Dec 10, 2022·edited Dec 10, 2022Liked by Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH
Dear Mr. Leake, you write "the Arctic region was 11-19C warmer than the present day", and you translate it for American reader as "66 degrees warmer". It should read "20-34F warmer". Please redo your math before too many people see this embarrassing gaffe. Next time, please have your coauthor proofread the calculations in your writings before you post them.
Did you see how the Guardian article author snuck in the funding as a reason to consider genetic modification of species in response to climate change?
Is everyone a shill for genetic modification giants?
Yep. And they want to start a nuclear climate war with Russia in order to further this bogus totalitarian agenda as they've done with the plandemic. Sick
John, I think most people would make the conversion of C to F temperature "difference" incorrectly. You were thinking about absolute temperatures like we do very frequently, not temperature differences which is not a regular exercise. The easy way to remember how to convert temperature "differences" is to remember 1C of temperature difference is equals 1.8F of temperature difference. Thus, 11C is 11x1.8= 19.8F and 19C is 19x1.8=34.2F, ---->19.8-34.2 F. Getting back to the important point of your interesting post. What is the ideal temperature of the earth? Is the ideal temperature during the little ice age, ~1450-1850? Why is the modest warming we have experienced in the past 150 years all bad, I can think of a few reasons why it is good? Why is the atmospheric C02 concentration increasing from 270 to 400 ppm all bad? I can think of a few reasons why it is good. This is analogous to the risk & benefits of getting injected with an mRNA vaccine, you need to consider "both" the risks and the benefits, you cannot not pretend one or the other does not exist. I guess this is not a perfect analogy, I cannot think of any benefit of getting an mRNA shot.
The reason is rather elementary my dear Watson, the cause of earths great climate changes are magnetic pole reversals and we are currently in one as we speak that is likely to happen sometime next year.
Our magnetic pole has been moving away from its natural position since around 1900 and sped up in the 40's and 90's and now moving at 5 miles per month.
If it continues and its clearly showing no signs of stopping it will reach the 40 degree marker, 40 degrees from its original position, sometime in the first 6 months of 2023.
If you research how magnets/magnetism works, many of us believe the 40 degree marker could be the trigger that flips the poles or at the very least will lead to even more earthquakes and volcanos as magnetism shifts our crusts.
One of the tragedies of current climate framing is that it reduces complex systems to simple framing - (the problem is carbon, the solution is reducing carbon, by metrics they decide, at whatever cost).
Focusing on temperatures (either to prove or disprove climate change), is also reductionist. (Although focusing on the hypocrisy of The Guardian, on the other hand ... )
I know climate is being used as pretext for totalitarian control, and keeping people divided about this is part of their strategy. With covid, there was / is an actual pathogen, and an actual need to look out for each other, but they manipulated those real things to associate safety with poisonous pharma interventions, and looking out for each other with submitting to dangerous experiments and coercing others to also. But the ones who came from the place of "there is no virus", weren't taken seriously.
I worry that with climate it will be the same thing, and it will be too easy to associate the wise voices warning of social credit cricket eating autoritarianism with being in denial that humans are having serious impacts on the planet.
Interesting point from Charles Eisenstein, about temperature fluctuations .. in the past, there were more healthy ecosystems on Earth's surface helping with resiliency to temperature fluctuations. One of his points with this book is that the focus on carbon is harmful in so many ways, and leaves us blind to the bigger picture of causes of environmental problems, as well as trojan horses in their supposed solutions ...
"One challenge that climate change skeptics sometimes pose is that CO2 levels and temperatures were much higher in past epochs than today, and the planet did just fine. The standard rejoinder is that never before have CO2 levels risen this abruptly. Whether or not that is true, I think it overlooks a more important issue: where did the biosphere’s historical resiliency come from? It came from healthy living ecosystems. Life creates the conditions for life, and the modern era has been an era of unprecedented death. . . .
Ecosystem disruption has turned many areas from carbon sinks into carbon sources. Likewise, the skeptics are right that CO2 levels were several times higher millions of years ago, and that Earth’s climate undergoes natural fluctuations. Tragically, though, habitat degradation, pollution, development, mining, wetlands draining, overfishing, extermination of predators, and so forth have created conditions where plants and the rest of life are no longer able to fully exercise their capacity to maintain planetary dynamic resiliency. Gaia has the capacity to self-regulate—a capacity we are destroying."
Note “ The work offers clues to how species might adapt, or be genetically engineered”.
Gates et.al. Have established a gene bank for the entire found living world. So these megalomaniacs believe that if everyone and every living thing dies they can simply re-engineer their DNA back alive.
Michael Crichton was a critic of this messing about with DNA and it’s repercussions. Hence Jurassic Park.
If we really go to Net Zero CO2 including their plans of extracting it from the atmosphere the results would be - zero Life. And what are the repercussions of their climate engineering? Almost like terraforming of the atmosphere with microscopic particles of aluminum, barium, etc?
Not to worry. Modern Dr Moreau’s will simply choose the living things they like and start the world again. I believe Harrari suggested they could be G*d with Noah’s arc.
Only the worst of humanity would survive their apocalypse- sociopaths and psychopaths plus servant slaves.
It’s a lot colder this year on the east coast of Australia. The climate is as a result of the sun and solar flares etc. Carbon dioxide is a plant food. A spanner in the works could be the shifting of the magnetic poles.
Does anyone else besides me read these dating statistics and chuckle, seriously if we want to really be honest why not discuss how science censored light speed tests in the early 1980s so no one would know the real age of things.
Right, there is no man made Global Warming, The climate always changed and has nothing to do with human activities. But we all know, the Global Warming agenda isnt about the climate, it is about totalitarian control, about the destruction of our Western way of life and freedom and about replacing it by totalitarian control.
Dear Mr. Leake, you write "the Arctic region was 11-19C warmer than the present day", and you translate it for American reader as "66 degrees warmer". It should read "20-34F warmer". Please redo your math before too many people see this embarrassing gaffe. Next time, please have your coauthor proofread the calculations in your writings before you post them.
Did you see how the Guardian article author snuck in the funding as a reason to consider genetic modification of species in response to climate change?
Is everyone a shill for genetic modification giants?
Yep. And they want to start a nuclear climate war with Russia in order to further this bogus totalitarian agenda as they've done with the plandemic. Sick
John, I think most people would make the conversion of C to F temperature "difference" incorrectly. You were thinking about absolute temperatures like we do very frequently, not temperature differences which is not a regular exercise. The easy way to remember how to convert temperature "differences" is to remember 1C of temperature difference is equals 1.8F of temperature difference. Thus, 11C is 11x1.8= 19.8F and 19C is 19x1.8=34.2F, ---->19.8-34.2 F. Getting back to the important point of your interesting post. What is the ideal temperature of the earth? Is the ideal temperature during the little ice age, ~1450-1850? Why is the modest warming we have experienced in the past 150 years all bad, I can think of a few reasons why it is good? Why is the atmospheric C02 concentration increasing from 270 to 400 ppm all bad? I can think of a few reasons why it is good. This is analogous to the risk & benefits of getting injected with an mRNA vaccine, you need to consider "both" the risks and the benefits, you cannot not pretend one or the other does not exist. I guess this is not a perfect analogy, I cannot think of any benefit of getting an mRNA shot.
The reason is rather elementary my dear Watson, the cause of earths great climate changes are magnetic pole reversals and we are currently in one as we speak that is likely to happen sometime next year.
Our magnetic pole has been moving away from its natural position since around 1900 and sped up in the 40's and 90's and now moving at 5 miles per month.
If it continues and its clearly showing no signs of stopping it will reach the 40 degree marker, 40 degrees from its original position, sometime in the first 6 months of 2023.
If you research how magnets/magnetism works, many of us believe the 40 degree marker could be the trigger that flips the poles or at the very least will lead to even more earthquakes and volcanos as magnetism shifts our crusts.
One of the tragedies of current climate framing is that it reduces complex systems to simple framing - (the problem is carbon, the solution is reducing carbon, by metrics they decide, at whatever cost).
Focusing on temperatures (either to prove or disprove climate change), is also reductionist. (Although focusing on the hypocrisy of The Guardian, on the other hand ... )
I know climate is being used as pretext for totalitarian control, and keeping people divided about this is part of their strategy. With covid, there was / is an actual pathogen, and an actual need to look out for each other, but they manipulated those real things to associate safety with poisonous pharma interventions, and looking out for each other with submitting to dangerous experiments and coercing others to also. But the ones who came from the place of "there is no virus", weren't taken seriously.
I worry that with climate it will be the same thing, and it will be too easy to associate the wise voices warning of social credit cricket eating autoritarianism with being in denial that humans are having serious impacts on the planet.
Interesting point from Charles Eisenstein, about temperature fluctuations .. in the past, there were more healthy ecosystems on Earth's surface helping with resiliency to temperature fluctuations. One of his points with this book is that the focus on carbon is harmful in so many ways, and leaves us blind to the bigger picture of causes of environmental problems, as well as trojan horses in their supposed solutions ...
https://charleseisenstein.org/books/climate-a-new-story/eng/the-emissions-obsession/
"One challenge that climate change skeptics sometimes pose is that CO2 levels and temperatures were much higher in past epochs than today, and the planet did just fine. The standard rejoinder is that never before have CO2 levels risen this abruptly. Whether or not that is true, I think it overlooks a more important issue: where did the biosphere’s historical resiliency come from? It came from healthy living ecosystems. Life creates the conditions for life, and the modern era has been an era of unprecedented death. . . .
Ecosystem disruption has turned many areas from carbon sinks into carbon sources. Likewise, the skeptics are right that CO2 levels were several times higher millions of years ago, and that Earth’s climate undergoes natural fluctuations. Tragically, though, habitat degradation, pollution, development, mining, wetlands draining, overfishing, extermination of predators, and so forth have created conditions where plants and the rest of life are no longer able to fully exercise their capacity to maintain planetary dynamic resiliency. Gaia has the capacity to self-regulate—a capacity we are destroying."
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8Q4rgILy06k
Note “ The work offers clues to how species might adapt, or be genetically engineered”.
Gates et.al. Have established a gene bank for the entire found living world. So these megalomaniacs believe that if everyone and every living thing dies they can simply re-engineer their DNA back alive.
Michael Crichton was a critic of this messing about with DNA and it’s repercussions. Hence Jurassic Park.
If we really go to Net Zero CO2 including their plans of extracting it from the atmosphere the results would be - zero Life. And what are the repercussions of their climate engineering? Almost like terraforming of the atmosphere with microscopic particles of aluminum, barium, etc?
Not to worry. Modern Dr Moreau’s will simply choose the living things they like and start the world again. I believe Harrari suggested they could be G*d with Noah’s arc.
Only the worst of humanity would survive their apocalypse- sociopaths and psychopaths plus servant slaves.
Aka Hell on earth
It’s a lot colder this year on the east coast of Australia. The climate is as a result of the sun and solar flares etc. Carbon dioxide is a plant food. A spanner in the works could be the shifting of the magnetic poles.
Well your 2 million years is speculative at best....looks like someone is 'trusting THIS science" siiiigh
Sophomoric error to confuse a C to F temperature conversion with a ΔC to ΔF conversion. The latter is always a factor of 1.8.
Does anyone else besides me read these dating statistics and chuckle, seriously if we want to really be honest why not discuss how science censored light speed tests in the early 1980s so no one would know the real age of things.
Right, there is no man made Global Warming, The climate always changed and has nothing to do with human activities. But we all know, the Global Warming agenda isnt about the climate, it is about totalitarian control, about the destruction of our Western way of life and freedom and about replacing it by totalitarian control.
Where Was The Arctic 2 Million Years Ago? DNA doesn't show latitude.
Carbon is the mark of the beast! 6 protons, 6 neutrons, 6 electrons!
Climate science is a Cargo Cult.