Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Rhys Jaggar's avatar

For those of us who have looked carefully at the climate issue (in my case over a period of about 40 years), it's clear that a number of variables are important when trying to understand changes in weather patterns, climate regimes and geological epochs:

1. The activity of the Sun.

2. The role of the moon and the big planets of the solar system.

3. The effective of magnetic regimes on earth and in the sun.

4. The role of the oceans as high specific heat capacity heat sinks/radiators, including the effects of underwater volcanism.

5. The role of ice in modulating the overall absorption of solar/cosmic ray energy by planet earth.

6. The composition of the atmosphere, including the effects of high level volcanic emissions.

7. The role of forests in regulating the water cycle on land.

8. The effects of human activities in cultivating land, both appropriately and inappropriately.

9. The effects of fires, tsunamis, river flooding on the distribution of mineral fertility.

10. The role of ozone in modulating various aspects of the incoming and outgoing energy waves.

What's interesting to me is how certain papers of 50 years ago somehow don't reach common knowledge. I was engaging at Judith Curry's blog recently where a BTL discussion concerning the role of Total Solar Irradiance variations affected earth's climate. Out came an interesting reference to a 1974 publication by C.O. Hines in Journal of Atmospheric Sciences titled 'A possible Mechanism for the production of sun-weather correlation'. There are those in the modern research junta who agree with this paper, no doubt others are more sceptical. But the point is: a total lack of discussion of such papers seems to have been evident with all the obsession about carbon dioxide.

I actually think it would be a very good idea for 'climate science' to have a 'rebirth', by which I mean that you need the minds of innocent babies to be open to all evidence and not to have closed minds based on financial advantage and political power.

It seems to me that 33 years of IPCC failure has brought 'Establishment climate science' into entire disrepute. It doesn't mean that good climate science isn't being done, it probably means that you need to look to countries that don't pay too much notice of the IPCC. And of course at mavericks who are sufficiently secure in their careers that they can afford to give the ignoble royal salute to climate charlatans who tell everyone what they are allowed to discuss.

Expand full comment
Rhys Jaggar's avatar

'The FDA states that these “updated” mRNA vaccines are approved for individuals 12 years and up and are authorized under emergency use for children between six months and 11 years of age.'

It is simply not possible for the FDA to come up with any evidence that children between 6 months and 11 years of age are in any significant danger of death or serious debilitation by coronaviruses. Therefore, it has to be concluded that the FDA is in breach of its fiduciary duties and its senior officials must be indicted on charges of wilful mass harm of children.

There is zero basis for saying that all children must be vaccinated: this should be zero hour for the American People when demanding that the FDA hierarchy be sacked en masse and put on trial as treasonous traitors, representing a 'clear and present danger to all Americans'.

I strongly advise all American parents NOT to vaccinate their children, to refuse to send their children to any school that requires vaccination and to bring lawsuits against any state officials that try to impose vaccine mandates on children where Covid19 is concerned.

Expand full comment
31 more comments...

No posts