In 2018, a study of aerial photos of 700 Pacific Islands showed that 89% were the same size or growing. This rather destroyed the idea that sea levels were swallowing small nations. The New York Times said nothing. Indeed, the only Pacific things shrinking were deserted sand drifts. No islands bigger than 10 hectares were getting smaller. Measured in square kilometers that’s “0.1”. Despite the media headlines and delegations from Kiribati and Tuvulu begging for money to hold back the tide, no islands with people living on them were shrinking. None, not one island in the Pacific big enough to matter, was disappearing. The largest 630 islands in the Pacific were had not being touched by climate change for decades.
In 2023 another study of 1,100 islands came to the same conclusion. To find that many islands they included things as small as one thousandth of a square kilometer — we’re talking about spits of sand 10 meters square. (There are whales larger than that.) //
They’re still not asking the sea level experts any hard questions, like, why didn’t you tell us this before, since we’ve had satellites since 1979? Didn’t you notice?
They’re not wondering if the UN knew this years ago and did nothing to inform the world.
The Times doesn’t question the sacred cow of rising sea levels — are the estimates of annual sea level rise really accurate? I mean, if no islands are disappearing, could those satellite estimates be wrong? Why do 1,000 tide gauges show seas are rising only 1mm a year, whereas the satellites say it’s 3mm a year? Is that because the satellite data was calibrated to a falling tide gauge in Hong Kong? Is it true that the raw satellite data showed very little rise in the 1990s, and that a lot of the rise is due to man-made adjustments?
There is no climate emergency
A global network of over 1900 scientists and professionals has prepared this urgent message. Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures.
Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming
The American Journal of Economics and Sociology
Carbon dioxide and a warming climate are not problems
Andy May, Marcel Crok
First published: 29 May 2024
https://doi.org/10.1111/ajes.12579
Abstract
Prior to the mid-19th century, Earth was in the grip of the Little Ice Age. Since then, temperatures have on average trended upward. At the same time, human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) have increased, and the interest of scientists has turned to consider the extent of the relative contributions of anthropogenic CO2 and natural forces to warming.
The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) Working Group II (WGII) claims that human-caused climate change or global warming is dangerous. According to the report, “Human-induced climate change … has caused widespread adverse impacts and related losses and damages to nature and people, beyond natural climate variability. … The rise in weather and climate extremes has led to some irreversible impacts as natural and human systems are pushed beyond their ability to adapt (high confidence)” (IPCC, 2022a, p. 9).
The AR6 WGI and WGII reports measure climate change as the global warming since 1750 or 1850. The period before these dates is commonly referred to as the “pre-industrial period.” The Little Ice Age, a phrase rarely used in AR6, extends from about 1300 to 1850. It was a very cold and miserable time for humanity, with a lot of well documented extreme weather in the historical record from all over the Northern Hemisphere. It was also a time of frequent famines and pandemics. Arguably today's climate is better than then, not worse.
None-the-less, the IPCC claims that extreme weather events are worse now than in the past, however observations do not support this. Some extreme weather events, such as the land area under extreme drought (Lomborg, 2020), is decreasing, not increasing. Globally the incidence of hurricanes shows no significant trend (IPCC, 2013, p. 216; Lomborg, 2020).
Observations show no increase in damage or any danger to humanity today due to extreme weather or global warming (Crok & May, 2023, pp. 140–161; Scafetta, 2024). Climate change mitigation, according to AR6, means curtailing the use of fossil fuels, even though fossil fuels are still abundant and inexpensive. Since the current climate is arguably better than the pre-industrial climate and we have observed no increase in extreme weather or climate mortality, we conclude that we can plan to adapt to any future changes. Until a danger is identified, there is no need to eliminate fossil fuel use.
the question becomes, "Is this critical enough to require actions that will badly damage the global economy and make life harder and more expensive for most of the population?"
Well, a recent peer-reviewed paper released in the American Journal of Economics and Sociology looked at the issue. Their answer? No.
The journal is the American Journal of Economics and Sociology. The article title is perfectly clear: “Carbon dioxide and a warming climate are not problems”.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajes.12579
“Observations show no increase in damage or any danger to humanity today due to extreme weather or global warming (Crok & May, 2023, pp. 140–161; Scafetta, 2024). Climate change mitigation, according to AR6, means curtailing the use of fossil fuels, even though fossil fuels are still abundant and inexpensive. Since the current climate is arguably better than the pre-industrial climate and we have observed no increase in extreme weather or climate mortality, we conclude that we can plan to adapt to any future changes. Until a danger is identified, there is no need to eliminate fossil fuel use.”
The authors are Andy May and Marcel Crok and as the first parenthetical reference above indicates they are building on prior work. Their 53 References are not paywalled and quite interesting. //
The primary arguments in this study are not scientific but rather economic, and they are good ones; the final section reads in part:
Currently fossil fuels supply about 80% of our energy, reducing this to zero rapidly will devastate the world economy and cause widespread suffering, especially for the poor. Should we do nothing? If so, the President’s Council of Economic Advisors and the U.S. Office of Management and Budget projects that three degrees of global warming will cause a decline of <1% in U.S. GDP. Modern global warming, since 1950, has reduced GDP by <.5%, a trivial amount given that the economy has grown 800% in that time. Using IPCC scenarios, Lomborg estimates that economic growth will decline from 450% to 434% over the 21st century. Will anyone notice? //
This paper, although it looks very good from what is available for us to view, isn't the be-all and end-all. It's not a magic bullet that will end the debate. It's based on economic arguments, with an eye on data over the history of the planet's climate. But it's a good argument, another arrow in the quiver of those of us who contend with the climate scolds who daily try to legislate and regulate us back to the 19th century. And that makes it worth the effort. //
Musicman
17 minutes ago
Ask anyone you know what an ice age is. I can almost guarantee they'll something about 10,000 years ago when glaciers were as far South as where St. Louis is today. But guess what: the definition of an ice age is any time there are glaciers on the poles. Aha. We are now IN an ice age. The current ice age PEAKED 10,000 years ago. And why is there a special name for it? Because it's abby-normal. Since the Cambrian explosion (of life forms) some 541 million years ago, the earth has been in ice ages about 25% of the time. That means the normal state of planet earth is NO ICE ON THE POLES!!! The idea we will die if the polar ice caps melts is absurd. It does men dislocation, rising oceans, etc. The earth is constantly changing. Even if the current warming was caused by burning fossil fuels, it makes no difference. The earth will warm up eventually one way or another. And humans need to be prepared for that and for the ice peaking again and creating another 10,000 lakes in Minnesota. //
media is corrupt
an hour ago
The amount of CO2 is 420ppm (parts per million). That translates to .042% of the total atmosphere. It is literally a drop in a pool. We went from 280ppm to 420ppm in roughly 120-100 years and that, my friends, is the freak-out. However, as Al Gore accidentally showed, CO2 is a trailing indicator of heat. When the Earth warms, CO2 goes up with temps. NATURE.
The Earth has had 2%, 4% and more CO2 in the past (geologic history) and there was NO greenhouse effect that boiled the atmosphere and destroyed the Earth for all life. There is absolutely no evidence of that ever happening. There is, however, documented evidence of life exploding on Earth. Abundant life and new species with heat and relatively high levels of CO2. What the atmosphere does do is rebound. It self-corrects. Frankly, .042% CO2 is NOT going to hurt anything. Even if it went up to .08% or .12%, that would do NOTHING but supply more food for plants, which (in turn) would increase crop yields resulting in more food for ourselves.
We have been duped to think that CO2 is a danger to us all. The opposite is true. CO2 is life-giving. If plants could protest our efforts to curb CO2, they would. It's their food. If CO2 dropped below .018%, plant life would begin to die. That would be a true climate emergency because it would cause mass starvation for all life on Earth. One could actually conclude that CO2 is currently TOO LOW. Over the last 650 million years, the levels of CO2 have been well over 1% for the vast majority of the time. Thus, .042% is LOW and yet again the media has been pushing lies about this since Dan Rather kicked-off the hysteria 42 years ago (42 years of no change).
Go check out co2coalition(dot)org. I pray for the day when people wake up and realize they've been lead astray by a bunch of cry wolf dip sticks.
Clyde S. Kilby joined the faculty of Wheaton College in 1935 at the age of 33 as an assistant professor of English and dean of men.
In 1943 Kilby read a new book published by C. S. Lewis, entitled The Case for Christianity, which changed the course of his life. It was based on two series of broadcast talks Lewis had given for the BBC and was later published as the first two sections of Mere Christianity. “I . . . read it right through feeling almost from the first sentence that something profound had touched my mind and heart.” It was like discovering “something bottomless,” and he was captivated by “the depth and freshness of his observations and the permanency of his expression.”
On the occasion of the 100th anniversary of cinema in 1995, the Vatican compiled this list of "great films." The 45 movies are divided into three categories: "Religion," "Values" and "Art." The USCC classification for each film follows its description
Firstly this didn't happen to me. I was with the person when they received a phone call about this issue. Then he explained it all to me. He's not on Reddit so I'm sharing it. It's priceless.
All names changed to protect personal and company identities
Listed buildings - Important to the story. In the UK there is a system for preserving ancient and important buildings. If a building has historical importance it is known as a "Listed building" and the rules about how it's developed/maintained/improved are VERY strict.
In 1995, on the "centenary of cinematography", 100 years after the Lumière brothers displayed their first film for an audience, the Vatican's Pontifical Council for Social Communications compiled a list called Some Important Films (Italian: Alcuni film importanti). The 45 movies are divided equally into three categories—religion, values, and art—with no order of importance placed on the films. The council was careful not to regard the films on the list as the "best", or most important, saying: "not all that deserve mention are included".
Folder2Iso is a portable Window and Linux application that creates an ISO from any folder. The root folder can contain sub-folders.
It's a GUI of mkisofs.
Works under Windows XP, Vista, 7, 8, 10 and Linux.
Folder2Iso is compiled for 32 and 64bit systems.
We run for search in bases: (msdn.rg-adguard.net, vlsc.rg-adguard.net tb.rg-adguard.net and uup.rg-adguard.net)
Past research targeted DEHP exposure as directly correlating with preterm birth. These findings resulted in restrictions on DEHP use, causing manufacturers to create alternatives. But the findings of this new study reported that these replacements may be more dangerous than DEHP, thus leading to an even greater rise in preterm births since they are now in multiple daily items, including food product packaging. //
One step would be to replace any plastic food storage containers or water bottles with stainless steel or glass containers. If you still have some plastic containers, avoid microwaving food or drinks in them or putting them in the dishwasher (or use the top rack) to lessen the extent of your phthalate exposure, as exposure to high heat speeds up phthalate release. Additionally, checking plastic recycling codes and avoiding ones higher in phthalates, such as those marked with recycling code 3, can make a difference.
Choosing the right engine for your fleet can make a significant difference in performance, reliability, and overall cost. This is a review of two renowned diesel engines from Cummins: the 855 Big Cam and the N14. We'll break down their history, mechanics, power, and reliability to understand the differences and requirements that had to be met over time.
Kristof notes some inconvenient truths regarding the condition of major cities on the West Coast, said condition best identified by language unsuitable for a family publication.
As Democrats make their case to voters around the country this fall, one challenge is that some of the bluest parts of the country — cities on the West Coast — are a mess.
Centrist voters can reasonably ask: Why put liberals in charge nationally when the places where they have greatest control are plagued by homelessness, crime and dysfunction?
Fear not; Kristof is nowhere near correctly assigning fault to the failed policies, platforms, and practices that make progressivism a cultural, creative, and collective cesspool. No, it’s only how those darn Haight-Ashbury refugees implement it.
(M)y rejoinder to Republican critiques is: Yes, governance is flawed in some blue parts of America, but overall, liberal places have enjoyed faster economic growth and higher living standards than conservative places. That doesn’t look like failure.
Tell that to the people of Chicago. //
So the problem isn’t with liberalism. It’s with West Coast liberalism. //
jtt888
17 days ago edited
Good lord, does this guy think Baltimore is working? Or Philadelphia? Or Chicago? Or New York? All places that people want to escape if able to. At least LA has nice weather, if nothing else. Those other places don't even have that.
But don’t listen to the naysayers, Trump advised in a tongue-in-cheek Truth Social post on Saturday—just keep doing what you’re doing. “MAKE CHINA GREAT AGAIN!”
William Burr and Leopoldo Nuti examine the Kennedy Administration's efforts to remove Jupiter missiles from Turkey and Italy, part of a secret deal with Nikita Khrushchev to end the Cuban missile crisis. //
Jupiter Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile (IRBM) at Cigli air base in Turkey, 1963. There a squadron of 15 Jupiters was deployed becoming operational in March 1962. //
Kissinger’s finding that “almost everyone” among senior Italian government officials suspected a US-Soviet “agreement” on the Jupiters was not the only time such suspicions surfaced. In the days and weeks after the crisis began to dissipate, mid-level State Department officials discussed rumors that President Kennedy had favored a deal and had a “keen interest” in getting the Jupiters out. In the months after the crisis, McNamara and Rusk tried to batten down suspicions of a deal, testifying before Congress that there had been no such thing. But doubts persisted. Senator John Stennis (D-Ms), among other Senators, was convinced there had been a trade.[v]
It was essential for the Kennedy administration to implement the secret deal and make good on a commitment to the Soviet leadership, but executing it had its complexities. While Khrushchev focused mainly on the Jupiters in Turkey, withdrawing the IRBMs from Italy was also a US goal. Under a coherent policy, the US could not leave Jupiters anywhere on NATO territory, although this made the diplomacy more complicated. And the withdrawal of the Jupiters could not be completely secret, because it had to be carefully and delicately coordinated with Italy and Turkey, whose governments had signed agreements accepting the missiles. Both were NATO allies, and Washington could not ride roughshod over them.
To minimize suspicions of a US-Soviet deal, the reasoning for the Jupiter withdrawals would be carefully explained to Italian, Turkish, and other NATO interlocuters.
Washington, D.C., October 30, 2019 – The current crisis with Turkey over Syria has raised questions, yet to be resolved, about the security of 50 U.S. nuclear weapons stored at Incirlik Air Base. These questions have been posed before, going back almost to the start of nuclear deployments in Turkey in 1959. How the United States responds carries implications for the region, for U.S.-Turkey relations, and for NATO. //
Members of Congress Worried in 1960 That Leaders of a Coup “Might Seize Control” of Weapons
Other U.S. Officials Feared Risks of Accidental War or Overreaction to Local Crises
During Mid-1960s Turkish Officials Were Interested in Producing an “Atomic Bomb” //
Document 13
Memorandum of Conversation, 14 December 1962, Top Secret
Dec 14, 1962
Source
RG 59, Records of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Politico-Military Affairs, Subject Files, 1961-1963. Box 2. Memoranda (5 of 5)
The Jupiter missile deployments in Turkey (and to some degree Italy) were central to the Cuban Missile Crisis, both to instigating it–Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev’ saw them as a “bone” in his throat–and to the secret Kennedy-Khrushchev agreement that resolved the crisis. While President Kennedy provided secret assurances to Khrushchev that the U.S. would remove the Jupiters, only a handful of people knew about the secret deal, and the NATO countries, included Turkey, learned nothing of it at the time.
Speaking with Turkish Defense Minister Ilhami Sancar, McNamara misled him by saying that the U.S. had refused to discuss with the Soviets the “comparability” of the Jupiters with the missiles in Cuba. He further argued that the U.S. was doing Turkey a favor by removing the dangerous and obsolete weapons and replacing them with Polaris missiles that would be deployed in the Mediterranean.
The climax of the Cuban Missile Crisis was summed up in Secretary of State Dean Rusk's quip, "We're eyeball to eyeball, and I think the other fellow just blinked." In this case, we didn't get eyeball to eyeball because Joe Biden did a kowtow based on a glare.
Even though the deployment of this missile system was intended to be "temporary," temporary was never defined. Pulling the missile out as China is grousing about it is a bad look as China is doing nothing to "reduce tensions" in the South China Sea because it looks, smells, and tastes like surrender.
Just as Biden's half-hearted efforts to roll back Russian aggression in Ukraine haven't gone unnoticed by our allies and adversaries, neither has Biden's reluctance to confront Chinese adventurism and provocations in the Pacific. Instead of standing firm, Biden has let China dictate to the US what kind of military equipment we can station on the territory of a willing ally. //
polyjunkie
6 hours ago edited
My guess is that the entire Biden foreign policy apparatus is compromised by China. The “Penn/Biden Center” was entirely paid for by China . FJB, Blinken, and the rest of his inner circle were all paid “employees” at the Center, where top secret documents were being kept. Connect the dots: FJB and his staff are paid agents of China, doing its bidding against US interests. Hunter is the Bagman, and the House has the actual wire transfer records showing Chinese money passing to FJB. And the “press” are willing participants/traitors in the coverup.
The only thing screwing this up is FJB’s senility, or China would own us by 2028…. //
Min Headroom llme polyjunkie
4 hours ago edited
The PRC compromise of America and its institutions extends far beyond the Bidens, although it certainly includes them. I used to think the Soviets were pretty good at compromising American assets, but the PRC has long ago said “hold my Tsingtao,” and made the Russians look like lightweight amateurs. They probably have the most massive effort to subvert an opponent in world history. //
Sojourner
5 hours ago edited
Main comment: I agree with Streiff that Biden is getting rolled by the Chinese.
++++++++++++++++++
Secondary comment: I disagree with the second part of the headline where Xi is JFK (i.e., the winner). I think Xi is Khrushchev (because he, not JFK, was the winner). If you're interested why I take this view, read on.
I admit I'm in the minority, but I have an entirely different take of the Cuban Missile Crisis. I maintain Khrishchev got exactly what he wanted: getting the US Jupiter missiles out of Turkey and Italy. Which is exactly what happened as a result of a very secret agreement between Washington and Moscow that actually resolved the crisis.
So, contrary to Rusk's assertion, I think it's the US that blinked.
And it was only a post-crisis Madison Avenue-style PR blitz that relied on "Camelot" (especially in the wake of the Bay of Pigs PR hit to JFK's rep) to make JFK look the hero with the added claim that the Jupiters were going to be retired anyway.
See the Dec 1962 entry here:
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/nuclear-vault/2019-10-30/nuclear-weapons-turkey-1959
Also, see here:
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/jupiter-missiles-and-endgame-cuban-missile-crisis-matter-great-secrecy
A booster landing would be a calculated risk to SpaceX's launch tower infrastructure. //
In a short video released Thursday, possibly to celebrate the US Fourth of July holiday with the biggest rocket's red glare of them all, SpaceX provided new footage of the most recent test of its Starship launch vehicle.
This test, the fourth of the experimental rocket that NASA is counting on to land its astronauts on the Moon, and which one day may launch humans to Mars, took place on June 6. During the flight, the first stage of the rocket performed well during ascent and, after separating from the upper stage, made a controlled reentry into the Gulf of Mexico. The Starship upper stage appeared to make a nominal flight through space before making a controlled—if fiery—landing in the Indian Ocean.
The new video focuses mostly on the "Super Heavy" booster stage and its entry into the Gulf. There is new footage from a camera on top of the 71-meter-tall first stage as well as a nearby buoy at water level. The video from the buoy, in particular, shows the first stage making an upright landing into the ocean.
SpaceX teases an image of Starship's large launch tower in South Texas at the Starbase facility. Prominently featured are the two "chopsticks," large arms intended to catch the first stage booster as it slowly descends back toward its launch pad.
Then, in simulated footage, the video shows Starship's first stage descending back toward the launch tower with the title "Flight 5." And then it fades out.
ACOG recommends in both term and preterm infants that the clamping of the cord is delayed by at least thirty to sixty seconds. They also assert that the concern for increased risk of PPH is unwarranted.
The World Health Organization (WHO) says the cord should not be clamped earlier than is absolutely necessary. This usually means delaying the cord by three minutes. They emphasize not clamping the cord earlier than one minute, except in the case of necessary infant resuscitation that cannot be done with the cord intact.
The American College of Nurse-Midwives (ACNM) recommends delaying cord clamping by at least two to five minutes following birth. Typically, the cord stops pulsating by five minutes.
The entire proceeding is a farce. South Africa, through a highly distorted set of accusations, doesn’t seek to prevent genocide, it seeks to enable genocide against Jews by preventing Israel from defending itself. //
Here is Israel’s entire presentation today: