principiascientificinternational--2020-10-07--Dutch Govt: ‘Wear A Mask!’ – Chief Scientist: ‘Don’t Bother!’

Though I don ’ t follow the news in the Netherlands much , I happened to see something the other day that I think is a “ beautiful ” example of why so many countries get their “ measures ” wrong , their lockdowns , facemasks etc .
First of all , they all screwed up their initial lockdowns , which pretty much were March-June all over .
And second lockdowns are more something they like to threaten people with than actually considered options .
Unless things really get out of hand , if for instance numbers of deaths suddenly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change towards infections occurring in much younger people than before , that is not likely .
Plus , of course , no-one wants even more economic damage .
And now what you see is the politicians don ’ t know what to do anymore .
They turn to “ their scientists ” again , but many have before given advice that is different from what they say now , that hasn ’ t worked , and that often contradicts what their colleagues in other countries say .
And so everyone starts blaming “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have mostly obeyed the lockdowns and become experts themselves , or so they think , and seen them go nowhere .
That makes the positions of politicians and “ experts ” much weaker than it was 6-7 months ago .
It ’ s about credibility , and they ’ ve squandered it .
Why “ must we listen to the scientists ” if that does us no good ?
The Netherlands , like many European countries , is in a second wave that is seeing many more new daily cases than in spring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but not entirely : The number of deaths does not show a similar trend , which can be contributed to the infections mostly occurring in much younger people , and of course a better understanding in medical circles of the virus .
However , hospitals are still filling up much faster than in June-July , and many younger people , too , end up with damaged brains , lungs , hearts etc .
This recent chart of the difference between August and September infection numbers throughout Europe is skewed because of the insane @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it shows that a 300 % increase was entirely normal in that timeframe .
So what now ?
The Dutch government came with a whole new set of measures starting October 2 .
Because people “ don ’ t obey the rules ” .
And people increasingly say : maybe the rules are not right .
By the way , facemasks are not mandatory there in stores and other public places , there is only an “ urgent ” government advice to wear them .
That is different from many other nations .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Translate : • Work from home as much as possible .
• Receive up to 3 guests at home .
• Children up to and including 12 years are not included .
• You may meet with a group of 4 people .
• For example in a cinema or restaurant .
• Children up to and including 12 years are not included .
• A maximum of 30 people may be together in an indoor space .
• Cafes , bars and restaurants close at 10 p.m. You must be gone then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ • You provide your name and telephone number .
If someone gets sick who has been in the restaurant or cafe , you will receive a call .
• You must make a reservation to visit a museum or library .
• Stores only allow customers if there is enough space .
• In supermarkets there will be special shopping hours for the elderly and the sick ( people with poor health ) .
• People with a contact profession must register customers .
For example hairdressers .
The first reaction that I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ m not the only one : Why 3 people as house guests and not 4 ?
Why 4 people at a restaurant table and not 5 , or 30 total in an indoor space ?
There are family members we haven ’ t seen since Christmas , but a birthday party is out ?
Where do those numbers come from ?
Did you just make them up ?
Also , closing bars and restaurants at 10 pm is going to be the death knell for many of the few that are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ About that number of 4 people at a restaurant table , the next article from NLTimes about worries in the hospitality sector says that in neighboring Germany and Belgium , 10 people can sit at that same -or preferably a bigger- table .
Are Dutch people supposed to drive to those countries if they have a party of 8 ?
Gov ’ t Advice To Wear Masks In Public Space Met With Skepticism On Wednesday Prime Minister Mark Rutte issued the urgent advice for all Netherlands residents to wear masks in publicly accessible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with skepticism , especially from the hospitality industry .
Former RIVM director Roel Coutinho would rather have seen a mask obligation instead of advice .
Hospitality association KHN doubts whether the advice to wear masks in public makes sense , the association said in a press release .
“ The fact that there is still no scientific substantiation by the cabinet and RIVM about the proven usefulness of face masks certainly does not help to create and maintain support .
Moreover , face masks still form an extra barrier to visiting establishments.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an obligation , the KHN wants the Netherlands to follow Germany and Belgium ’ s example .
According to the association , in those countries up to 10 people are allowed at a restaurant table .
“ Then we will be open to it , ” the association said .
The KHN also wants extra financial support should masks become mandatory .
Roel Coutinho , who preceded Jaap van Dissel as head of public health institute RIVM , is pleased that the advice to wear masks indoors now applies to the whole of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government did not make it mandatory .
“ On the basis of all the literature , I am convinced that wearing a face mask is useful .
But only advice makes it particularly difficult for people , ” he said to Nieuwsuur .
“ An obligation , as is also happening in countries around us , gives everyone much more clarity.
” An obligation will also help the stores that have to enforce the face mask rule .
“ Because what exactly should those shops or supermarkets do ?
” Coutinho said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the responsibility now lies with shops , which makes it very difficult .
An obligation is not always pleasant , but it is clear and easy to enforce.
” But the best part is the following , the initial piece that got me thinking about this .
Turns out that at the same moment the government issues an “ urgent ” advice to wear them , with a threat of making them mandatory , its chief Infectious Diseases expert , the Dutch Fauci , says he sees little benefit is wearing non-medical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who used to say they were useless , now calls them very beneficial .
The frequent use of masks in other countries , the pressure of public opinion in his own country , or even a direct appeal from his famous American counterpart Anthony Fauci : Jaap van Dissel sticks to his position .
When asked , the director of Infectious Diseases at the RIVM repeats that , according to him , masks have “ an exceptionally small effect ” on the attempts to contain the spread of the corona virus .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ he calls the cabinet ’ s recent decision to urgently recommend masks in public indoor spaces , therefore primarily a political decision rather than one based on medical grounds .
Since the start of the corona crisis , Van Dissel has emphasized that he sees little benefit in wearing non-medical face masks , especially because it could evoke a sense of false security and possibly divert attention from other rules .
Although he acknowledges that there are studies that signal a positive effect of face masks , he believes they are difficult to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For example , medical mouth masks were often used in those studies and measures such as the one and a half meters are not taken into account , ” he explains .
There are also studies that are less positive about masks , he says .
“ That leads us to consider that we have not given a positive advice about it .
That is just the story .
That another decision is taken , based on political considerations , that it should be so.
” In addition , according to Van Dissel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ masks is nothing compared to the usefulness of other measures such as keeping sufficient distance from each other , washing hands regularly and staying at home in case of complaints .
Earlier this week , the Outbreak Management Team , the advisory body of the cabinet which Van Dissel chairs , made some adjustments to the advice on face masks for the first time .
For example , the OMT wrote that masks could be recommended in places where sufficient distance from each other can not always be kept “ such as in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reason , a mask has been mandatory in public transport since June .
According to Van Dissel , the change in the OMT advice has nothing to do with a changed view of mouth masks , but more to do with people ’ s sense of safety .
“ Of course , as OMT , we have also realized that some people would prefer to wear a mouth mask .
If someone feels safer , we are fine with that , ” he says .
The government says : wear a mask , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t bother .
Great message .
And people don ’ t miss that .
I ’ ve said it before : every government today should have a generous supply of N95 masks ready .
They don ’ t because their experts long said they were not necessary .
While some keep claiming cloth masks are useful , but “ more to do with people ’ s sense of safety ” .
I don ’ t know about you , but all these people with these useless masks on where they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t make me feel safe at all .
They make me think I ’ m surrounded by fools .
And is anyone going to believe that 4 at a table is better than 10 ?
How can they when just across the border the opinion is so different ?
If you ask me , the time of being able to order your citizens around on what to do and what not , may be ending for many governments .
And they have only themselves to blame .
The only realistic thing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be to give people back their own responsibility .
If only because taking it away from them didn ’ t work .
Read more at The Automatic Earth blog 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 .

Dutch Govt: ‘Wear A Mask!’ – Chief Scientist: ‘Don’t Bother!’
Written by Raul Ilargi Meijer
Though I don’t follow the news in the Netherlands much, I happened to see something the other day that I think is a “beautiful” example of why so many countries get their “measures” wrong, their lockdowns, facemasks etc.
First of all, they all screwed up their initial lockdowns, which pretty much were March-June all over. And second lockdowns are more something they like to threaten people with than actually considered options.
Unless things really get out of hand, if for instance numbers of deaths suddenly increase a lot, but given the change towards infections occurring in much younger people than before, that is not likely. Plus, of course, no-one wants even more economic damage.
And now what you see is the politicians don’t know what to do anymore. They turn to “their scientists” again, but many have before given advice that is different from what they say now, that hasn’t worked, and that often contradicts what their colleagues in other countries say. And so everyone starts blaming “the people”.
But the people have mostly obeyed the lockdowns and become experts themselves, or so they think, and seen them go nowhere. That makes the positions of politicians and “experts” much weaker than it was 6-7 months ago. It’s about credibility, and they’ve squandered it. Why “must we listen to the scientists” if that does us no good?
The Netherlands, like many European countries, is in a second wave that is seeing many more new daily cases than in spring. Partly due to more testing, but not entirely:
The number of deaths does not show a similar trend, which can be contributed to the infections mostly occurring in much younger people, and of course a better understanding in medical circles of the virus. However, hospitals are still filling up much faster than in June-July, and many younger people, too, end up with damaged brains, lungs, hearts etc.
This recent chart of the difference between August and September infection numbers throughout Europe is skewed because of the insane increases in Hungary and Georgia, but it shows that a 300% increase was entirely normal in that timeframe.
So what now?
The Dutch government came with a whole new set of measures starting October 2. Because people “don’t obey the rules”. And people increasingly say: maybe the rules are not right. By the way, facemasks are not mandatory there in stores and other public places, there is only an “urgent” government advice to wear them. That is different from many other nations. Here are the new measures per Google Translate:
Work from home as much as possible.
Receive up to 3 guests at home. Children up to and including 12 years are not included.
You may meet with a group of 4 people. For example in a cinema or restaurant. Children up to and including 12 years are not included.
A maximum of 30 people may be together in an indoor space. Children count.
Cafes, bars and restaurants close at 10 p.m. You must be gone then. You can enter until 9 p.m. You provide your name and telephone number. If someone gets sick who has been in the restaurant or cafe, you will receive a call.
You must make a reservation to visit a museum or library.
Stores only allow customers if there is enough space.
In supermarkets there will be special shopping hours for the elderly and the sick (people with poor health).
People with a contact profession must register customers. For example hairdressers.
The first reaction that I have, and I’m sure I’m not the only one: Why 3 people as house guests and not 4? Why 4 people at a restaurant table and not 5, or 30 total in an indoor space? There are family members we haven’t seen since Christmas, but a birthday party is out?
Where do those numbers come from? Did you just make them up? Also, closing bars and restaurants at 10 pm is going to be the death knell for many of the few that are left. Is that worth it?
About that number of 4 people at a restaurant table, the next article from NLTimes about worries in the hospitality sector says that in neighboring Germany and Belgium, 10 people can sit at that same -or preferably a bigger- table. Are Dutch people supposed to drive to those countries if they have a party of 8?
Gov’t Advice To Wear Masks In Public Space Met With Skepticism
On Wednesday Prime Minister Mark Rutte issued the urgent advice for all Netherlands residents to wear masks in publicly accessible indoor spaces. This advice was met with skepticism, especially from the hospitality industry. Former RIVM director Roel Coutinho would rather have seen a mask obligation instead of advice. Hospitality association KHN doubts whether the advice to wear masks in public makes sense, the association said in a press release. “The fact that there is still no scientific substantiation by the cabinet and RIVM about the proven usefulness of face masks certainly does not help to create and maintain support. Moreover, face masks still form an extra barrier to visiting establishments.” If the government turns its advice into an obligation, the KHN wants the Netherlands to follow Germany and Belgium’s example. According to the association, in those countries up to 10 people are allowed at a restaurant table. “Then we will be open to it,” the association said. The KHN also wants extra financial support should masks become mandatory. Roel Coutinho, who preceded Jaap van Dissel as head of public health institute RIVM, is pleased that the advice to wear masks indoors now applies to the whole of the Netherlands, but regrets that the government did not make it mandatory. “On the basis of all the literature, I am convinced that wearing a face mask is useful. But only advice makes it particularly difficult for people,” he said to Nieuwsuur. “An obligation, as is also happening in countries around us, gives everyone much more clarity.” An obligation will also help the stores that have to enforce the face mask rule. “Because what exactly should those shops or supermarkets do?” Coutinho said. “Because it only concerns urgent advice, the responsibility now lies with shops, which makes it very difficult. An obligation is not always pleasant, but it is clear and easy to enforce.”
But the best part is the following, the initial piece that got me thinking about this.
Turns out that at the same moment the government issues an “urgent” advice to wear them, with a threat of making them mandatory, its chief Infectious Diseases expert, the Dutch Fauci, says he sees little benefit is wearing non-medical masks. As, ironically, Fauci, who used to say they were useless, now calls them very beneficial.
Google translate again:
Van Dissel Insists: Ordinary Face Masks Have Little Effect
The frequent use of masks in other countries, the pressure of public opinion in his own country, or even a direct appeal from his famous American counterpart Anthony Fauci: Jaap van Dissel sticks to his position. When asked, the director of Infectious Diseases at the RIVM repeats that, according to him, masks have “an exceptionally small effect” on the attempts to contain the spread of the corona virus. In an interview with the NOS, he calls the cabinet’s recent decision to urgently recommend masks in public indoor spaces, therefore primarily a political decision rather than one based on medical grounds. Since the start of the corona crisis, Van Dissel has emphasized that he sees little benefit in wearing non-medical face masks, especially because it could evoke a sense of false security and possibly divert attention from other rules. Although he acknowledges that there are studies that signal a positive effect of face masks, he believes they are difficult to extrapolate to the corona crisis. “For example, medical mouth masks were often used in those studies and measures such as the one and a half meters are not taken into account,” he explains. There are also studies that are less positive about masks, he says. “That leads us to consider that we have not given a positive advice about it. That is just the story. That another decision is taken, based on political considerations, that it should be so.” In addition, according to Van Dissel, the alleged effectiveness of non-medical face masks is nothing compared to the usefulness of other measures such as keeping sufficient distance from each other, washing hands regularly and staying at home in case of complaints. Earlier this week, the Outbreak Management Team, the advisory body of the cabinet which Van Dissel chairs, made some adjustments to the advice on face masks for the first time. For example, the OMT wrote that masks could be recommended in places where sufficient distance from each other cannot always be kept “such as in busy shops”. For the same reason, a mask has been mandatory in public transport since June. According to Van Dissel, the change in the OMT advice has nothing to do with a changed view of mouth masks, but more to do with people’s sense of safety. “Of course, as OMT, we have also realized that some people would prefer to wear a mouth mask. If someone feels safer, we are fine with that,” he says.
The government says: wear a mask, and its chief scientific adviser says: don’t bother. Great message. And people don’t miss that. I’ve said it before: every government today should have a generous supply of N95 masks ready. They don’t because their experts long said they were not necessary. While some keep claiming cloth masks are useful, but “more to do with people’s sense of safety”.
I don’t know about you, but all these people with these useless masks on where they’re not needed, like outside, don’t make me feel safe at all. They make me think I’m surrounded by fools. And is anyone going to believe that 4 at a table is better than 10? How can they when just across the border the opinion is so different? If you ask me, the time of being able to order your citizens around on what to do and what not, may be ending for many governments. And they have only themselves to blame.
The only realistic thing to do at this point appears to be to give people back their own responsibility. If only because taking it away from them didn’t work.
Read more at The Automatic Earth blog
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19
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--2020-10-07--Woke! The Lancet Denounces ‘Medical Racism’ in United States

The U.K.-based Lancet medical journal has denounced “ medical racism ” in the United States as part of purported ongoing “ structural violence ” present in the country .
“ While much public health research has shown that racism is a fundamental determinant of health outcomes and disparities , racist policy and practice have also been integral to the historical formation of the medical academy in the USA , ” states the once prestigious journal in an October 3 article coauthored by Ayah Nuriddin , Graham Mooney , and Alexandre R. White .
“ Like the history of US policing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ care in the USA is marked by racial injustice and myriad forms of violence : unequal access to health care , the segregation of medical facilities , and the exclusion of African Americans from medical education are some of the most obvious examples , ” the essay states .
“ These , together with inequalities in housing , employment opportunities , wealth , and social service provision , produce disproportionate health disparities by race , ” it continues .
“ The health community needs to confront these painful histories of structural violence to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health responses to entrenched health inequalities , the COVID-19 pandemic , and future pandemics.
” By “ structural violence , ” the authors mean how the organisation of society “ puts individuals and populations in harm ’ s way.
” The arrangements are structural , they explain , “ because they are embedded in the political and economic organization of our social world.
” Lest readers think that this structural violence and medical racism are things of pre-Emancipation America or the Jim Crow years , the authors hasten to insist that they continue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concept of structural violence , they assert , “ is helpful for understanding how the histories of violence , neglect , and oppression that crisscross law enforcement , politics , medical care , and public health are inextricably linked and manifested in the present.
” Curiously , the authors venture into the dangerously mined territory of “ reproductive rights ” and its ties to the eugenics movement , a reality still present in Planned Parenthood ’ s targeting of black and minority women for abortion .
“ The coercive nature of this history @ @ @ @ @ @ @ later , ” the article declares .
“ Native American , African American , and Puerto Rican women were overwhelmingly targeted for involuntary , coercive , and compulsory sterilisation under early 20th century eugenics laws.
” As Nigerian pro-life activist Obianuju Ekeocha , author of Target Africa : Ideological Neo-colonialism of the Twenty-first Century , told Breitbart News in 2018 , Planned Parenthood continues to carry on the legacy of its racist founder .
Planned Parenthood not only “ has its roots firmly embedded in eugenic racism , ” Ms. Ekeocha said , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Planned Parenthood targets black and other minority communities , having up to 79 % of their surgical abortion facilities located within walking distance of African American or Hispanic/Latino neighborhoods.
” “ The disparity in infant mortality between White and Black people in the USA is even higher now than it was in the Antebellum period , ” notes the Lancet article .
Racism “ has not just been incidental to the history of American medicine , and much medical practice around the world , but entrenched in it.
” What the article @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s America black babies are aborted at more than three times the rate of white babies , leading some black leaders to speak of a “ racist genocide ” through abortion .
If the Lancet authors are seriously concerned about vestiges of racism and eugenics in modern medical practice in the U.S. , they need look no further than the “ structural violence ” of abortion giant Planned Parenthood .
Defunding this iniquitous organization would be a fine start .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

Woke! The Lancet Denounces ‘Medical Racism’ in United States
Written by Thomas D Willams PhD
The U.K.-based Lancet medical journal has denounced “medical racism” in the United States as part of purported ongoing “structural violence” present in the country.
“While much public health research has shown that racism is a fundamental determinant of health outcomes and disparities, racist policy and practice have also been integral to the historical formation of the medical academy in the USA,” states the once prestigious journal in an October 3 article coauthored by Ayah Nuriddin, Graham Mooney, and Alexandre R. White.
“Like the history of US policing, the history of medicine and health care in the USA is marked by racial injustice and myriad forms of violence: unequal access to health care, the segregation of medical facilities, and the exclusion of African Americans from medical education are some of the most obvious examples,” the essay states.
“These, together with inequalities in housing, employment opportunities, wealth, and social service provision, produce disproportionate health disparities by race,” it continues. “The health community needs to confront these painful histories of structural violence to develop more effective anti-racist and benevolent public health responses to entrenched health inequalities, the COVID-19 pandemic, and future pandemics.”
By “structural violence,” the authors mean how the organisation of society “puts individuals and populations in harm’s way.” The arrangements are structural, they explain, “because they are embedded in the political and economic organization of our social world.”
Lest readers think that this structural violence and medical racism are things of pre-Emancipation America or the Jim Crow years, the authors hasten to insist that they continue up to the present day.
The concept of structural violence, they assert, “is helpful for understanding how the histories of violence, neglect, and oppression that crisscross law enforcement, politics, medical care, and public health are inextricably linked and manifested in the present.”
Curiously, the authors venture into the dangerously mined territory of “reproductive rights” and its ties to the eugenics movement, a reality still present in Planned Parenthood’s targeting of black and minority women for abortion.
“The coercive nature of this history resonates with attitudes towards reproductive rights decades later,” the article declares. “Native American, African American, and Puerto Rican women were overwhelmingly targeted for involuntary, coercive, and compulsory sterilisation under early 20th century eugenics laws.”
As Nigerian pro-life activist Obianuju Ekeocha, author of Target Africa: Ideological Neo-colonialism of the Twenty-first Century, told Breitbart News in 2018, Planned Parenthood continues to carry on the legacy of its racist founder.
Planned Parenthood not only “has its roots firmly embedded in eugenic racism,” Ms. Ekeocha said, but even today, “we know that Planned Parenthood targets black and other minority communities, having up to 79% of their surgical abortion facilities located within walking distance of African American or Hispanic/Latino neighborhoods.”
“The disparity in infant mortality between White and Black people in the USA is even higher now than it was in the Antebellum period,” notes the Lancet article. Racism “has not just been incidental to the history of American medicine, and much medical practice around the world, but entrenched in it.”
What the article fails to mention is that in today’s America black babies are aborted at more than three times the rate of white babies, leading some black leaders to speak of a “racist genocide” through abortion.
If the Lancet authors are seriously concerned about vestiges of racism and eugenics in modern medical practice in the U.S., they need look no further than the “structural violence” of abortion giant Planned Parenthood.
Defunding this iniquitous organization would be a fine start.
Read more at www.breitbart.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--2020-10-07--New Study: Highly Likely Our Climate Controls CO2 Changes

New Study : Highly Likely Our Climate Controls CO2 Changes Prompted by the observation that dramatic COVID-related reductions in 2020 human CO2 emissions had zero impact on the Earth ’ s CO2 concentration , two scientists conduct extensive statistical probability analyses to conclude temperature changes lead to CO2 changes , not the other way around .
The nearly global acceptance of economically-devastating lockdowns as a mitigating response to the COVID-19 pandemic has inspired many to question the assumption humans drive changes in CO2 concentration .
As Drs .
Koutsoyiannis and Kundzewicz point out in their iconoclastic new study , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , there was an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration , which followed a pattern similar to previous years.
” Utilizing the obvious condition that causes precede effects , or that effects do not lead causes , the authors first point out that the paleoclimate record shows CO2 changes follow temperature changes by about 1,000 years .
Then they examine the sequential relationship between global temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration during 1980–2019 .
While they find the causality direction for CO2 leading temperature ( T ) changes does exist , the results of their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the dominant direction is T → CO2 , ” not CO2 → T. In fact , the statistical probability is so robust “ the p-values in the direction T → [ CO2 ] are always smaller than in direction [ CO2 ] → T by about 4 to 5 orders of magnitude , thus clearly supporting T → [ CO2 ] as dominant direction.
” Temperature is shown to lead CO2 changes by about 6 months to a year .
Drs .
Koutsoyiannis and Kundzewicz acknowledge the perspective “ CO2 → T prevails @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scientific , perception.
” So they point out that an IPCC analysis has a natural ground ( soil ) CO2 emissions reaching 114 to 119 gigatons of carbon ( GtC ) per year , whereas ground ( fossil fuel ) emissions from anthropogenic sources only amount to 8 or 9 GtC per year .
Consequently , the “ change in carbon fluxes due to natural processes is likely to exceed the change due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions ” as the “ the intensity of biochemical process increases with temperature [ and ] leads @ @ @ @ @ @ @ study is not without precedent .
Another analysis of the temperature-CO2 phase relation for 1980-2012 ( Humlum et al.
, 2013 ) indicated “ changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions ” and “ changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5-10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.
” Atmospheric physicist Dr. Murry Salby authored a textbook highlighting the dependence of CO2 emissions on temperature .
He insisted that “ a significant portion ” of the recent increase in CO2 “ derives from a gradual increase in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
But there is also a “ major inconsistency ” in the currently accepted paleoclimate and straight-line ( Mauna Loa ) CO2 progressions , as they imply CO2 molecules do not respond to temperature like they are observed to do so chemically .
He concludes : “ The two proxies of previous climate are incompatible .
They can not both be correct.
” A critical analysis of the paleoclimate CO2 record ( Jaworowski et al.
, 1992 ) suggests the assumption we can accurately determine the entire Earth ’ s CO2 concentration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 36 to 100 % of which are contaminated by exposure to today ’ s air – is “ shown to be invalid.
” In Holocene-era ice cores , CO2 reaches 2,500 ppm , 2,900 ppm , even 7,400 ppm per measurements taken in the 1960s , 1970s , and 1980s .
These values were selectively rejected by those seeking to reach “ consensus ” that modern CO2 concentration values are unprecedented .
To further illustrate the currently accepted paleoclimate CO2 records are likely to be invalid , consider the fact that modern CO2 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ range from 600 to 1,800 ppm and these concentrations can fluctuate by as much as 200 ppm within a period of just four days ( Massman and Frank , 2006 ) .
If this kind of flux can be observed for modern conditions , assessing the CO2 concentration beneath a snowpack that is thousands of years old is little more than fanciful speculation .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

New Study: Highly Likely Our Climate Controls CO2 Changes
Written by Kenneth Richard
Prompted by the observation that dramatic COVID-related reductions in 2020 human CO2 emissions had zero impact on the Earth’s CO2 concentration, two scientists conduct extensive statistical probability analyses to conclude temperature changes lead to CO2 changes, not the other way around.
The nearly global acceptance of economically-devastating lockdowns as a mitigating response to the COVID-19 pandemic has inspired many to question the assumption humans drive changes in CO2 concentration.
As Drs. Koutsoyiannis and Kundzewicz point out in their iconoclastic new study, “despite an unprecedented decrease in carbon emission, there was an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration, which followed a pattern similar to previous years.”
Utilizing the obvious condition that causes precede effects, or that effects do not lead causes, the authors first point out that the paleoclimate record shows CO2 changes follow temperature changes by about 1,000 years.
Then they examine the sequential relationship between global temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration during 1980–2019.
While they find the causality direction for CO2 leading temperature (T) changes does exist, the results of their study clearly “support the hypothesis that the dominant direction is T → CO2,” not CO2 → T.
In fact, the statistical probability is so robust “the p-values in the direction T → [CO2] are always smaller than in direction [CO2] → T by about 4 to 5 orders of magnitude, thus clearly supporting T → [CO2] as dominant direction.”
Temperature is shown to lead CO2 changes by about 6 months to a year.
Drs. Koutsoyiannis and Kundzewicz acknowledge the perspective “CO2 → T prevails in public, as well as in scientific, perception.”
So they point out that an IPCC analysis has a natural ground (soil) CO2 emissions reaching 114 to 119 gigatons of carbon (GtC) per year, whereas ground (fossil fuel) emissions from anthropogenic sources only amount to 8 or 9 GtC per year.
Consequently, the “change in carbon fluxes due to natural processes is likely to exceed the change due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions” as the “the intensity of biochemical process increases with temperature [and] leads to increasing natural CO2 emission.”
This study is not without precedent. Another analysis of the temperature-CO2 phase relation for 1980-2012 (Humlum et al., 2013) indicated “changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions” and “changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5-10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.”
Atmospheric physicist Dr. Murry Salby authored a textbook highlighting the dependence of CO2 emissions on temperature. He insisted that “a significant portion” of the recent increase in CO2 “derives from a gradual increase in surface temperature” (pg. 253).
But there is also a “major inconsistency” in the currently accepted paleoclimate and straight-line (Mauna Loa) CO2 progressions, as they imply CO2 molecules do not respond to temperature like they are observed to do so chemically.
He concludes: “The two proxies of previous climate are incompatible. They cannot both be correct.”
A critical analysis of the paleoclimate CO2 record (Jaworowski et al., 1992) suggests the assumption we can accurately determine the entire Earth’s CO2 concentration by examining ancient polar ice bubbles – 36 to 100% of which are contaminated by exposure to today’s air – is “shown to be invalid.”
In Holocene-era ice cores, CO2 reaches 2,500 ppm, 2,900 ppm, even 7,400 ppm per measurements taken in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s.
These values were selectively rejected by those seeking to reach “consensus” that modern CO2 concentration values are unprecedented.
To further illustrate the currently accepted paleoclimate CO2 records are likely to be invalid, consider the fact that modern CO2 concentrations beneath snowpack in forests and meadows range from 600 to 1,800 ppm and these concentrations can fluctuate by as much as 200 ppm within a period of just four days (Massman and Frank, 2006).
If this kind of flux can be observed for modern conditions, assessing the CO2 concentration beneath a snowpack that is thousands of years old is little more than fanciful speculation.
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--2020-10-07--The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time – Part 27

The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time – Part 27 It has been more than a year since I last added a post to this series .
The previous post in the series , Part XXVI , appeared on August 20 , 2019 .
For all of the prior twenty-six posts , go to this composite link .
There are two reasons for a new post at this time .
The first is that there is some new work out from a guy named Tony Heller .
The new work can be found at Heller ’ s website here , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Heller also indicates that he intends to continue to add to and supplement this work .
Heller is an independent researcher who particularly focuses on the subject of this series : alterations to past officially-reported government climate data to create an impression of warming that did not exist in the data as originally reported .
Heller is quite skilled at going through reams of government climate data and turning this data into useful graphs to demonstrate his points .
However , in the past , I have sometimes been frustrated with Heller ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to enable a reader to verify that his assertions about data alteration are correct .
Thankfully , in the current piece , Heller has corrected that issue and provides the links so that you can see for yourself that the government has changed the data it previously reported in order to artificially enhance the apparent warming trend .
The second reason for a new post at this time is that President Trump has — finally !
— hired two climate skeptics into positions of authority over the bureaucracy that compiles , and later @ @ @ @ @ @ @ September 12 , Trump named David Legates to the position of Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Observation and Prediction .
And on September 21 , Trump named Ryan Maue as Chief Scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ( NOAA ) .
NOAA is the main bureaucracy where the principal climate data are compiled and is a part of the Department of Commerce .
( Another agency , NASA , is also involved in these efforts. )
.
Both Legates and Maue have been known as people who refuse to accept @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is completely bizarre that these appointments would only occur less than two months before the election that could turn Trump out of office , but there you go .
Heller ’ s October 1 piece , titled “ Alterations To The US Temperature Record , ” is one of the most thorough and careful that he has done on this subject .
Note that the piece only deals with the temperature records of the US , not the entire world .
The temperature records of the US and of the rest of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trying to assess the accuracy of government-reported warming trends .
For the rest of the world , no contemporaneously-generated data exist for most of the surface area and for most of the time period between the late nineteenth century and now .
Before the recent years , there just were no ( or very few ) measurement stations or instruments for vast regions like the oceans , the Southern Hemisphere , Africa , Siberia , and so forth .
Therefore , for those and other areas , much of what passes for historical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to 1960 , has actually been created or interpolated after the fact by computer algorithms , which then just so happen to show the trend that the programmers and their bosses would like to see .
But for the US , the situation is different .
For the entire period back to the late nineteenth century , there has existed a dense network of ground thermometers to record temperatures throughout this country .
Therefore , if prior reported data showed cooling trends , and now you want to report a warming trend , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Heller : The US temperature is very important because the vast majority of stations which NOAA has long-term daily temperature data for are located in the US .
So , have prior officially-reported US temperatures been altered to create and enhance warming trends ?
The answer is absolutely , clearly , yes .
If you haven ’ t followed this series prior to now , you may be surprised to learn that fact .
Remarkably , as Heller points out , NOAA , and its co-bureaucracy NASA , do not deny that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t even make serious efforts to hide the fact .
Heller : The reality is that the data alterations are no secret and that NOAA and NASA acknowledge that they do it .
It ’ s not that the alterations are secret , but rather that the bureaucrats make it as difficult as possible to track the alterations , to learn the basis for the alterations , and to figure out what has changed and by how much .
Periodically , new versions of datasets are issued , with no detailed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what basis .
When NOAA and NASA come out with their latest breathless press release about the “ hottest year ever , ” and so forth , there is no mention of prior officially-reported data that would contradict the claim .
Often earlier data have simply been written over as new , altered data are substituted , making it impossible to track the changes unless you happen to be fortunate enough to have captured a screenshot of the old data before it got modified .
Nevertheless , there are notable examples where the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Heller has done some yeoman ’ s work to compile a number of damning instances .
I urge you to read his whole piece , but I ’ ll give you here what is undoubtedly the most notable and shocking example .
In 1999 , then NASA/GISS head James Hansen ( pictured ) , a noted climate alarmist , came out with a big research paper titled “ GISS analysis of surface temperature change.
” Heller links to this paper in his piece , and you can see from the URL that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The paper was part of the then growing climate alarm movement at the time and contained a collection of claims designed to scare you out of your wits about impending climate change apocalypse .
The rate of temperature change was higher in the past 25 years than at any previous time in the period of instrumental data .
The warmth of 1998 was too large and pervasive to be fully accounted for by the recent El Nino… And so on and on .
But Hansen made the mistake of including in the paper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ data for the US from 1880 to 1999 , as it existed at that time .
You can find that graph as Exhibit 6 to the 1999 paper .
Here it is : What jumps off the page — and what Heller drives home with his red circles — is that 1934 is the warmest year , approximately 0.6 deg .
C ( or one full degree F ) warmer than 1998 , which in fact is only the fifth warmest year on this chart , also trailing 1921 , 1931 , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new chart up on its website , with data through 2019 , supposedly generated out of the same database , but just a new and improved “ version ” of the same .
You can go to that link to see NASA ’ s full chart through 2019 , and to verify that this is in fact an official NASA chart .
But Heller takes the step of truncating this 2019 chart at 2000 to emphasize the comparison to NASA ’ s prior chart that went to 1999 .
Here is the 2019 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1998 is notably warmer than 1934 , and for that matter , also warmer than 1921 , 1931 , and 1953 .
The earlier years in the chart have all gotten cooler and the later years all warmer .
A declining trend in temperatures from the 1930s to the 1990s has been turned into a warming trend .
How did that happen ?
What is the basis for the alterations ?
You will never get that answer out of NOAA or NASA .
Go through Heller ’ s post to see other examples @ @ @ @ @ @ @ temperature charts , for instance for the state of Texas , or for average daily high temperatures for the full US .
Somehow , in each case , cooling trends have been turned into strong warming trends , particularly from the 1930s to 1990s .
And finally , Heller ’ s pièce de résistance : He calculates the quantitative alterations in the data for each year , and demonstrates that the effect of the alterations is to make the temperature graph match near-perfectly to the changing level of CO2 in the atmosphere .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the hypothesis .
The implication of this is that the huge adjustments being made to the US temperature record are being made to match the global warming theory , which is the exact opposite of how science should be done .
The unadjusted data shows essentially no correlation between CO2 and temperature .
So , Messrs. Legates and Maue , you now have at least a few months to blow the lid off this scandal .
Really , that is all the time it should take .
The American people deserve to have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on .
Now is our chance .
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 .

The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time – Part 27
Written by Francis Menton
It has been more than a year since I last added a post to this series. The previous post in the series, Part XXVI, appeared on August 20, 2019. For all of the prior twenty-six posts, go to this composite link.
There are two reasons for a new post at this time. The first is that there is some new work out from a guy named Tony Heller.
The new work can be found at Heller’s website here, with a date of October 1. Heller also indicates that he intends to continue to add to and supplement this work.
Heller is an independent researcher who particularly focuses on the subject of this series: alterations to past officially-reported government climate data to create an impression of warming that did not exist in the data as originally reported.
Heller is quite skilled at going through reams of government climate data and turning this data into useful graphs to demonstrate his points.
However, in the past, I have sometimes been frustrated with Heller’s work for not including sufficient links to enable a reader to verify that his assertions about data alteration are correct.
Thankfully, in the current piece, Heller has corrected that issue and provides the links so that you can see for yourself that the government has changed the data it previously reported in order to artificially enhance the apparent warming trend.
The second reason for a new post at this time is that President Trump has — finally! — hired two climate skeptics into positions of authority over the bureaucracy that compiles, and later alters, the climate data.
On September 12, Trump named David Legates to the position of Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Observation and Prediction.
And on September 21, Trump named Ryan Maue as Chief Scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
NOAA is the main bureaucracy where the principal climate data are compiled and is a part of the Department of Commerce. (Another agency, NASA, is also involved in these efforts.).
Both Legates and Maue have been known as people who refuse to accept much of official climate orthodoxy. It is completely bizarre that these appointments would only occur less than two months before the election that could turn Trump out of office, but there you go.
Heller’s October 1 piece, titled “Alterations To The US Temperature Record,” is one of the most thorough and careful that he has done on this subject.
Note that the piece only deals with the temperature records of the US, not the entire world. The temperature records of the US and of the rest of the world present very different issues for researchers trying to assess the accuracy of government-reported warming trends.
For the rest of the world, no contemporaneously-generated data exist for most of the surface area and for most of the time period between the late nineteenth century and now.
Before the recent years, there just were no (or very few) measurement stations or instruments for vast regions like the oceans, the Southern Hemisphere, Africa, Siberia, and so forth.
Therefore, for those and other areas, much of what passes for historical temperature data, particularly from about 1880 to 1960, has actually been created or interpolated after the fact by computer algorithms, which then just so happen to show the trend that the programmers and their bosses would like to see.
But for the US, the situation is different. For the entire period back to the late nineteenth century, there has existed a dense network of ground thermometers to record temperatures throughout this country.
Therefore, if prior reported data showed cooling trends, and now you want to report a warming trend, that necessarily requires changing prior reported data. Heller:
The US temperature is very important because the vast majority of stations which NOAA has long-term daily temperature data for are located in the US.
So, have prior officially-reported US temperatures been altered to create and enhance warming trends? The answer is absolutely, clearly, yes. If you haven’t followed this series prior to now, you may be surprised to learn that fact.
Remarkably, as Heller points out, NOAA, and its co-bureaucracy NASA, do not deny that they have altered the data, and don’t even make serious efforts to hide the fact. Heller:
The reality is that the data alterations are no secret and that NOAA and NASA acknowledge that they do it.
It’s not that the alterations are secret, but rather that the bureaucrats make it as difficult as possible to track the alterations, to learn the basis for the alterations, and to figure out what has changed and by how much.
Periodically, new versions of datasets are issued, with no detailed documentation of what has changed or on what basis.
When NOAA and NASA come out with their latest breathless press release about the “hottest year ever,” and so forth, there is no mention of prior officially-reported data that would contradict the claim.
Often earlier data have simply been written over as new, altered data are substituted, making it impossible to track the changes unless you happen to be fortunate enough to have captured a screenshot of the old data before it got modified.
Nevertheless, there are notable examples where the prior data continue to be accessible, and Heller has done some yeoman’s work to compile a number of damning instances.
I urge you to read his whole piece, but I’ll give you here what is undoubtedly the most notable and shocking example.
In 1999, then NASA/GISS head James Hansen (pictured), a noted climate alarmist, came out with a big research paper titled “GISS analysis of surface temperature change.”
Heller links to this paper in his piece, and you can see from the URL that it is an official NASA document. The paper was part of the then growing climate alarm movement at the time and contained a collection of claims designed to scare you out of your wits about impending climate change apocalypse.
Examples from the abstract:
The rate of temperature change was higher in the past 25 years than at any previous time in the period of instrumental data. The warmth of 1998 was too large and pervasive to be fully accounted for by the recent El Nino…
And so on and on. But Hansen made the mistake of including in the paper a graph of the official NASA temperature data for the US from 1880 to 1999, as it existed at that time. You can find that graph as Exhibit 6 to the 1999 paper.
Here it is:
What jumps off the page — and what Heller drives home with his red circles — is that 1934 is the warmest year, approximately 0.6 deg. C (or one full degree F) warmer than 1998, which in fact is only the fifth warmest year on this chart, also trailing 1921, 1931, and 1953.
But today NASA has a new chart up on its website, with data through 2019, supposedly generated out of the same database, but just a new and improved “version” of the same.
You can go to that link to see NASA’s full chart through 2019, and to verify that this is in fact an official NASA chart. But Heller takes the step of truncating this 2019 chart at 2000 to emphasize the comparison to NASA’s prior chart that went to 1999.
Here is the 2019 NASA chart truncated to 2000:
Now 1998 is notably warmer than 1934, and for that matter, also warmer than 1921, 1931, and 1953. The earlier years in the chart have all gotten cooler and the later years all warmer.
A declining trend in temperatures from the 1930s to the 1990s has been turned into a warming trend.
How did that happen? What is the basis for the alterations? You will never get that answer out of NOAA or NASA.
Go through Heller’s post to see other examples of earlier and later NASA and NOAA temperature charts, for instance for the state of Texas, or for average daily high temperatures for the full US.
Somehow, in each case, cooling trends have been turned into strong warming trends, particularly from the 1930s to 1990s.
And finally, Heller’s pièce de résistance: He calculates the quantitative alterations in the data for each year, and demonstrates that the effect of the alterations is to make the temperature graph match near-perfectly to the changing level of CO2 in the atmosphere. The data have been altered to fit the hypothesis.
Heller:
The implication of this is that the huge adjustments being made to the US temperature record are being made to match the global warming theory, which is the exact opposite of how science should be done. The unadjusted data shows essentially no correlation between CO2 and temperature.
So, Messrs. Legates and Maue, you now have at least a few months to blow the lid off this scandal. Really, that is all the time it should take. The American people deserve to have an honest accounting of what is going on. Now is our chance.
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


principiascientificinternational--2020-10-07--Crooked Climate ‘Scientist’ Michael Mann Caught Lying Again!

Infamous data fraudster ‘ world leading climate scientist ’ Dr Michael E Mann who gave the world the iconic and influential ‘ hockey stick ’ graph to show man-made global warming ‘ is real ‘ is up to his old tricks again .
This week the court-certified loser was on 60 Minutes attacking President Trump with more lies .
James Taylor reports that Mann appeared on the CBS show performing his usual mental gymnastics .
While interviewing Mann CBS ’ s Scott Pelley quizzed him on Trump ’ s perfectly correct statement that there is much about earth ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But know-it-all Michael was having none of it and replied tersely and without blushing that : This buffoon still hasn ’ t learned anything from the legal thrashing given him last year in the Supreme Court of British Columbia in his multi-million-dollar lawsuit against my good friend and colleague , skeptic climatologist , Dr Tim Ball .
Readers may recall that in August 2019 this bald-faced lying pseudo scientist finally got his comeuppance when the judge tossed out Mann ’ s vanity lawsuit for dithering about and wasting eight years hiding his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the exasperated judge ordering Mann to refund all of Dr Ball ’ s legal costs plus interest ( somewhere now above a million dollars ) the weasel took to Twitter to say he wouldn ’ t pay .
We have been hunting him down ever since and now he ’ s hiding out in Australia trying to evade the efforts of our debt collectors .
But it looks like the Aussies don ’ t want this morally-bankrupted trickster in their country either .
In the Australian Parliament Malcolm Roberts , Senator for Queensland @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called out the runaway clown thus : After Trump ’ s re-election Mann could be facing some serious jail time .
We are urging President Trump to take a long hard look at Mann ’ s graph , which relied on data from trees on the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia .
It shows the data was carefully cherry-picked to fit an agends .
Just 12 trees from the 252 cores in the CRU ’ s Yamal data set were used .
But , by contrast , a larger data set of 34 tree @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recent warming , and warmer temperatures in the middle ages .
All left out in the final report !
So much about ‘ doctor ’ Michael E Mann has been fake for a long time , you see .
The proxy tree ring data counting clown can ’ t break a habit of a lifetime since he had his PhD “ rushed through ” by Yale in 1998 so he could be slotted into the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) in time to peddle his fake graph for their Third @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Still wet behind the ears , scientifically speaking , this hard-left zealot for mass population control was installed by the corrupt UN globalist cabal as their ‘ Lead Author ’ with his tree ring counting circus of lies that humans are “ dangerously ” warming the planet .
So solid is Mann ’ s claim about a ‘ climate consensus ’ that in 2016 , he testified before the Democratic Platform Drafting Committee that actual data didn ’ t really matter because we could actually see climate change happening For decades Dr Ball @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because they saw that Mann ’ s doctoral dissertation makes not one reference to trees – which is what is often presented as his specialism – its all about oceans .
In Mann ’ s lavish online résumé you would be very hard-pressed to find the words ‘ tree ’ despite his accolades as a world climate expert on tree ring proxies !
Investor ’ s Business Daily dubbed Mann ’ s performance over his career as a “ tree-ring circus ” — marked especially by the Climategate scandal .
As IBD noted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the heart of the Climate-gate scandal in 2009 , when emails were unearthed from Britain ’ s Climate Research Unit ( CRU ) at the University of East Anglia .
In one email sent to Mann and others , CRU director Philip Jones speaks of the “ trick ” of filling in gaps of data in order to hide evidence of temperature decline : “ I ’ ve just completed Mike ’ s nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years ( i.e .
from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Keith ’ s to hide the decline ( in global temperatures ) , ” the email read .
It was that attempt to “ hide the decline ” through the manipulation of data that helped bring down the global warming house of cards .
The graph created by professor Mann and his colleagues carefully selected and manipulated tree-ring data to supposedly prove that air temperatures had been stable for 900 years , then soared off the charts — in a pattern resembling a hockey stick — in the 20th century due to man-made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ performed the neat trick of making the Medieval Warm Period ( about A.D. 800 to 1400 ) and the Little Ice Age ( A.D. 1600 to 1850 ) statistically disappear .
As Taylor reports in his article this week , Mann ’ s description on 60 Minutes of the conclusions of the “ scientific consensus ” is exactly the opposite of what scientific bodies report .
If Mann think he can evade justice by going on his extended ‘ sabbatical ’ down under he ’ s going to be in for a shock @ @ @ @ @ @ @ term .
Not only will Mann ’ s version of ‘ consensus science ’ be prosecuted for fraud , expect to see further civil claims against Mann to seize his assets for continued non payment of the millions owed to Dr Mann and U.S. taxpayers .
Come on , Mikey !
Pony up !
We know you read all my posts .
Dear Readers , Please Donate below to help us pursue Mann for the million dollars the B.C .
Court ordered him to pay About the author : John O ’ Sullivan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

Crooked Climate ‘Scientist’ Michael Mann Caught Lying Again!
Written by John O'Sullivan
Infamous data fraudster ‘world leading climate scientist’ Dr Michael E Mann who gave the world the iconic and influential ‘hockey stick’ graph to show man-made global warming ‘is real‘ is up to his old tricks again. This week the court-certified loser was on 60 Minutes attacking President Trump with more lies.
James Taylor reports that Mann appeared on the CBS show performing his usual mental gymnastics. While interviewing Mann CBS’s Scott Pelley quizzed him on Trump’s perfectly correct statement that there is much about earth’s climate that scientists simply do not know.
But know-it-all Michael was having none of it and replied tersely and without blushing that:
“There’s about as much scientific consensus about human-caused climate change as there is about gravity.”
This buffoon still hasn’t learned anything from the legal thrashing given him last year in the Supreme Court of British Columbia in his multi-million-dollar lawsuit against my good friend and colleague, skeptic climatologist, Dr Tim Ball.
Readers may recall that in August 2019 this bald-faced lying pseudo scientist finally got his comeuppance when the judge tossed out Mann’s vanity lawsuit for dithering about and wasting eight years hiding his phony data from the court.
Despite the exasperated judge ordering Mann to refund all of Dr Ball’s legal costs plus interest (somewhere now above a million dollars) the weasel took to Twitter to say he wouldn’t pay. We have been hunting him down ever since and now he’s hiding out in Australia trying to evade the efforts of our debt collectors.
But it looks like the Aussies don’t want this morally-bankrupted trickster in their country either. In the Australian Parliament Malcolm Roberts, Senator for Queensland gave an impassioned speech in which he called out the runaway clown thus:
“You sued Prof Tim Ball – a real scientist – and then in court refused to provide evidence to support your case. Didn’t the court find you in contempt? You failed to provide any evidence yet Professor Ball’s team provided plenty of solid statements from internationally reputable scientists. You are the one in the Climategate scandals who wanted to hide the temperature decline, aren’t you?”
After Trump’s re-election Mann could be facing some serious jail time.
We are urging President Trump to take a long hard look at Mann’s graph, which relied on data from trees on the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia. It shows the data was carefully cherry-picked to fit an agends. Just 12 trees from the 252 cores in the CRU’s Yamal data set were used. But, by contrast, a larger data set of 34 tree cores from the vicinity showed no dramatic recent warming, and warmer temperatures in the middle ages. All left out in the final report!
So much about ‘doctor’ Michael E Mann has been fake for a long time, you see. The proxy tree ring data counting clown can’t break a habit of a lifetime since he had his PhD “rushed through” by Yale in 1998 so he could be slotted into the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in time to peddle his fake graph for their Third Assessment Report (TAR) 2001.
Still wet behind the ears, scientifically speaking, this hard-left zealot for mass population control was installed by the corrupt UN globalist cabal as their ‘Lead Author’ with his tree ring counting circus of lies that humans are “dangerously” warming the planet.
So solid is Mann’s claim about a ‘climate consensus’ that in 2016, he testified before the Democratic Platform Drafting Committee that actual data didn’t really matter because we could actually see climate change happening
For decades Dr Ball and many other academics smelt a rat because they saw that Mann’s doctoral dissertation makes not one reference to trees – which is what is often presented as his specialism – its all about oceans. In Mann’s lavish online résumé you would be very hard-pressed to find the words ‘tree’ despite his accolades as a world climate expert on tree ring proxies!
Investor’s Business Daily dubbed Mann’s performance over his career as a “tree-ring circus” — marked especially by the Climategate scandal. As IBD noted at the time:
Mann was at the heart of the Climate-gate scandal in 2009, when emails were unearthed from Britain’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. In one email sent to Mann and others, CRU director Philip Jones speaks of the “trick” of filling in gaps of data in order to hide evidence of temperature decline: “I’ve just completed Mike’s nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline (in global temperatures),” the email read. It was that attempt to “hide the decline” through the manipulation of data that helped bring down the global warming house of cards. The graph created by professor Mann and his colleagues carefully selected and manipulated tree-ring data to supposedly prove that air temperatures had been stable for 900 years, then soared off the charts — in a pattern resembling a hockey stick — in the 20th century due to man-made greenhouse gases. Mann et al. performed the neat trick of making the Medieval Warm Period (about A.D. 800 to 1400) and the Little Ice Age (A.D. 1600 to 1850) statistically disappear.
As Taylor reports in his article this week, Mann’s description on 60 Minutes of the conclusions of the “scientific consensus” is exactly the opposite of what scientific bodies report.
If Mann think he can evade justice by going on his extended ‘sabbatical’ down under he’s going to be in for a shock when POTUS gets re-elected for a second term. Not only will Mann’s version of ‘consensus science’ be prosecuted for fraud, expect to see further civil claims against Mann to seize his assets for continued non payment of the millions owed to Dr Ball and U.S. taxpayers.
Come on, Mikey! Pony up! We know you read all my posts.
Dear Readers, Please Donate below to help us pursue Mann for the million dollars the B.C. Court ordered him to pay
About the author: 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--2020-10-07--Billionaires see fortunes rise by 27percent during the pandemic

Billionaires see fortunes rise by 27percent during the pandemic Billionaires have seen their fortunes hit record highs during the pandemic , with top executives from technology and industry earning the most .
The world ’ s richest saw their wealth climb 27.5 % to $ 10.2trn ( £7.9trn ) from April to July this year , according to a report from Swiss bank UBS .
That was up from the previous peak of $ 8.9trn at the end of 2017 and largely due to rising global share prices .
UBS said billionaires had done “ extremely well ” in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number of billionaires had hit a new high of 2,189 , up from 2,158 in 2017 .
It comes as a World Bank report on Wednesday showed extreme poverty is set to rise this year for the first time in more than two decades due to the pandemic .
Among the billionaires , the biggest winners this year have been industrialists , whose wealth rose a staggering 44 % in the three months to July .
“ Industrials benefited disproportionately as markets priced in a significant economic recovery [ after lockdowns around the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tech billionaires have also had a good pandemic , seeing their wealth soar 41 % .
UBS said this was “ due to the corona-induced demand for their goods and services ” and social distancing accelerating “ digital businesses [ and ] compressing several years ’ evolution into a few months ” .
Healthcare billionaires also benefited as the crisis put drug makers and medical device companies in the spotlight .
The rise in fortunes reflects the generally strong performance of global stock markets since late March , despite most countries continuing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bezos and Tesla founder Elon Musk – both multi-billionaires – saw their wealth hit new highs this summer thanks to growth in the price of their companies ’ stock .
In the last 11 years China ’ s billionaires have increased their wealth by the biggest percentage , climbing 1,146 % between 2009 and 2020 , according to UBS .
By comparison , over the same period the wealth of British billionaires has risen by just 168 % .
But the biggest accumulation of wealth remains in the US where American billionaires have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s $ 1.7trn .
The UK ’ s wealthy have just $ 205bn , compared to Germany ’ s $ 595bn and France ’ s $ 443bn .
UBS said many billionaires had donated some of their wealth to help with the fight against Covid-19 .
“ Our research has identified 209 billionaires who have publicly committed a total equivalent to $ 7.2bn from March to June 2020 , ” the report said .
“ They have reacted quickly , in a way that ’ s akin to disaster relief , providing unrestricted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ best to use funds.
” But it revealed that UK billionaires donated less than those from other countries .
In the US , 98 billionaires donated $ 4.5bn , in China 12 billionaires gave $ 679m , and in Australia just two billionaires donated $ 324m .
But in the UK , nine billionaires donated just $ 298m .
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19 PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 3AX .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

Billionaires see fortunes rise by 27percent during the pandemic
Written by Simon Read
Billionaires have seen their fortunes hit record highs during the pandemic, with top executives from technology and industry earning the most.
The world’s richest saw their wealth climb 27.5% to $10.2trn (£7.9trn) from April to July this year, according to a report from Swiss bank UBS.
That was up from the previous peak of $8.9trn at the end of 2017 and largely due to rising global share prices. UBS said billionaires had done “extremely well” in the Covid crisis.
It also said the number of billionaires had hit a new high of 2,189, up from 2,158 in 2017.
It comes as a World Bank report on Wednesday showed extreme poverty is set to rise this year for the first time in more than two decades due to the pandemic.
Rising demand
Among the billionaires, the biggest winners this year have been industrialists, whose wealth rose a staggering 44% in the three months to July.
“Industrials benefited disproportionately as markets priced in a significant economic recovery [after lockdowns around the world],” UBS said.
Tech billionaires have also had a good pandemic, seeing their wealth soar 41%. UBS said this was “due to the corona-induced demand for their goods and services” and social distancing accelerating “digital businesses [and] compressing several years’ evolution into a few months”.
Healthcare billionaires also benefited as the crisis put drug makers and medical device companies in the spotlight.
The rise in fortunes reflects the generally strong performance of global stock markets since late March, despite most countries continuing to suffer sharp recessions.
Amazon boss Jeff Bezos and Tesla founder Elon Musk – both multi-billionaires – saw their wealth hit new highs this summer thanks to growth in the price of their companies’ stock.
Global change
In the last 11 years China’s billionaires have increased their wealth by the biggest percentage, climbing 1,146% between 2009 and 2020, according to UBS.
By comparison, over the same period the wealth of British billionaires has risen by just 168%.
But the biggest accumulation of wealth remains in the US where American billionaires have $3.5trn, compared to China’s $1.7trn.
The UK’s wealthy have just $205bn, compared to Germany’s $595bn and France’s $443bn.
Donations
UBS said many billionaires had donated some of their wealth to help with the fight against Covid-19.
“Our research has identified 209 billionaires who have publicly committed a total equivalent to $7.2bn from March to June 2020,” the report said.
“They have reacted quickly, in a way that’s akin to disaster relief, providing unrestricted grants to allow grantees to decide how best to use funds.”
But it revealed that UK billionaires donated less than those from other countries.
In the US, 98 billionaires donated $4.5bn, in China 12 billionaires gave $679m, and in Australia just two billionaires donated $324m. But in the UK, nine billionaires donated just $298m.
Read more at www.bbc.co.uk
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19
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