition that must be, and therefore is, “permanently immunized from falsification.”
Read more at Manhattan Contrarian
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