Respirator Evaluation Results For Release To The University: Fill & Download for Free

Why Nasa's next Moon mission can't be an Apollo retread1 WEEK AGOThere is a well-known query requested of politicians, entrepreneurs and innovators: in case you were to do all of it once again, what might you do otherwise?At Nasa headquarters, they're fielding almost the opposite inquiry. Why don't you just do it an identical? If you managed to placed Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin at the Moon five a long time ago, why is it so hard to do it now?As the agency's head, Jim Bridenstine, puts it wryly: "If you are puzzling over why Nasa doesn't simply dig out the Apollo lander designs to put humans on the Moon through 2024, you're not by myself." Bridenstine's problem is not an abstract one: 2024 is now an respectable deadline.No woman has ever been to the Moon, maximum of Earth's population have never watched a crewed lunar mission live, and no other country however the US has been significantly involved in one. No one at all has been to the Moon because 1972. Imagine if, after Columbus's voyage to the Americas, no European had repeated the adventure for part a century.Among space enthusiasts, there are two camps: those that think Nasa returning astronauts to the Moon is an honest concept, and people who don't. And then there's Donald Trump, who appears to trust both of them.In December 2017, the president reinstated human lunar missions as a Nasa priority (Barack Obama had cancelled the programme, leaving the company to recognition on placing humans on asteroids). In March this yr, Trump expanded Nasa's timetable through four years, to 2024. "Under my Administration, we're restoring @NASA to greatness and we are going again to the Moon, then Mars," he later tweeted.Within weeks, despite the fact, the president perceived to contradict himself: "For all of the money we're spending, Nasa need to NOT be talking about going to the Moon - We did that fifty years ago," he tweeted. "They could be focused on the an awful lot bigger things we are doing, including Mars (of which the Moon is a component), Defense and Science!"That word - "Mars (of which the Moon is a component)" - turned into extensively mocked, but it does in fact reflect the priorities of area specialists. Mars is now what receives americans excited. The Moon is seen as the first step, instead of the last.John F Kennedy's order changed into to pass to the Moon, and come again. Nasa's promise these days is to go to the Moon - "to live". It also promises "an area financial system built on mining, tourism and medical analysis".Entrepreneurs, too, want to do more than just visit the Moon. Amazon's Jeff Bezos says humans must relocate heavy industry there, to save Earth's supplies. SpaceX's Elon Musk is developing a huge rocket that he has observed will fly people to Mars via 2024. (During its closest method, Mars is 200 times further from the Earth than the Moon is, and Musk has a dependancy of missing cut-off dates.)Returning astronauts to the Moon is therefore a wierd assignment for Nasa: it isn't precisely new, now not precisely an identical. Yes, technology - in particular computing continual - has superior dramatically seeing that Apollo, when engineers trusted slide guidelines for their calculations.But in a few methods, the problem is more complex than it become within the 1960s. Expectations as to what a human lunar mission need to achieve have greater. So too has recognition of the health dangers of sending people to the Moon, especially from radiation.There also is much less political willingness to fund Nasa, whose share of the federal price range has shrunk from more than 4 in step with cent to 0.5 in keeping with cent because the mid-1960s.Some experts wonder if Trump is actually setting Nasa up to fail. Kennedy gave the agency nearly nine years to attain the Moon; Trump has given it slightly 5. "There are many ways to cross to the Moon," Wernher Von Braun, the rocketry genius who went from serving the Nazi battle computer to riding the Apollo programme, advised Congress in 1964. "It is a query of time, cost, self belief elements and so forth."We understand one key aspect will be various subsequent time: at least one of the astronauts can be female. Nasa has named the programme Artemis, after the twin sister of Apollo in Greek mythology.How else will a better mission compare with 1969? In 5 years, will the global once again be celebrating human achievement - or lamenting political gridlock?"The fundamental query," Roger Launius, previously Nasa's leader historian, tells the FT, "isn't the whilst, or with what technique. It's the why."To take into account why Nasa can't easily dirt off its Apollo plans, you wish to start with politics. In May 1961, whilst Kennedy announced his purpose of putting a guy on the Moon, the fundamental intention turned into a dramatic statement of US potential. Six weeks earlier, the Soviet Union had positioned the first person in space - the existing in a string of area-race firsts that began with Sputnik in 1957.The Moon become a sufficient counter. Nasa didn't are seeking broader aims. It trimmed its other programmes - for instance, delaying plans to land a existence-attempting probe on Mars. And Apollo's components were now not built to endure. "They were simply slightly able to get a group there and back," says John Logsdon, the former director of the Space Policy Institute at George Washington University.You can simplest ship people to the Moon for the first time as soon as. In 1969, it turned into a show of US chronic. In 2024, it doesn't be. It does not fulfill the space community. Going to the Moon is not any longer a Moonshot.The Trump management has hence counseled a huge time table, in order to shape the engineering challenge. In March, Mike Pence, the vice-president, set out three aims for the lunar challenge: to go back to the Moon, to establish a permanent presence and to broaden technology to take US astronauts to Mars and beyond.The context of the assignment is also key: Apollo turned into the manufactured from bloodless-battle competition. "That is a fundamental change. We're now not fearful of China the way we feared the Soviet Union," says Launius. In truth, Kennedy's instinct have been to collaborate with the Soviets; but if Nikita Khrushchev rejected the concept, the USA determined to go it alone.In comparison, Trump infrequently wants international collaboration, but the apply is now embedded in area programmes, thanks to the International Space Station. Since 2012, the European Space Agency has been charged with building the module that supplies water, oxygen and different necessities for Nasa's Orion, the spacecraft this is doubtless to convey astronauts to the Moon and Mars.If the USA went it by myself, it would have little opportunity of inserting astronauts at the Moon by way of 2024, says Philippe Berthe, an ESA programme supervisor.There is an alternative huge change between Kennedy and Trump. In 1961, Kennedy set a deadline of "earlier than this decade is out". This time-frame meant that he would not necessarily be president when any task took vicinity (at long last, Richard Nixon become). It additionally risked the Soviets getting there first, most likely in 1967 to mark the 50th anniversary of the Russian revolution.Trump thinks in presidential terms, not many years. In 2017, he talked about, possibly jokingly, that he wanted an astronaut on Mars (sic) "in my first time period or at worst in my second time period". 2024 will be the penultimate 12 months of his second time period. It could additionally beat China's stated timeline for placing a person at the Moon - and China's programme is rumoured to be at the back of time table. But Trump's tight closing date limits the competencies for innovation."We don't have time or budget to construct interesting, one-of-a-form techniques," William Gerstenmaier, a senior Nasa reliable, noted currently. The company's biggest rocket - Boeing's afflicted Space Launch System (SLS) - will use some of the same engines because the Space Shuttle. Blake Rogers, an engineer on the Aerospace Corporation, a government-funded analysis company, informed the FT: "2024 is actually soon. So there is now not numerous company-new technology."The next project to the Moon will hence be a compromise - a look for enduring era, which have to however deliver a quick win.Technically, one of the largestadjustments among Apollo and Artemis is the path. In the 1960s, whilst Nasa simply needed to get to the Moon and back, its engineers regarded firing a rocket straight to the surface. In the end they decided in its place to hearth a spacecraft into lunar orbit, from which two of 3 astronauts may descend.Nasa now rejects this method, as it doesn't depart the infrastructure for destiny missions. Its new plan involves creating a space station, referred to as Gateway, that allows you to permanently orbit the Moon. Astronauts could spend months there, appearing science experiments and trying out equipment.They may be in a position to descend to any aspect on the Moon, rather than simply the equatorial regions that Apollo explored. Ultimately, Gateway can be a stepping stone to Mars.It is a sizeable endeavour. One proposed layout for Gatew ay, from the Sierra Nevada Corporation, might provide the astronauts roughly as an awful lot floorspace as a 2,000 squaretoes domestic. (Nasa now generally is dependent upon contractors' innovation, unlike in the 1960s, when it become optimum the incipient area industry.)The station could host astronauts for 1,000 days, allowing them to event existence external low-Earth orbit for as long as it may take them to trip to Mars, while additionally being able to go back to Earth easily in case of emergency.Critics evaluate Gateway to a flight stopover, as a way to slow down development to the Moon and take in billions of dollars that could in a different way be used for Mars task prototypes. Buzz Aldrin has known as it "absurd". SpaceX's plans for the Moon and Mars ignore it absolutely.In usual, Nasa's argument that the Moon is the most effective testing flooring for Mars has left many unconvinced. "Is it going to take longer to move to Mars as a result of we are focusing on the Moon? Yes, absolutely," says Casey Dreier, leader recommend on the Planetary Society, a believe-tank."Will they build [Artemis] with Mars in brain, or will they shave off the additional margin to keep the expenses down so they can meet the immediate aims? We're about to find out."What Artemis can do is draw from years of technological advances. Apollo used no photo voltaic continual; photo voltaic panels will aid to supply electrical energy for Orion and Gateway, potentially saving huge amounts of fuel. Carbon composites will make a few elements lighter.And IT has modified out of all awareness. It is often pointed out that the Apollo spacecraft had less computing chronic than a smartphone. Any serious calculations needed to be accomplished by means of ground control, ideal to the frantic scenes dramatised in the film Apollo 13."If we lose communications for anything reason, the team has all that on-board processing capacity to get themselves home. For Apollo, they were truly, actually based on the floor," says Rob Chambers, human space flight approach director at Lockheed Martin, which has the agreement to layout Orion. In destiny, you also can be in a position to remedy an issue with out dialling Houston.Today, Orion's processing power will still be beneath 500MHz - significantly less than a MacBook. There could be no touchscreens, partly as a result of they're incompatible with the astronauts' thick gloves.Nonetheless, the computing continual is enough that the astronauts might be unlikely to pass over their intended vacation spot on the Moon by way of four miles - as Armstrong and Aldrin did. When they go back to Earth, they do not need to land within the center of the Pacific Ocean; as a substitute, they'll have enough handle to land near an island off northern Mexico.Computing has made layout more effective, and decreased the desire for costly testing. "When I layout a spacecraft, it takes me a day. It might have taken 10 people a month as a result of I can use a pc, and they could not," says Rogers, of the Aerospace Corporation.In 2005, Nasa engineers redesigned the Apollo landers, and taken down the mass of the spacecraft by a few ton. The agency says lots of the difference came from "lighter avionics and batteries".Yet era isn't everything. "It's simply remarkable what they were capable of do with slide guidelines," says Chambers of Lockheed Martin. "More often than not we now have concluded at long last the solution that Apollo used become the right answer."In many ways, Artemis may be less progressive than might be anticipated. "The physics has now not modified," area specialists say. Orion will appearance somewhat comparable to Apollo. It may be despatched up on SLS, a rocket that has an analogous shape, size and lift to the Saturn V, used in the Apollo missions.That rocket will nevertheless use fossil fuels; hopes for nuclear rockets have diminished. "Rocketry these days is approximately in which aircraft have been round 1940," says Launius, Nasa's former leader historian. Even Musk, the pioneer of electric powered vehicles, sees no immediate direction to electric rockets.What Musk and Bezos are promising is reusable rockets. These may be deployed to take supplementary objects to Gateway, though they're nonetheless a work in development.Boeing, whose rockets are non-reusable, says they are "decades away" from heavy-raise obligations; the SLS can carry some distance bigger so much than SpaceX's present largest rocket, the Falcon Heavy. Nasa desires different elements of the challenge to be reusable - especially the touchdown craft.A Mars venture would require extra efficient recycling of water and oxygen, deeper understanding of the consequences of space on human health and an means to use constituents discovered in space.We recognise that the Moon has ice, which may, in principle, be damaged down into hydrogen and oxygen and used for fuel. But we have no idea if the ice deposits are in a usable kind - as an example, in contiguous deposits as opposed to scattered over huge areas. And who owns the ice, anyway?From 2024, Nasa will explore turning the Moon's ice into gasoline. Eventually it desires the Moon to become humanity's "deep area laboratory", where astronauts can trial technologies and consider the Earth's past. (Since the 1970s, planetary scientists have come around to the view that the Moon changed into shaped from the debris thrown up whilst the young Earth collided with another fledgling planet.)But it aren't ready for 2024. The initial assignment will involve just a scaled-down version of Gateway because of the time constraints. Nasa has given itself till 2028 to set up "sustainable missions". "What's occurring is a little deceptive," says Logsdon, of George Washington University. "[The 2024 mission] is definitely a one-off factor."As for a " Moon village " - a brought up intention of the European Space Agency - humans first must be told a way to continue to exist a lunar night, the two-week duration whilst temperatures drop as low as minus 190C. "Closed-loop recycling" - wherein all of the astronauts' waste is reused - continues to be an ambition in place of a reality.Without reusable rockets, closed-loop recycling or a clear blueprint for maintaining humans on another planetary floor, a higher lunar task will have extra in common with Apollo than it will with any missions to create a future colony at the Moon or Mars.As he prepared for Apollo 11's raise-off, Neil Armstrong idea he had a ten per cent opportunity of dying all over the venture, and a 50 according to cent opportunity of no longer jogging at the Moon. "There became nonetheless a debate approximately in case you stepped directly to the Moon, could you step into 10ft of dirt?" says former Nasa reputable Scott Hubbard.The comprehensive task turned into vulnerable to a unmarried-aspect failure: if the provider module's engine had failed, as an example, there has been no back-up.Nasa's complete perspective to possibility has now changed. Until recently, each system changed into constructed to tolerate any two faults. This is now observed as a blunt approach, treating all accessories as equally crucial. So Nasa as a substitute tries to limit the opportunity of failure. The chance of losing SLS and Orion on its first project is one in 140, in accordance with the company's analysis.Nasa has additionally turn into less tolerant of risks to human health. Jim Bridenstine, the company's administrator, notes that during Apollo "we took many unknown dangers with early lunar exploration"."We now take into account the best risk from the soil is how inhaling the small, sharp, glasslike dirt particles can lodge in the lungs, creating acute and long-term hazards to astronaut health," he writes, in a approaching weblog that Nasa shared with the FT. "Apollo methods were designed to maintain respiration air with up to at least one per cent carbon dioxide, but contemporary human health specialists recommend 0.25 consistent with cent."It's simply astounding what they have been in a position to do with slide rules. More commonly than no longer we have concluded at long last the solution that Apollo used became the right solutionApollo's astronauts have been additionally lucky not to undergo more from radiation. In 1972, a photo voltaic typhoon occurred 4 months after the crew of Apollo 16 had left the Moon, and 4 months earlier than the crew of Apollo 17 arrived.On a short area assignment, the chance of catastrophic exposure is low. But as Nasa's aim is now for an extended-time period presence, it needs a rethink. Companies are deploying components built for bulletproof vests and nuclear first responders.For the astronauts, future missions to the Moon need to be offering slight advances in consolation. Orion will be a 3rd bigger than its predecessor, although it will also have to house four americans as opposed to three.The astronauts will be able to exercise - Apollo's handle equipment couldn't take care of the extra warmth and water - and to arrange meals aboard Orion and the Gateway; in the latter they may even be able to grow greens, a technology already attempted at the ISS. (The starting to be device uses LEDs, which have been most effective invented within the 1960s.)And thanks to a new waste-control device, they aren't have to worry about unfastened stools in zero gravity.Armstrong and Aldrin spent less than 22 hours at the Moon, and best eight days and three hours on their mission. The next astronauts are anticipated to spend almost every week on the surface, and up to 3 weeks away from Earth.Their activities will be captured on GoPro cameras. The hope is that this will carry domestic the reality in their success to the ones on Earth. Whether the cameras will stop conspiracy theories, although, is less clean. This is the age of YouTube.The Moon has switched facets. Apollo become a project championed by way of Democratic politicians, derided as "nuts" by one Republican president (Dwight Eisenhower) and cancelled via another (Richard Nixon). But or not it's Republican presidents, in all probability as a result of their nearer ties to the defence industry, who have wanted a rerun.Trump, in fact, is treading in which old Republican presidents have failed. In July 1989, George Bush Sr promised: "For the hot century, back to the Moon, back to the destiny, and this time again to live!" In January 2004, George W Bush announced his own area approach, including a intention to "go back to the Moon through 2020".Ultimately, the biggest difference between Apollo and Artemis can also be that Apollo in fact took place, and on schedule. The huge obstacle for Artemis is charge. Adjusted for inflation, Apollo charge about $200bn. Today, Nasa has an annual price range of $20bn, and the Trump administration has so far proposed an increase of simply $1.6bn a year."It really wasn't an encouraging sign in terms of the accurate political precedence that they're going to positioned at the back of this," says Dreier, of The Planetary Society think-tank. Even Trump's proposed augment, a small downpayment of the $20bn-$30bn that Nasa desires, has been adverse via Democrats, as it might be funded through slicing federal presents for low-earnings college scholars.Politicians will additionally want to brace themselves for budget overruns and delays. One of Artemis's maximum complex accessories, the landing device, is but to be commissioned. Boeing's SLS rocket is presently $1.8bn over-budget, and 19 months in the back of agenda. Nasa officers say its anticipated verify release date of June 2020 is not likely to be met.Relying on private businesses is not any panacea. In seek of innovation and minimize prices, Nasa treats companies as companions rather than fundamental contractors. But Boeing and SpaceX are also behind schedule on a separate flagship agreement to fly astronauts to the ISS.All in all, the probability of a touchdown in 2024 is "low", says Dreier. "To say we can pass again to the Moon on the affordable and we are going to do it faster than Apollo - it strains credibility?.?.?.?Every space policy expert right now has this struggle. You do not want to simply be poor and say that they can not do it, but we have to appearance at this truthfully?.?.?.?Nasa's being put in a totally difficult position politically."In a Pew Research Center ballot final yr, most effective thirteen in step with cent of Americans mentioned sending astronauts to the Moon can be a concern for Nasa; 44 consistent with cent observed it wasn't important at all or shouldn't be finished. Public assist is better for Nasa's other programmes, akin to tracking climate and tracking asteroids.But public assist become fragile within the Apollo period too. The programme succeeded as the White House remained committed and as the cold conflict focused minds. At its height, it hired 400,000 people."We choose to pass to the Moon in this decade and do any other things, not as a result of they are convenient, but as a result of they're hard," Kennedy mentioned in September 1962. More than five a long time later, we once in a while overlook the proven fact that going to the Moon remains difficult. Going there in a manner that also places Mars within reach is terribly hard certainly.The project ?- named Artemis ?- would be the first attempt to return humans to the lunar surface since the last Apollo landing in 1972, but some experts doubt if the deadline is realistic givenThanks for reading this guys. Have a great time ahead

Of course not but there is much harm in the false notion that reducing your carbon foot print is reducing pollustion. In fact reducing Co2 emissions will be very detrimental to life of earth. Co2 is non-toxic even at 7000 ppm levels of submarines 7 24.What is at stake with reducing Co2 emissions?We need much more as the earth is starved based on past experience.We lose increased plant and forest life from photosynthesis as Co2 is essential.We lose greening the deserts and more water retention.We lose carbonization of real greenhouses at > 2000 ppm making plants grow bigger and faster.Co2 is often the used in fire extinguishers to put out fires.We lose life saving medical use in premie incubators and Co2 for surgery at 20,000 ppm.“Medical carbon dioxide.Therapeutic indicationshttps://www.bochealthcare.co.uk/en/images/HLC_506810-MGDS%20Medical%20carbon%20dioxide%28web%29_tcm409-61147.pdf“Carbon dioxide is used:• to increase depth of anaesthesia rapidly when volatile agents are being administered. It increases depth of respiration and helps to overcome breathholding and bronchial spasm• to facilitate blind intubation in anaesthetic practice• to facilitate vasodilation and thus lessen the degree of metabolic acidosis during the induction of hypothermia• to increase cerebral blood flow in arteriosclerotic patients undergoing surgery• to stimulate respiration after a period of apnoea• in chronic respiratory obstruction after it has been relieved• to prevent hypocapnia during hyperventilation• for clinical and physiological investigations• in gynaecological investigation for insufflation into fallopian tubes and abdominal cavities• as solid carbon dioxide (dry ice) in tissue freezing techniques and for the destruction of warts by freezing.”Ask yourself what is the greatest environmental danger today?The answer according to the WHO is outdoor cooking in underdeveloped countries where > 2 billion are off grid living in the dark. The cooking fumes kills and harms many millions everyday research shows.Why? Because they are off grid.How to overcome? With cheap coal powered electricity.But coal is the enemy of the hoax and renewables are not an alternative in our life time.Further Co2 is not pollution. It is the non-toxic air you emit with every breath at 35,000 ppm.Co2 is vital for all plant and animal life through photosynthesis and more is needed as we are at starvation levels now.Sadly instead of environmental action pushing coal based grid electricity they focus on improving the technology of puny cook stoves. Grid electricity is the answer to this environmental/health tragedy and fossil fuels are the necessary resource, especially cheap coal power. These phony efforts are pathetic failing millions who will die annually from this number one environmental hazard. Some of these deaths must be a direct result of insane carbon footprint pseudo science and the fall out from the odious Paris Accord.“EXPANDING THE GRID WITH COAL IS THE ONLY HOPE IN THE LONG RUN.THE SOCIAL INJUSTICE OF ENERGY POVERTYEnergy Poverty is devastatingEnergy poverty is devastating for more than 2 billion impoverished peoples living without electricity for light and heat. Cooking happens the way it has for centuries before – over smoky indoor fires that do no favors for lungs or life expectancies. I witnessed the tragedy first hand working in the China countryside in the winter where peasants are forced to live with their animals in a vain attempt to keep warm. Their weathered faces from the harsh life in the dark without heat is very sad.Once upon a time, social justice was synonymous with equal access to modern amenities — electric lighting so poor children could read at night, refrigerators so milk could be kept on hand, and washing machines to save the hands and backs of women. Malthus was rightly denounced by generations of socialists as a cruel aristocrat who cloaked his elitism in pseudo-science, and claimed that Nature couldn't possibly feed any more hungry months.Now, at the very moment modern energy arrives for global poor — something a prior generation of socialists would have celebrated and, indeed, demanded — today's leading left-wing leaders advocate a return to energy penury. The loudest advocates of cheap energy for the poor are on the libertarian Right, while The Nation dresses up neo-Malthusianism as revolutionary socialism.Left-wing politics was once about destabilizing power relations between the West and the Rest. Now, under the sign of climate justice, it's about sustaining them.”Why are climate-change models so flawed? Because climate science is so incomplete - The Boston Globe☩ Violet Irwin ☩@VioletIrwin76Nothing is more bourgeois than telling poor people they must sacrifice their already impoverished standard of living on the altar of Gaia.Shock news : UN Carbon Regime Would Devastate HumanityAuthor: Jamie Spry |Sadly the Paris Accord and the climate alarmists demonize Co2 emissions from fossil fuels and coal power in particular. . Based on ancient disproven theory about so called greenhouse gases causing a global warming catastrophe. The result is long term deprivation of vital grid electricity for the more than 2 billion living in the dark off grid.There is no global warming to fear as NASA admits temperatures have not risen even 1’ C over the past 150 years. Recently temperatures are now falling.0.56’ C.References in Support}Three Billion People Cook Over Open Fires ― With Deadly ConsequencesIn Guatemala, locally made cookstoves are helping combat toxic smoke—but economics and tradition keep many people from using them.6 MINUTE READSan Lorenzo el Cubo: Albertina Pamal cooks on a raised concrete slab. Though the slab allows her to stand while she works, she still has to inhale the smoke from the open fire.BY MICHELLE NIJHUISPHOTOGRAPHS BY LYNN JOHNSON“PUBLISHEDAUGUST 14, 2017ON EASTER SUNDAY morning, in the small town of San Antonio Aguas Calientes in central Guatemala, Elbia Pérez and her sister, daughters, and 18-month-old grandson are crowded around their kitchen table. On the table, a large pot of tamales, handfuls of spicy meat and corn dough wrapped in plantain leaves, stands waiting to be steamed. The room is filled with talk, laughter, and smoke—gritty, eye-watering smoke that sticks in the throat and provokes deep, scratchy coughs.The problem isn’t that the family lacks a functioning stove. In fact the aluminum-sided kitchen—part of a compound that shelters 45 extended-family members—contains three. But the two-burner gas stove is out of fuel, and the Pérez family can’t afford to fill it.Their efficient woodstove, a knee-high concrete cylinder donated by an aid group called StoveTeam International, is too small to support the tamale pot. So, as she does about once a month, Perez has fired up the old wood-burning stove, a crumbling, chimney-less brick ruin whose smoke pours directly into the unventilated kitchen. Everyone notices the smoke, but it’s a familiar annoyance—and compared with the daily challenge of affording food and fuel, it’s a minor one.1/10VIEW SLIDESHOWTania López, seven, plays with her cat in a room whose walls were blackened by an old open fire; the new stove, provided by StoveTeam International, is efficient and safe to touch.PHOTOGRAPHY BY LYNN JOHNSONBut the López family's new stove is unventilated, so the smoke still pours into the kitchen, where Tania's mother and grandmother also do their weaving. Her grandmother Augustina… Read MorePHOTOGRAPH BY LYNN JOHNSONFiorentina Hernandez, 37, has three children, two of whom have special needs—including Magda Noelia, 4 (right). Hernandez cooks breakfast over an open fire. “It’s smoky but this is how life is,” she says. She has a new cookstove but it's small and slow—and in the morning she doesn’t have the time.PHOTOGRAPH BY LYNN JOHNSONAlma Iris Garay, 50, who fled violence in El Salvador as a child, who has lost a son to drugs, beams as she stirs her vat of corn on a street corner, where the smoke from the open fire won’t choke her. She makes tortillas on a gas stove inside her home in Guatemala City.PHOTOGRAPH BY LYNN JOHNSONAt Paso a Paso School in San Antonio Aguas Calientes, the kids make lunch with a stove made by the Ecocomal company, whose co-founder, Ana Luisa Herrera, also started the school. Safe, smokeless cook stoves promote education—because they help protect children’s health.PHOTOGRAPH BY LYNN JOHNSONMaria de Jesus Lopez Pérez, 62, (center) is the matriarch of a clan of weavers living in a cramped compound in San Antonio Aguas Calientes. To provide the family of 45 with a normal Sunday meal, all the women hover around fires in one corner of the compound.PHOTOGRAPH BY LYNN JOHNSONThe new yellow stove is efficient, but the old open fire is better for the giant pot in Etelvina Pérez's kitchen in San Antonio Aguas Calientes.PHOTOGRAPH BY LYNN JOHNSONNear Antigua Guatemala, eight-month-old Pablito keeps an eye on breakfast as his mother, Angélica Epatal Garcia, tends to the makeshift barrel stove. She and her daughters walk 45 minutes each way to collect the wood for three daily fires.PHOTOGRAPH BY LYNN JOHNSONA month's worth of propane for the small gas stove costs Rosa Vicente Garcia (flanked here by her two daughters) and her husband more than two days' work at the Guatemala City landfill, where they scavenge for plastic and metal.PHOTOGRAPH BY LYNN JOHNSONMaria García Cruz grew up with a gas stove, but she and her husband, Venancio Juárez, can't afford one. "I've never gotten used to this," she says of the smoke. The children have respiratory problems.PHOTOGRAPHY BY LYNN JOHNSONhttps://www.nationalgeographic.c...”Some three billion people around the world cook their food and heat their homes with open or barely contained fires, and while the smoke dissipates quickly, its accumulated costs are steep. The typical cooking fire produces about 400 cigarettes’ worth of smoke an hour, and prolonged exposure is associated with respiratory infections, eye damage, heart and lung disease, and lung cancer.AP PHOTO/RAJESH KUMAR SINGHSilent killer.BREATHLESS IN THE KITCHENThe fruitless quest to save Indian women from slowly choking to deathBy Gayathri VaidyanathanDecember 13, 2018Outside a mud house in an urban slum near Patna, a city in eastern India, an older woman is perched atop a wooden cart, waiting for her daughter-in-law, with whom she has a bone to pick. When a local nonprofit named the Centre for Environment and Energy Development (CEED) distributed new wood-burning cookstoves in this slum, each family received only one. It went to the woman’s daughter-in-law.I ask if I can see her daughter-in-law’s new cookstove. She waves me into a tiny, one-room mud home, where an old, traditional cookstove, or chulha, sits in the windowless, soot-painted kitchen. In the entryway, given pride of place, is a different, second stove—one powered by liquified petroleum gas (LPG). The woman’s grandson points at a high shelf in the living area, where the wood-burning cookstove from CEED is perched, inside its original cardboard box, unused.This is not an unusual fate for advanced biomass cookstoves. (“Biomass” refers to non-fossil fuels, including wood, animal dung, and agricultural byproducts.) Studieshave shown that these cookstoves have not caught on in low-income parts of the world, despite the decades of effort and hundreds of millions of dollars that the nonprofit sector has spent trying to convince people—almost always women—to use them.The advanced cookstoves are meant to cut down on the toxic gases that come from burning biomass on traditional stoves or open fires. Globally, more than three billion people use either coal, kerosene, or biomass for cooking, and the fumes from these indoor fires constitute the second leading environmental cause of death in the world, after outdoor air pollution. Some 3.8 million people die prematurely each year from diseases related to indoor air pollution, such as pneumonia, stroke, heart and respiratory diseases, and cancer.It has long been assumed that giving people around the world better cookstoves is an easy and effective way to save lives. So why aren’t those who really need the stoves using them?In 2010, the UN Foundation and Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state at the time, launched the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves. At the heart of their plan were “clean” cookstoves that would burn biomass more efficiently and cleanly than existing stoves. They would reduce the amount of wood needed for cooking, which would, in turn, cut down on deforestation and help tackle climate change.The appliances cost between $25 and $40 (Rs1,790-3,500), which is expensive in many countries, so subsidies poured in from development organisations. But soon afterward came health studies indicating that the stoves, once in the field, didn’t actually improve the health of the women and children who were disproportionately exposed to indoor fumes.“I’m a health scientist, so basically my criterion is, what would I be happy with my pregnant daughter using?” says Kirk Smith, a public health scientist at the University of California, Berkeley. “There isn’t even one biomass stove in the world that meets that criterion.”ENGINEERING FOR CHANGE/CC BY-SA 2.0Women in India (left) and Nepal (right) cook on examples of traditional cookstoves.The community of clean cookstove proponents and developers, known as “stovers,” came out of the appropriate technology movement of the 1970s, in which (mostly Western) experts argued that poorer people are stuck in poverty because of simple, inefficient technologies that could, and should, be easily improved. One of these unsatisfactory technologies is the humble cookstove, which continues to kill millions of people with fine particulate matter, carbon monoxide, and other fumes at levels well above safe limits. That level of exposure is particularly toxic to children under the age of five; almost half the global deaths from pneumonia among this age group can be traced to indoor air pollution from cookstoves.In the years since the clean cookstove movement began, stovers have engineered a variety of improved cookstoves, including the chimney, rocket, and charcoal stoves. The cleanest of them all are gasifier stoves, which contain a fan. A class apart are stoves that burn LPG, which is made from the propane or butane left as a byproduct of fossil fuel extraction. Finally, there are biogas, alcohol, and solar stoves—but these are rare and expensive.In 2002, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) formed the Partnership for Clean Indoor Air, a group made up of nonprofits, manufacturers, and other stakeholders who supported initiatives to improve cookstoves in lower-income countries. The agency championed the kinds of advanced biomass stoves that use local, renewable woody resources, rather than stoves that use climate-changing fossil fuels like LPG. The EPA believed that better biomass stoves could halve exposure to toxic fumes, thus improving women’s health and reducing rates of severe pneumonia in kids.The partnership was a precursor to Clinton’s 2010 Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves, which set a new, ambitious target of converting 100 million households to clean stoves by 2020. But Alliance members decided that they wouldn’t just give the stoves away; rather, they would create a global market for clean cooking solutions. Small businesses would sell at village shops at a profit, solving the air pollution problem and boosting the economies of low-income communities at the same time.But the Alliance never defined what a “clean cookstove” is. No one had yet calculated a “safe” level of cookstove emissions. It wasn’t until November 2014 that the World Health Organization (WHO) released its first indoor air pollution standards, setting acceptable levels of exposure to fine particles and carbon monoxide from stoves—and most of the “advanced” cookstoves promoted by the alliance didn’t meet the new criteria. “So, suddenly, the alliance was in a situation of promoting so-called clean stoves that weren’t clean by WHO standards,” Smith says.Not only that, but these cookstoves performed even worse in the field than the alliance had expected, having little to no effect on quality of life. In 2012, scientists from Harvard published the result of tracking a project to hand out chimney cookstoves—as in, stoves with chimneys that direct fumes out of homes—in Odisha, India, over four years. They found that, even though there was an improvement in the first year of the programme, over time women stopped using the new stoves, and most households still ended up with the same hazardous air as they’d had with the traditional chulhas. The key realisation was that people simply didn’t value the stoves enough to maintain and continue using them. It’s a pattern that has been repeated across the world.Further indoor air pollution studies have found even more problems with stovers’ assumptions and plans. The biggest example is a 2017 study in rural Malawi in which scientists compared 10,750 children from households that used either a traditional cookstove or a fan-driven gasifier stove, which is the cleanest improved biomass cookstove available on the market today. The researchers were surprised at how frequently the advanced stoves broke down, given that “these products had been specifically designed and developed for the indications, end users, and environments in which [researchers] assessed them.” They found themselves acting as a repair service, so that the families they were tracking would continue to use the new stoves. Still, by the second year, usage fell to 50%.Even worse, the scientists found that the new cookstoves hadn’t reduced rates of pneumonia in children under five. Either the cookstoves were not actually cutting indoor air pollution or the Malawian kids in the study were being exposed to so many other air pollution sources—burning garbage, for example, or tobacco smoke—that addressing cookstove smoke on its own wasn’t enough to protect against pneumonia. Both conclusions undermine the alliance’s raison d’être.With the writing on the wall, the cookstove sector is now changing direction. Last month, the Global Alliance changed its name to the Clean Cooking Alliance, and the organisation is now promoting the act of clean “cooking” rather than cookstoves specifically. The focus is no longer primarily on the kind of fuel being burned.Biomass cookstove makers are now fighting a rearguard action against these criticisms. Browsing the Clean Cooking Catalog, you can find new kinds of biomass stoves, like the compact Mimi Moto gasifier, which, the organisation claims, is extremely clean—and ideal for households that cannot afford LPG. And there are scattered examples of local-level cookstove companies, like Inyenyeri in Rwanda, that seem to be having success in getting people to fully convert to biomass.There’s one final argument that’s still used to advocate for advanced biomass cookstoves: they’re undeniably better for the climate than LPG is, because fuels like wood are renewable. While true, this is an argument with fewer takers. “No matter what the poor are using to cook, it’s not going to affect climate change,” argues Smith. “It’s the rich of the world that are causing climate change.”ENGINEERING FOR CHANGE/CC BY-SA 2.0Women from the mountain villages of Rajasthan, India, collect and carry around 70lbs of firewood on their heads every day.If not biomass, then what? LPG stoves are the only other such appliances that meet WHO pollution standards. Some nations, like India, are rapidly expanding access to LPG through subsidies and social welfare programmes. But other nations are not as lucky or rich, says Tom Price, the director of strategic initiatives at Inyenyeri. In Rwanda, increasing the number of people using LPG from 1% to 10% would create a deficit of $100 million, he says.“Obviously, an LPG stove is very clean, but if someone cannot afford it, who cares?” he says. “We’re solving the problem for the rich, but not solving the problem for the base of the pyramid.” For those people, biomass stoves remain the solution, Price claims. But he admits that, out of the roughly 2,000 stove companies worldwide, not a single one has succeeded in building a stove that’s simultaneously clean, accessible, and profitable to sell at scale.Price believes that his company will be the first. Inyenyeri distributes the Dutch-made Mimi Moto, which has been certified by Colorado State University as the best biomass cookstove available today. (However, it has thus far only undergone testing in the lab, not in the field.) It costs $75, so the company gives the stove out for free and then charges for the fuel—pellets made from eucalyptus. Price claims that the average Rwandan family spends $23 a month on charcoal, while Inyenyeri supplies a month’s worth of pellets for $16, therefore saving users money. And for those who prefer to collect free wood, Inyenyeri allows wood to be exchanged for pellets. In order to break even, though, the company need to hit 75,000 customers. Right now, they have 4,000.Similar gasifier stoves are being put through trials by the World Bank in Laos and other countries. However, Fiona Lambe, a research fellow at the Stockholm Environment Institute, urges caution. The 2017 Malawi study that found gasifier stoves didn’t work in the field as well as in the lab was focused specifically on a model of stove designed and manufactured by Philips in the Netherlands. It’s yet to be seen if the Mimi Moto will fare any better in the real world.One answer to the cookstove conundrum might be to promote and perfect a variety of stove types. Just as people in higher-income countries, like the US, use various devices to cook—gas burners, microwaves, tea kettles—most poor women, when given a choice, also like to use a variety of methods and fuels, from traditional stoves to LPG to biomass. (This is called “fuel stacking” in the world of non-governmental organisations.)If people have money, they’ll prefer LPG for its convenience. It’s an aspirational product, just like a flat-screen TV. If they don’t have money, they’ll prefer traditional cookstoves, like the Indian chulhas, which have the bonus of making better-tasting food than the average biomass stove can. Biomass stoves tends to only be preferred in select situations, such as cooking outdoors, because they’re often portable. But studies suggest that there is virtually no advanced biomass cookstove on the market today that is as clean, in terms of air pollution, as an LPG stove is.WIKIMEDIA COMMONS AND ENGINEERING FOR CHANGE/CC BY-SA 2.0Left: A woman in Nigeria cooks on a small LPG cookstove. Right: A solar cookstove in Nepal.As such, it’s better to view the clean cookstoves problem as part of a cooking system, where different people bring different needs into play, depending on their specific situation, their income, and their family size. A biomass stove can still be useful in certain situations. It’s just not useful in every situation.“No one is using any one stove,” says Lambe. “I’ve never come across a household that will use just a three-stone fire. They’ll have something for emergencies—a kerosene burner, a charcoal stove, something.” Trying to replace all these diverse cooking needs with a single true stove is unrealistic, she argues. “As soon as [the cookstove] gets into the household, there’s so many things that can happen. There’s a huge difference in terms of what happens in real-life situations and the lab.”In Patna, the mother-in-law’s neighbor, Devi, also has an advanced biomass cookstove—she uses it to cook outside. She has an LPG stove as well, on which she whips up a quick tea and breakfast each morning, but she can only use it sparingly; a refill costs Rs700 ($9.50). She prepares lunch on her traditional stove.Devi demonstrates how she lights the biomass cookstove. She fills the chamber with wood, picks up an empty plastic detergent packet, sets it on fire, and drops it into the stove to give the firewood a kickstart.Noxious fumes fill her courtyard, blowing into the faces of her three boys.The fruitless quest to save Indian women from slowly choking to death”The fruitless quest to save Indian women from slowly choking to death“CLIMATE CHANGE – The Most Massive Scientific Fraud In Human History*“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of **economic and environmental policy* (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/08/typhoon-haiyan-rich-ignore-climate-change)*.“ – ****Timothy*** (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/25/bring-it-mr-wirth-a-challenge/)*** ******Wirth*** (http://www.nationalcenter.org/dos7130.htm)*, President of the UN Foundation*THIS brilliant piece of research and writing by, *Leo Goldstein. Defeat Climate Alarmism* (Honest Hidden Knowledge Search represents a truly definitive guide to what is, undoubtedly, the greatest pseudoscientific fraud ever perpetrated upon mankind – the empirically unproven **theory** of man-made “Global Warming” aka “Climate Change” aka “Climate Disruption”…SUCH an important and pivotal (quick) read that needs to be spread far and wide, over and over and over again…*Those who can make you believe absurdities**can make you commit atrocities.****Voltaire*****Climate Realism Against Alarmism****A Realist Side of the Climate Debate. CO2 is a product of human breath and is plant food, NOT a pollutant.****CLIMATE alarmism is a gigantic fraud**: **it only survives by suppressing dissent and by spending tens of billions of dollars of public money every year on pseudo-scientific propaganda**. Climate pseudo-science is wrong on physics, biology, meteorology, mathematics, computer sciences, and almost everything else. And even if the “climate science” were perfectly correct, climate alarmism politics would still be a tyranny and betrayal. Alarmists demand that the US and other Western countries unilaterally decrease their carbon dioxide emissions, while allowing unlimited increase to China and all other countries, which already emit more than 70% of carbon dioxide and almost 100% of other infrared-absorbing gases and soot.How could this happen? **Carbon dioxide is exhaled by humans with each breath. How could the idea to call it a “pollutant” and to regulate its “emissions” get such traction in our society?** How could a mad suicidal cult and its preachers obtain so much power in the academia and media, and become a cornerstone of the Democrats’ political platform, in the 21stcentury?Many factors were in play.1. **This takeover did not happen overnight, but took some 30-40 years.**2. **Climate alarmism was born and acquired power abroad. It was led by a bunch of non-governmental organizations of the environmentalist and “global governance” persuasion, acting in cahoots with certain United Nations agencies. It infiltrated the US through American branches of foreign NGOs and their fellow travelers, such as NRDC and EDF. Climate alarmism made a huge leap in 1993, when its fanatical disciple Al Gore became the Vice President.** Nevertheless, climate alarmism has always been and remains an essentially foreign phenomenon.For example, the infamous Congressional testimony delivered by Dr. James Hansen in 1988, on invitation from Senator Wirth, was instigated by foreign enviros and diplomats in the run-up to the Toronto conference that happened a few weeks later. The climate dogma had been developing largely in lawless UN agencies and unaccountable transnational organizations, often using them as an extra-territorial operational base when national public demanded answers about its mischief.3. **There is indeed a strong consensus among foreign governments in support of climate alarmism. This consensus has nothing to do with the science.** Many governments are promised “reparations” from the United States for alleged harm; other countries expect to benefit from the damage to North American oil & gas exploration inflicted by climate alarmism; and another group of countries enjoys immunity from limitations that climate treaties impose on Europe and North America and receive fringe benefits in the form of outsourced manufacturing and/or preferential trade terms. Finally, many European countries are ruled by coalitions including influential Green Parties, and the rest are too small to resist.4. **Over the last 8-10 years, climate alarmism has achieved its huge scale by spending tens of billions of dollars on its own public relations, including payments to public relations firms, pseudo-scientists, corrupt academics, university administrators, journalists, and media outlets.** It has also created its own institutions with scientific-sounding names and taken over formerly **highly-regarded organizations**, including the National Academy of Sciences. Climate alarmism continues to demand more and more money, and spends most of it on self-promotion and intimidating its opponents.5. The leaders and pseudo-scientists of climate alarmism are driven by many motives. Fear of just punishment is quickly becoming the leading motive, as it should be. Their crimes start with tax evasion, theft of hundreds of billions of dollars, inflicting economic damage on the order of trillions of dollars, include an attempt to murder millions of Americans by shutting down the national energy infrastructure, and possibly include high treason. It is likely that they hide the truth even from their nominal party leaders – Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. That makes the current situation even more dangerous and unpredictable.6. **The foreign interference, money, and some confusion about the subject matter were not the only factors in the meteoric rise of climate alarmism. Since the late 1980s, the global warming agenda has been accepted by the left as “their cause,” and received unconditional support. The majority of the scientists leaned left, and many of them accepted the alarmist claims (which were much more reasonable then than today) of the environmentalists and general media without suspicion**. These scientists also bore old prejudices against conservatives, to whom they attributed all kinds of anti-scientific leanings. Although these prejudices provided enough breeding ground for alarmism, the scientific community successfully resisted climate alarmism in 1990’s. The Oregon Petition, signed by more than 30,000 scientists and other professionals knowledgeable in sciences, is just one example.7. **In 2001, even the International Panel on Climate Change acknowledged that carbon dioxide emissions did not cause harmful climate change**. It reacted to this “discovery” by removing the word “anthropogenic” from its definition of “climate change.” That did not stop climate alarmism from gaining momentum. Instead, climate alarmism finally parted ways with science, and declared its dogma to be the undisputed truth.8. **Scientifically illiterate Al Gore was responsible for the science in the Clinton–Gore administration from 1993-2001. He evaluated scientists according to their agreement with his views on global warming.** Not surprisingly, his appointments and budget decisions had effect of deadly poison, administered to the American scientific enterprise. (To tell the truth, it was not all Al Gore’s fault. The scientific enterprise came under fire from many directions, from the academic “social constructivism” theory to “diversity” politics.) The scientific institutions, already leaning left before Al Gore, just fell to the left after his reign.9. George W. Bush was too naïve to fight cunning enviros on the government payroll posing as scientists, and was allowed too little time for that anyway. Concerned with maintaining national unity in the aftermath of the enemy attack on 9/11, he appointed Democrat John Marburger as his scientific advisor (Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy). Marburger let government-financed scientific institutions slide further down and to the left, but his appointment did not save Bush from the usual accusations of “manipulating science for political purposes,” “censoring scientific results,” and “silencing the science,” all slogans shouted by the Union of Con Scientists and the rest of the attack pack.10. **In 1997, the US Senate rejected the Kyoto pact, instigated by climate alarmism, by a 95–0 vote**. The main reason was its discriminatory terms against the US. But these terms, demanding unilateral emission cuts by the US and few other countries, were more like an insult added to an injury. The injury was the corruption of the science by environmentalist quackery, of which the global warming catastrophism was just the latest example. This vote proved to be a palliative treatment. Many politically active leftist scientists, including distinguished ones, remained committed to the totalitarian ideals, wanted Congress to accept their beliefs as the science, and called for Congress to *“**restore science to its appropriate place in government* (48 Nobel Winning Scientists Endorse Kerry-June 21, 2004 But the First Amendment says: ***Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion***. The leftist scientists either did not understand the First Amendment, decided that it applied only to religion of the “ordinary folk” and not to them, or were egged on by their comrades whose “science” needed “a place in the government” because it took place neither in nature nor in the lab. When the Senate passed a resolution not addressing alarmist beliefs directly, these scientists probably concluded that the Senators did not have scientific arguments against the alarmist beliefs, and acted out of some ulterior political motives. And they accepted the alarmist claims (which were much more moderate then than today) as real science, and opposition to them as politically or financially motivated. Since many of these scientists were quite distinguished and sincere in their ignorance and hubris, their opinion carried much weight with their colleagues.11. The lawless nature of the IPCC and other UN agencies allowed climate alarmists to pull off a trick which would be impossible in any national forum. It was like the “telephone” game played by kids. Scientists at the bottom of the IPCC structure were saying one thing, while Greenpeace and its accomplices at the top of the IPCC structure were telling the public something entirely different, and invoking the authority of the scientists. When elected officials disagreed with the Greenpeace allegations, many legitimate scientists thought that the politicians misunderstood the science, and sharply criticized them. The leftist media was only too happy to amplify such criticism.One example is the play on the definition of “climate change.” If *climate change* is understood as “dangerous anthropogenic global warming,” as in the UN Framework Agreement on Climate Change, then *climate change* does not happen. If *climate change* is defined to include natural climate variations, according to the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (2001), then it happens and has been happening for billions of years, but is not alarming. And there are dozens or hundreds of mutually incompatible definitions of climate change, produced by climate alarmists and by scientists trying to get crumbs from the alarmist table.12. The extreme left apparently took over the Democratic Party in 2002-2005. The DNC started to court the foreign vote openly. Internet made that courting easy and convenient. Democrat Congresspersons welcomed foreign “observers” at the US elections. Al Gore started a hedge fund called Generation Investment Management in the UK, and founded an exchange to trade hot air (voluntary carbon credits). Gore and his minions publicly fantasized that the hot air would become the hottest commodity of the 21st century, and prepped themselves to become multi-billionaires. Unfortunately, they did not stop at fantasizing, but attracted some serious money, and put it at work to scare us into buying those carbon credits. In 2006, following Al Gore’s fraudumentary *An Inconvenient Truth*, climate alarmism started its own offensive against the US on the American soil. This offensive has been going surprisingly successfully, and led to the current situation.13. The recent Attorneys General gambit is a show of desperation, rather than strength. Greenpeace, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and whoever else behind them have sacrificed three state Attorneys General – Eric Schneiderman, Maura Healey, and Kamala Harris – as if they were merely pawns. Maybe they were. Those who press an analogy between the energy companies and the tobacco companies just expose themselves as either hopelessly crazy or craftily malicious. Those who act on that analogy are either criminals or enemy agents. Tobacco is a harmful, addictive, and useless (for everybody but the smokers) product. This is why the unconstitutional and corrupt prosecution of the tobacco companies was successful twenty years ago. Oil, gas, and coal are exactly opposite to tobacco. They are energy sources necessary for the existence of civilized society, on which the lives of the majority of Americans depend. And not everybody in this country is an idiot, thinking that the power of his or her dreams can replace electricity and http://gasoline.By (http://gasoline.By) the way, the climate alarmist lobby opposes nuclear power and hydro power as fiercely as it opposes fossil fuels.Climate alarmism’s Tower of Babel is falling. It is voluntarily supported by the Obama regime from inside, and by the *Guardian* from outside. The *Guardian* used to be a respectable newspaper of the British Left, but dropped to the tabloid level and is awaiting indictment for espionage. Other supporters of climatism are in it only for the money, or because they are chained to it as galley slaves to their oars, or because they are too stupid to run away from the falling tower.(CLIMATE CHANGE – The Most Massive Scientific Fraud In Human History)”“The True Cost Of Radical Environmentalism & ‘Renewable’ EnergyPublished on September 25, 2019Written by Andy RowlandsWhy are the Greens and politicians so blind to the true costs of the radical environmentalism they promote?For renewables such as wind and solar, to get the same energy production as we have now, we would need cover very large areas of the land surface with them. Is that even sane?When the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining, countries with no ‘fossil fuel’ or nuclear generating capability would have frequent or extended power blackouts, as has happened in Australia twice in the last 18 months, and here in the UK a couple weeks ago.Wind farms and solar panels have a life of around 20-25 years before they need replacing, and if the world had lost it’s industry due to ‘de-carbonisation’, when these wind farms and solar panels fail or reach the end of their lives, there would be no manufacturing capability to repair or replace them, so when the last ones ceased operation, countries would be left with no electricity whatsoever, and would have effectively reverted to pre-1800 technology.The Global Warming Policy Forum published an article in early February 2019 which dismisses the idea that grid-scale electricity storage can help bring about a UK renewables revolution. According to the paper’s author, Professor Jack Ponton; an emeritus professor of engineering from the University of Edinburgh, current approaches are either technically inadequate or commercially unviable.Many commentators have suggested that intermittent power from wind turbines could simply be balanced with batteries or pumped hydro storage, but as Professor Ponton explains, this approach is unlikely to be viable as the environmentalists are even opposed to hydroelectric schemes. “You need storage to deal with lulls in wind generation that can last for several days, so the amount required would be impracticably large. And because this would only be required intermittently, its capital cost could probably never be recovered”.Professor Ponton also thinks that another potential saviour of the renewables revolution – hydrogen storage – has been unjustifiably hyped: “A major problem with hydrogen is its low volumetric energy density. The only practical way of storing the large volumes required would be in underground caverns or depleted gasfields. We are already short of this type of storage for winter supplies of natural gas.”Professor Ponton concludes that a lack of suitable storage technologies means that intermittent renewables cannot replace coal, gas and nuclear power and so a sensible energy policy cannot be based on them. “Wind and solar power are not available on demand and there are no technologies to make them so. Refusing to face these inconvenient facts poses a serious threat to our energy security”.The International Renewable ENergy Agency (IRENA) in 2016 estimated there was about 250,000 metric tonnes of solar panel waste in the world at the end of that year. IRENA projected that this amount could reach 78 million metric tonnes by 2050.Solar panels often contain lead, cadmium, and other toxic chemicals that cannot be removed without breaking apart the entire panel. “Approximately 90% of most PV modules are made up of glass,” notes San Jose State environmental studies professor Dustin Mulvaney. “However, this glass often cannot be recycled as float glass due to impurities. Common problematic impurities in glass include plastics, lead, cadmium and antimony.”Researchers with the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) undertook a study for U.S. solar-owning utilities to plan for end-of-life and concluded that solar panel “disposal in regular landfills [is] not recommended in case modules break and toxic materials leach into the soil” and so “disposal is potentially a major issue.” California is in the process of determining how to divert solar panels from landfills, which is where they currently go, at the end of their life.California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), which is implementing the new regulations, held a meeting last August with solar and waste industry representatives to discuss how to deal with the issue of solar waste. At the meeting, the representatives from industry and DTSC all acknowledged how difficult it would be to test to determine whether a solar panel being removed would be classified as hazardous waste or not.The fact that cadmium can be washed out of solar modules by rainwater is increasingly a concern for local environmentalists like the Concerned Citizens of Fawn Lake in Virginia, where a 6,350 acre solar farm to partly power Microsoft data centers is being proposed.It is estimated there would be 100,000 pounds of cadmium contained in the 1.8 million panels of the proposed Microsoft project, and leaching from broken panels damaged during natural events – hail storms, tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, and at decommissioning is a big concern.There is real-world precedent for this concern. A tornado in 2015 broke 200,000 solar modules at southern California solar farm Desert Sunlight. “Any modules that were broken into small bits of glass had to be swept from the ground,” Mulvaney explained, “so lots of rocks and dirt got mixed in that would not work in recycling plants that are designed to take modules. These were the cadmium-based modules that failed [hazardous] waste tests, so were treated at a [hazardous] waste facility.”When Hurricane Maria hit Puerto Rico in September 2018, the nation’s second largest solar farm, responsible for 40 percent of the island’s solar energy, had most of its’ array destroyed, as seen in the photograph belowNations will need to maintain 100% of their current fossil fuel, hydro and nuclear power plants in full working order as backups, for the days when the Sun isn’t shining and there is no wind. If they did not have properly maintained and available backups on such days, there would be no electricity at all.In November 2017, the Canadian organisation Friends of Science produced this Youtube video, which details the working lives of wind farms – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3dhuuG9DFkOn March 26th this year, the Manhattan Institute published the following article:-Hydrocarbons – oil, natural gas, and coal – are the world’s principal energy resource today and will continue to be so in the foreseeable future. Wind turbines, solar arrays, and batteries, meanwhile, constitute a small source of energy, and physics dictates that they will remain so. Meanwhile, there is simply no possibility that the world is undergoing, or can undergo, a near-term transition to a ‘new energy economy’.A movement has been growing for decades to replace hydrocarbons, which collectively supply 84% of the world’s energy. It began with the fear that we were running out of oil. That fear has since migrated to the belief that, because of climate change and other environmental concerns, society can no longer tolerate burning oil, natural gas, and coal – all of which have turned out to be abundant. So far, wind, solar, and batteries, the favored alternatives to hydrocarbons, provide about 2% of the world’s energy and 3% of America’s.Nonetheless, a bold new claim has gained popularity: that we’re on the cusp of a tech-driven energy revolution that not only can, but inevitably will, rapidly replace all hydrocarbons. This ‘new energy economy’ rests on the belief, a centerpiece of the Green New Deal and other similar proposals both here and in Europe, that the technologies of wind and solar power and battery storage are undergoing the kind of disruption experienced in computing and communications, dramatically lowering costs and increasing efficiency.But this core analogy glosses over profound differences, grounded in physics, between systems that produce energy and those that produce information. In the world of people, cars, planes, and factories, increases in consumption, speed, or carrying capacity cause hardware to expand, not shrink. The energy needed to move a ton of people, heat a ton of steel or silicon, or grow a ton of food is determined by properties of nature whose boundaries are set by laws of gravity, inertia, friction, mass, and thermodynamics, not clever software.This paper highlights the physics of energy to illustrate why there is no possibility that the world is undergoing, or can undergo, a near-term transition to a “new energy economy.” Among the reasons:·Scientists have yet to discover, and entrepreneurs have yet to invent, anything as remarkable as hydrocarbons in terms of the combination of low-cost, high-energy density, stability, safety, and portability. In practical terms, this means that spending $1 million on utility-scale wind turbines, or solar panels will each, over 30 years of operation, produce about 50 million kilowatt-hours (kWh), while an equivalent $1 million spent on a shale rig produces enough natural gas over 30 years to generate over 300 million kWh.·Solar technologies have improved greatly and will continue to become cheaper and more efficient, but the era of 10-fold gains is over. The physics boundary for silicon photovoltaic cells; the Shockley-Queisser Limit, is a maximum conversion of 34% of photons into electrons; the best commercial technology today is 26%.·Wind power technology has also improved greatly, but here, too, no 10-fold gains are left. The physics boundary for a wind turbine, the Betz Limit, is a maximum capture of 60% of kinetic energy in moving air; commercial turbines today are around 40%.·The annual output of Tesla’s Gigafactory, the world’s largest battery factory, could store three minutes’ worth of annual U.S. electricity demand. It would require 1,000 years of production to make enough batteries for two days’ worth of U.S. electricity demand. Meanwhile, 50–100 pounds of materials are mined, moved, and processed for every pound of battery produced.If the world were to fully ‘decarbonise’ into the proffered emission-free utopian fantasy, it would require the complete shut-down of industry across the planet. Where would these Tesla batteries, new solar panels and new wind turbines, or any parts for them, be made then?The true cost of radical environmentalismIn early July 2019, the website wattsupwiththat carried a long article by guest writer By Allan M.R. MacRae, http://B.A.Sc., M.Eng. I have only included the introduction and conclusion here for space considerations, but the full article can be read by copying the weblink after the conclusion.1.Introduction.Ever wonder why extremists attack honest scientists who oppose global warming and climate change hysteria? Ever wonder why climate extremists refuse to debate the science? It is because global warming and climate change alarmism was never about the science – it was always a false narrative, a smokescreen for the totalitarian objectives of the extreme left.The novel “Nineteen Eighty-Four”, written by George Orwell in 1949, foresaw a time “when much of the world has fallen victim to perpetual war, omnipresent government surveillance, historical negationism and propaganda”. It now appears that Orwell had remarkable foresight. Here is the real ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’, an interview that year with ex-KGB officer and Soviet defector Yuri Bezmenov, who described their long-term program to ideologically undermine the western democracies. It is all about manipulating the “useful idiots” – the pro-Soviet leftists within the democracies.One commenter wrote: “this is crazy, almost everything predicted by this guy is already happening.” Bernie Sanders, AOC and other socialist-Democrats are openly saying what Bezmenov predicted decades ago. The last democracies are under attack by leftist extremists. All over the world, countries that once had a future have fallen into dictatorship, poverty and misery. It is notable that of the ~167 large countries in the world, most are totalitarian states, and all but “the chosen few” citizens of these countries suffer under brutal leftist dictatorships.Radical greens have used wildly exaggerated stories of runaway global warming and climate change to stampede the gullible, in order to achieve their political objectives. The greens claim to be pro-environment, but their policies have done enormous environmental damage. Radical greens have also been destructive to humanity, causing millions of deaths. I wrote recently:“Modern Green Death probably started with the 1972-2002 effective ban of DDT, which caused global deaths from malaria to increase from about 1 million to almost two million per year. Most of these deaths were children under five in sub-Saharan Africa…”“…radical greens (really radical leftists) are the great killers of our time. Now the greens are blinding and killing babies by opposing golden rice…”“The Green movement is really a smokescreen for the old Marxists – and they are the great killers of our age.”To understand radical green objectives, see http://www.green-agenda.com/, excerpted below:·“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”– Club of Rome, “The First Global Revolution” p. 71,75 1993, consultants to the United Nations·“We need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”– Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports·“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized nations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”– Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme·“The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing.”– Christopher Manes, Earth First!·“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.”– Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies, author of The Population Bomb·“In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day.”– Jacques Cousteau, from a 1991 interview with the UNESCO Courier·“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”– Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment·“I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.”– John Davis, editor of Earth First!·“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”– Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation·“If you haven’t given voluntary human extinction much thought before, the idea of a world with no people in it may seem strange. But, if you give it a chance, I think you might agree that the extinction of Homo Sapiens would mean survival or millions, if not billions, of Earth-dwelling species. Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on Earth – social and environmental.”– Ingrid Newkirk, former President of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals·“The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society, which is nature’s proper steward and society’s only hope.”– David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club, founder of Friends of the Earth9.ConclusionRadical green extremists have cost society trillions of dollars and many millions of lives. Banning DDT and radical green opposition to golden rice blinded and killed tens of millions of children. Green energy and CO2abatement schemes, driven by false fears of catastrophic global warming, have severely damaged the environment and have squandered trillions of dollars of scarce global resources that should have been allocated to serve the real, immediate needs of humanity. Properly allocated, these wasted funds might have ended malaria and world hunger.The number of shattered lives caused by radical-green activism rivals the death tolls of the great killers of the 20th Century – Stalin, Hitler and Mao – radical greens advocate similar extreme-left totalitarian policies and are indifferent to their resulting environmental damage and human suffering… … and if unchecked, radical environmentalism will cost us our freedom.The full article can be read here:-https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/04/the-cost-to-society-of-radical-environmentalism/?fbclid=IwAR2mOBZVspivurY2qcDC58OamyPLUzYyc89Yo57u9lCQquWjpa5gki72U3c”Because we have declining temperatures from the past 7000 years then the onus to rebut this cooling and declare a new weather pattern of warming that amounts to ‘climate change’ is high and has not happened since our industrialization.Holocene climatic optimum - Wikipedia“This graph is taken from Wikipedia. It shows eight different reconstructions of Holocene temperature. The thick black line is the average of these. Time progresses from left to right.On this graph the Stone Age is shown only about one degree warmer than present day, but most sources mention that Scandinavian Stone Age was about 2-3 degrees warmer than the present; this need not to be mutually excluding statements, because the curve reconstructs the entire Earth's temperature, and on higher latitudes the temperature variations were greater than about equator.Some reconstructions show a vertical dramatic increase in temperature around the year 2000, but it seems not reasonable to the author, since that kind of graphs cannot possibly show temperature in specific years, it must necessarily be smoothed by a kind of mathematical rolling average, perhaps with periods of hundred years, and then a high temperature in a single year, for example, 2004 will be much less visible.The trend seems to be that Holocene's highest temperature was reached in the Hunter Stone Age about 8,000 years before present, thereafter the temperature has generally been steadily falling, however, superimposed by many cold and warm periods, including the modern warm period.However, generally speaking, the Holocene represents an amazing stable climate, where the cooling through the period has been limited to a few degrees.History of Earth's Climate”This chart shows the seesaw hot and cold blips over 100 + years but ending where the temperature started and now returning to the colder temperatures from 1950 to 1980.Evidence is the climate was warmer in the 1930s with severe drought but no correlation with industrialization growth.“Science Newsfrom research organizationsNASA study finds 1934 had worst North American drought of last thousand yearsDate:October 14, 2014Source:NASANASA study finds 1934 had worst North American drought of last thousand yearsSummary:A new study using a reconstruction of North American drought history over the last 1,000 years found that the drought of 1934 was the driest and most widespread of the last millennium. Using a tree-ring-based drought record from the years 1000 to 2005 and modern records, scientists found the 1934 drought was 30 percent more severe than the runner-up drought (in 1580) and extended across 71.6 percent of western North America.NASA study finds 1934 had worst North American drought of last thousand yearsWith Climate Change, the Past is the key to the Present and to the FutureNovember 1, 2017Format: PaperbackThe words “climate change” can technically mean a number of things, but usually when we hear them, we understand that they are referring to something in particular. This would be a defined narrative, an idea which has been repeated so often in the media that it is taken as almost axiomatic. This narrative goes something like this:“Carbon dioxide produced by mankind is dramatically changing the climate and is leading to unprecedented temperature extremes, storms, floods, and widespread death. If we fail to apply the emergency brake now, and hard, then the climate will be irreparably damaged and there will be little hope for averting the approaching cataclysm. In just a few more years it may be too late. The measures proposed for averting disaster are costly, very costly, but the anticipated damage from climate change will be even more expensive, so there is little alternative but to act quickly and decisively.”Furthermore, we are told, the science is settled, it represents a scientific consensus, and opponents are rightfully called “climate deniers,” deserving the rhetorical connotations and stigma attached to the label because they might as well be denying the reality of the Holocaust.Now is this true? Are we even allowed to ask the question? If it is not true, how could we tell? The authors, coming from different backgrounds and having different reasons for developing suspicions of the received narrative, present a detailed, 400-page argument which carefully (and I think persuasively) makes the case that the sun, and only secondarily human activities, are the primary driver for climate change.This book gives public exposure to the work of many, many climate scientists whose conclusions are deemed politically incorrect and are thus ignored. In the authors’ own words, “We were able to cite hundreds of scientific studies showing that the changes in the sun’s activity and oceanic decadal oscillations are responsible for at least half of the recent warming, which means that the contribution of CO2 is at most half.”Most of us have no way of evaluating the computer models which predict, to varying degrees, catastrophic future warming with CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning being the sole culprit.The authors maintain, however, that “the past is the key to the present and to the future,” meaning that it is better to gather data on how the climate has acted in the past, and use this to calibrate projections into the future, than it is to create models calibrated to agree with a pre-ordained conclusion.This approach reveals a few surprises. First, neither the degree nor the rate of warming we are currently experiencing is unprecedented. Second, warming in the past was not caused by rising CO2 levels. Third, cycles of warming and cooling occurred at regularly repeating intervals over the past several thousand years and beyond, and closely match cycles of increased and decreased solar activity. Fourth, currently accepted climate models which are centered on CO2 cannot reproduce these past warming and cooling events. And finally fifth, the current halt in global warming since the year 2000 was not anticipated by these models, but it is completely consistent with a sun-centered approach which takes into consideration not only CO2 but also solar cycles and ocean oscillations.So here I, the average Joe, the taxpayer who doesn’t have in-depth scientific knowledge of the issues, is being asked to adjudicate between two opposing claims. And it does matter, because the choice I and the rest of society make will have a significant impact on the world our children inhabit. If the alarmists (if I may use that pejorative label for the sake of simplicity) are right, we have a moral obligation to give up our financial prosperity in order to maintain a world that is inhabitable for future generations.And it just so happens that it is this position (that of the alarmists) that “holds the microphone,” so to speak. We are bombarded with claims that the “science is settled” and only the ignorant and those with financial interests in maintaining the status quo would disagree.It seems to me that if this boils down to a matter of trust, and to some degree it does, then we are entitled to see if that trust is earned. And we can do that in a few ways. One is by listening carefully to the alarmists and trying to see if they are telling us the whole story, or are they selectively publicizing information that furthers their cause on the one hand, while withholding information that does not, on the other hand.One testable example that leaps to mind is Al Gore’s new book, “An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power.” Early in the book he prominently displays a graph of increasing temperatures over the past number of decades. No comment is given to the stagnating temperatures between the years 2000 and 2014, but we see an apparent resumption in the warming in the final two years, 2015 and 2016.So here Mr. Gore has told us part of the story. But has he told us the whole thing? No. He has utterly ignored the vast literature cited in “The Neglected Sun” which carefully shows how natural climate oscillations, and particularly an unusually active sun, have contributed, not only to recent temperature fluctuations, but also to those seen throughout the historic temperature record.And second, he has neglected to mention what our authors have made clear, namely, that it is inappropriate to include El Niño years in long-term projections, because these phenomena, which can produce remarkable short-term increases in global temperatures, are just that: they are short-term blips that vanish after a couple of years. Al Gore leaves us with the impression that these two years are further evidence of man-made global warming when the reality is nothing more than they are in fact El Niño years.Another way the average Joe can navigate this confusing terrain is to spend some time reading “The Neglected Sun.” It is not hard to read, the citations to peer-reviewed literature are numerous, and as it does give a place, albeit a secondary one, for CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, it gives a feeling of balance, and also an admission of the infancy of much of our knowledge, an admission that is entirely missing from popular presentations from the other side, in particular from Al Gore.Spend some time reading the book and it will become clear that the claims of scientific consensus and that the science is settled are false. And it seems to me that when what we can test is found to be wanting, this gives us reason to be suspicious of that which we cannot test. In other words, it looks sneaky and it looks like they haven’t got the goods.Now the authors make it clear that they are not denying that we need to move away from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources, but they are arguing that because projections based on solar activity are actually going to give us a few decades of cooling, we can make the change in a rational, rather than a panicked, way.The stakes are high, as we are on the verge of decisions that can dramatically alter the prosperity of not only our children and grandchildren, but of those in developing countries that need at least short-term access to fossil fuels in order to keep from sliding further backwards in poverty.Al Gore and the alarmists are right about one thing: the climate debate is a moral issue, but just not in the way they see it. Because if our authors are right, then we are faced with the following reality: as much of an economic inconvenience that an abrupt shift away from fossil fuels would be for those of us in the wealthy West, it is actually a life-and-death situation for those in the developing world whose ability to move out of poverty would be taken away from them.And that is immoral.will add peer reviewed climate research from around the world with my own choice of art metaphors that seem relevant and introductory.”“Identification of the driving forces of climate change using the longest instrumental temperature recordNew research confirms the view of leading climate scientists and scholars that trace amounts of Co2 emissions are not destabilizing the planet. Co2 is essential plant food and therefore green energy. I will summarize leading science paper that do not support the deniers of natural variability from CHINA, FRANCE, CANADA, GERMANY AND THE UNITED STATES.First China scientists with new research with the longest instrumental temperature record thus far.Hisorical Chinese Painting.The authors Geli Wang & Peicai Yang and Xiuji Zhou are scientists at the CHINESE ACADEMY OF SCIENCE and Chinese Academy of Meteorological Sciences, Beijing, China 中国气象科学研究院ANTHROPOGENIC (human activity). The driving forces are“the El Niño–Southern Oscillation cycle and the Hale sunspot cycle, respectively.”The title of the study published in the prestigious NATURE Journal is: Identification of the driving forces of climate change using the longest instrumental temperature recordhttps://www.nature.com/articles/...Their study confirms THE DRIVING FORCES OF GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE ARE NATURALThe “driving forces” of climate change are natural and not Co2 plant food emissions. A new Chinese study confirms climate change comes from natural cycles. This research is based on the longest actual temperature data of more than 400 years from 1659 to 2013, including the period of anthropogenic warming.AbstractThe identification of causal effects is a fundamental problem in climate change research. Here, a new perspective on climate change causality is presented using the central England temperature (CET) dataset, the longest instrumental temperature record, and a combination of slow feature analysis and wavelet analysis. The driving forces of climate change were investigated and the results showed two independent degrees of freedom —a 3.36-year cycle and a 22.6-year cycle, which seem to be connected to the El Niño–Southern Oscillation cycle and the Hale sunspot cycle, respectively. [Emphasis added]. Moreover, these driving forces were modulated in amplitude by signals with millennial timescales.”James Matkin 
This research is very relevant and should make climate alarmists pause in their crusade against Co2 emissions from fossil fuels. Far too much focus on Co2 like a one trick pony in a big tent circus where solar radiation is a more compelling show. The thrust of recent research has demonstrated that climate changes continually and is determined by natural forces that humans have no significant control over. Many leading scientists have presented research of other "driving forces" and cautioned against the arrogance of many that "the science is settled." See Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology and blogger at Climate Etc. talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about climate change. Curry argues that climate change is a "wicked problem" with a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the expected damage as well as the political and technical challenges of dealing with the phenomenon. She emphasizes the complexity of the climate and how much of the basic science remains incomplete. The conversation closes with a discussion of how concerned citizens can improve their understanding of climate change and climate change policy.
http://www.econtalk.org/arc...https://www.nature.com/articles/...JAMES MATKIN•2017-08-23 10:03 PMThe great failure of the Paris accord is the failure to accept that the IPCC Al Gore hypothesis of anthropogenic warming is not settled science. Indeed, none of the predictions of doom have occurred. New research confirms the view of leading climate scientists and scholars that trace amounts of Co2 emissions are not destabilizing the planet. Co2 is essential plant food and therefore green energy. The “driving force” of climate change is natural and not Co2 plant food emissions. A new Chinese study confirms climate change comes from natural cycles. This research is based on the longest actual temperature data of more than 400 years from 1659 to 2013, including the period of anthropogenic warming. The authors Geli Wang & Peicai Yang and Xiuji Zhou are scientists at the CHINESE ACADEMY OF SCIENCE and Chinese Academy of Meteorological Sciences, Beijing, China 中国气象科学研究院 Their study confirms THE DRIVING FORCES OF GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE ARE NOT ANTHROPOGENIC (human activity). The driving forces are “the El Niño–Southern Oscillation cycle and the Hale sunspot cycle, respectively.” The title of the study published in the prestigious NATURE Journal is: Identification of the driving forces of climate change using the longest instrumental temperature record Identification of the driving forces of climate change using the longest instrumental temperature record This means that climate change cannot be stopped as Paris attendees believed. Co2 is very beneficial plant food and we need more not less. Why climate change is good for the world | The Spectator It is good news for civilization that the Paris targets are not being met around the world.https://www.nature.com/news/prov...Genghis Khan established what would later become the largest contiguous empire in history.IPCC FUDGED Data in 2001 to remove the MEDIEVAL WARM PERIOD to make today seem unprecedented.‘MEDIEVAL WARM PERIOD CHANGED WORLD ECONOMIC HISTORYGenghis Khan sweeps across the lands, conquering and subsuming all who stand in his way." the tree-rings showed that the years between 1211 and 1225—a period of time that coincided with the meteoric rise of Genghis Khan, who died in 1227—were marked by unusually heavy rainfall and mild temperatures.Eventually the Mongols would establish the largest land empire in history, ruling over modern Korea, China, Russia, eastern Europe, southeast Asia, Persia, India and parts of the Middle East.[1] W.”“Human CO2 at only 0.01% of atmosphere“The entire misnamed greenhouse gases (these are infared gases that have absolutely nothing to do with greenhouses) together make up less than 4% of the earth’s atmosphere. The major gases are Nitrogen at 76.56% and Oxygen at 20.54 %. How can such a puny amount < 4% control the climate warming? It cannot.This critical graph of all the gases in the atmosphere is always ignored by climate alarmists because they know it would sow doubt about their ridiculous view that the science is settled.Don J. Easterbrook, PhDProfessor Emeritus of GeologyWestern Washington University“What we have found1. We are not warming the planetFor several decades now, it has been widely believed that humans are causing unusual global warming by increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.Our research has convinced us that this man-made global warming theory is wrong. We will explain why we have come to this conclusion on this website.It is true that humans have been increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, because of our use of fossil fuels. Before the Industrial Revolution, carbon dioxide seems to have been about 0.03% of the atmosphere, while it is now about 0.04%.However, our research has shown that:It doesn’t matter whether we double, treble or even quadruple the carbon dioxide concentration. Carbon dioxide has no impact on atmospheric temperatures.We carried out new laboratory experiments, and analysed the data from millions of weather balloons, to calculate exactly how much global warming carbon dioxide was causing. When we did this, we discovered that the answer was zero.It turns out that some of the assumptions used in man-made global warming theory (and in the current climate models) had never actually been tested. When we tested them, we discovered that they were invalid.See the link below for a discussion of why:Summary: “The physics of the Earth’s atmosphere I-III”In addition, we have also shown that:The “unusual global warming” that has caused such concern is not unusual, after all.We found that the world naturally switches between periods of global warming and periods of global cooling, with each period lasting several decades.We also identified a number of serious mistakes in the studies which had claimed that there has been unusual global warming. These mistakes meant that the amount of warming in the last global warming period (1980s-2000s) was overestimated and the amount of cooling in the last global cooling period (1950s-1970s) was underestimated.When these mistakes are corrected, it turns out that it was just as warm in the 1930s-1940s as it is now.See the following links for our global temperature analysis:• Summary: “Urbanization bias I-III”• Summary: “Has poor station quality biased U.S. temperature trend estimates?”Summary: “Global temperature changes of the last millennium”Start Here - Global Warming SolvedDon J. Easterbrook, Emeritus Professor of Geology| WWU”Will HapperWill Happer is another, highly-respected physicist out of Princeton who compares the anti-CO2 crowd to the prohibitionists prior to the passage of the 18th Amendment. While he does acknowledge long-term warming, he thinks the influence of CO2 is vastly overstated, and that the benefits of a modest reduction in it will be negligible.In testimony to Congress, he used the following analogy what he means:The earth's climate really is strongly affected by the greenhouse effect, although the physics is not the same as that which makes real, glassed-in greenhouses work. Without greenhouse warming, the earth would be much too cold to sustain its current abundance of life. However, at least 90% of greenhouse warming is due to water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide is a bit player. There is little argument in the scientific community that a direct effect of doubling the CO2 concentration will be a small increase of the earth's temperature -- on the order of one degree. Additional increments of CO2 will cause relatively less direct warming because we already have so much CO2 in the atmosphere that it has blocked most of the infrared radiation that it can. It is like putting an additional ski hat on your head when you already have a nice warm one below it, but your are only wearing a windbreaker. To really get warmer, you need to add a warmer jacket. The IPCC thinks that this extra jacket is water vapor and clouds.DR. ANTHONY LUPO“Global Warming Is Natural, Not Man-Madeby Anthony Lupo(NAPSA)—One of the fundamental tenets of our justice sys- tem is one is innocent until proven guilty. While that doesn’t apply to scientific discovery, in the global warming debate the prevailing attitude is that human induced global warming is already a fact of life and it is up to doubters to prove otherwise.To complete the analogy, I’ll add that to date, there is no credible evidence to demonstrate that the climatological changes we’ve seen since the mid-1800’s are outside the bounds of natural variability inherent in the earth’s climate system.Thus, any impartial jury should not come back with a “guilty” verdict convicting humanity of forcing recent climatological changes.Even the most ardent supporters of global warming will not argue this point. Instead, they argue that humans are only partially responsible for the observed climate change. If one takes a hard look at the science involved, their assertions appear to be groundless.First, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant as many claim. Carbon dioxide is good for plant life and is a natural constituent of the atmosphere. During Earth’s long history there has been more and less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than we see today.Second, they claim that climate is stable and slow to change, and we are accelerating climate change beyond natural variability. That is also not true.Climate change is generally a regional phenomenon and not a global one. Regionally, climate has been shown to change rapidly in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Life on earth will adapt as it has always done. Life on earth has been shown to thrive when planetary temperatures are warmer as opposed to colder.Third, they point to recent model projections that have shown that the earth will warm as much as 11 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century.One should be careful when looking at model projections. After all, these models are crude representations of the real atmosphere and are lacking many fundamental processes and interactions that are inherent in the real atmosphere. The 11 degrees scenario that is thrown around the media as if it were the main stream prediction is an extreme scenario.Most models predict anywhere from a 2 to 6 degree increase over the next century, but even these are problematic given the myriad of problems associated with using models and interpreting their output.First, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant as many claim. Carbon dioxide is good for plant life and is a natural constituent of the atmosphere. During Earth’s long history there has been more and less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than we see today.Second, they claim that climate is stable and slow to change, and we are accelerating climate change beyond natural variability. That is also not true.Climate change is generally a regional phenomenon and not a global one. Regionally, climate has been shown to change rapidly in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Life on earth will adapt as it has always done. Life on earth has been shown to thrive when planetary temperatures are warmer as opposed to colder.Third, they point to recent model projections that have shown that the earth will warm as much as 11 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century.One should be careful when looking at model projections. After all, these models are crude representations of the real atmosphere and are lacking many fundamental processes and interactions that are inherent in the real atmosphere. The 11 degrees scenario that is thrown around the media as if it were the main stream prediction is an extreme scenario.Most models predict anywhere from a 2 to 6 degree increase over the next century, but even these are problematic given the myriad of problems associated with using models and interpreting their output.No one advocates destruction of the environment, and indeed we have an obligation to take care of our environment for future gen- erations. At the same time, we need to make sound decisions based on scientific facts.My research leads me to believe that we will not be able to state conclusively that global warming is or is not occurring for another 30 to 70 years. We simply don’t understand the climate system well enough nor have the data to demonstrate that humanity is having a substantial impact on climate change.Anthony R. Lupo is assistant professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri at Columbia and served as an expert reviewer for the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.http://www.napsnet.com/pdf_archi...”It is essential to understand the complexity of measuring human made Co2 emissions and to realize at a detail level the trace amounts are indistinguishable from natural sources of co2.Through the burning of fossil fuels, humans are also responsible for having boosted atmospheric CO2 emissions from some 300 ppm to 400 parts per million, which translates into a difference of 0.01% of the atmosphere. So whatdo the alarmists conclude from this:“0.01% of the world’s biomass and 0.o1% of the atmosphere are today almost solely responsible for climate change.” ???“Charles Tips QUORA writer and former Science Editor organized these facts.]“Fact 1: We are in an ice age, the Quaternary to name it, and have been for 2.58 million years. Given that the previous four ice ages lasted for right at 30 my, we likely have more than 27 my to go (the two ice ages that kicked things off were of snowball-Earth proportions and lasted much longer. Ice ages occur every 155 my, and we don’t know why. That’s a much longer cycle than Milankovitch cycles can account for. Those tell us things like why North Africa has been a desert for 5 ky when before that it was a populated savanna.“Fact 2: We are in an interglacial, the Holocene epoch to give it its name, a respite from glaciation. During an ice age, interglacials occur at 90 to 125 ky intervals and last approximately 7 to 14 ky. The Holocene is 11.7 ky old, but there is new evidence that the Allerød oscillation 13.9 ky ago was the actual start with a meteor strike 1 ky in producing the Younger Dryas cooling.* If we are actually, 13.9 ky into our interglacial, then natural cycles tell us we will be rapidly descending back into glaciation in 5… 4… 3…“The combination of glacials and interglacials looks like this:THE sun continues to be very quiet and it has been without sunspots this year 62% of the time as we approach what is likely to be one of the deepest solar minimums in a long, long time.Daily observations of the number of sunspots since 1 January 1977 according to Solar Influences Data Analysis CenterNew research shows fear of global warming is bad science.Marine species evolved, thrived, and diversified in 35 to 40°C ocean temperatures and CO2 concentrations “5-10x higher than present-day values” (Voosen, 2019 and Henkes et al., 2018).(Voosen, 2019 and Henkes et al., 2018).During the Little Ice Age, average global temperatures were 1-1.5 degree Celsius (2-3 degrees Fahrenheit) cooler than they are today. The cooler temperatures were caused by a combination of less solar activity and large volcanic eruptions. Cooling caused glaciers to advance and stunted tree growth.Jun 20, 2008“THE Insane Result Of The Mad Switch To Costly, Symbolic, Unreliable Energy – Wind and SolarPosted: October 11, 2017 | Author: Jamie Spry |PAYING YOU TO USE LESS OF THE GREEN POWER THEY FORCED YOU TO PAY FORPaying you $36 million to use less, not spending our money instead to provide more:“Few things are so deadly as a misguided sense of compassion.” – Charles ColsonWE really are living in the age of collective, global warming climate change insanity. We will look back on this era of “save the planet” virtue-signalling and wonder what the hell were we thinking…The federal government will pay households and businesses across three states to turn down their air conditioning, furnaces and cool rooms to stave off blackouts during peak demand.Under a $36 million program to be launched today by Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg, thousands of households in NSW, Victoria and South Australia will also be ­invited to voluntarily cut their ­energy use in return for incentives such as rebates on power bills.SO they’ve spent your money on subsidising green power, and having run short of electricity will now spend your money to use less of it. Meanwhile your power bills keep rising.AND remember: none of this will cut the world’s temperature. It’s all for nothing.DOESN’T this strike you as stark, staring, raving mad?Also the cost of subsidizing renewables in the vain hope of changing the climate like witches of old burned at the stake for failing is devastating both economically and socially. Research for example shows 50% increase in electricity costs in the UK from subsidies is causing heat poverty and loss of life greater than road accidents. Seniors must chose heat or eat?THE Insane Result Of The Mad Switch To Costly, Symbolic, Unreliable Energy – Wind and Solar”Fuel poverty kills more people than road accidentsAT least 2,700 people die every winter because they can’t afford their soaring heating bills.AT least 2,700 people die every winter because they can’t afford their soaring heating bills.More people lose their lives because they are too poor to heat their homes than are killed in road accidents, a Government-commissioned report has revealed.Professor John Hills of the London School of Economics, who led the study, said the figure was a “conservative estimate” and could be much higher.The damning report comes after £30billion profits made by the Big Six power companies over the last five years were exposed. But while the energy companies have been making a fortune, fuel poverty in the UK has soared.In 2004 1.2 million people were living in fuel poverty – defined as where more than 10% of a person’s income is spent on heating their home – but this year the figure has jumped to 4.1million.Between 2004 and 2009, the fuel poverty gap – the extra amount families in badly insulated and poorly heated homes would need to spend to keep warm – increased by 50% from £740million to £1.1billion.Professor Hills said: “The evidence shows how serious the problem of fuel poverty is, increasing health risks and hardship for millions, and hampering urgent action to reduce energy waste and carbon emissions.”Caroline Flint, Labour’s Shadow Energy and Climate Change Secretary, added: “This report lays bare the dire situation facing millions of people this winter, and the urgent need for action on spiralling energy bills.“But this Government is so out of touch and unable to stand up to vested interests in the energy industry that its only answer is to lecture people about shopping around for a better deal and cut help for pensioners.“Warm words will not do. The Tory-led Government needs to get a grip and demand energy companies use their profits to cut bills now.”Sally Copley, Save the Children’s head of UK poverty, urged the Government to deal with the crisis before it is too late.She said: “No parent wants their children doing their homework or going to bed in a freezing cold house, yet this is the reality for many families and it badly affects health and education.“Poorly insulated houses and outdated heating systems mean many families will never be able to afford to keep their homes warm.”And there was an icy blast from the economy last night as Vince Cable admitted that a double-dip recession could not be ruled out. Speaking exactly a year on from George Osborne’s spending review which laid out massive cuts, the Business Secretary said the “brutal reality” was that the economy is in worse shape now.Asked to rule out a slump, he told ITV News: “I can’t do that.”His comments came as a ComRes poll found 67% of people are pessimistic about the future of the economy and almost half (48%) felt their standard of living fell in the last year.Energy Secretary Chris Huhne also appeared to attack the Government when he praised a Labour motion which said: “With a cold winter forecast and Government support cut millions of families will struggle to heat their homes.” Mr Huhne said: “There is nothing we disagree with in the motion.”Britain has had enough of power companies raking in massive profits while the elderly and hard-up struggle to heat their homes.Back our campaign today and send a message to the government and fuel bosses that it is time for a fair price on fuel.1. Pledge to drop bills as soon as wholesale energy prices fall2. Cut gap between standard and other tariffs3. Use cold weather payment data to target rebates at vulnerable households4. Launch Competition Commission inquiry into market5. Limit number of tariffs firms can offer and simplify themhttp://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-...”It is therefore most foolish to hide behind the idea that the hoax causes no harm and reduces pollution. BUNK!

What really stands out to me is how many red State governors ignored and suppressed vital facts, actually punished State employees because they tried to inform the public, while refusing to enact face mask laws. The Governor of Florida lovingly promoted tired Donny’s deliberate attempt to just wish the pandemic away. Their actions should be criminal. State legislators should but won’t impeach these governor's for their grievous actions.Let’s face it, Donny did nothing. The COVID-19 virus has killed 330,000 plus Americans. He never thought that this was a national emergency. Yes, he invoked the war powers act but essentially did nothing with it. When Donny actually had the ability to take definitive action, create a truly viable federal response, he just passed. He knew the real danger but simply didn’t care. So the red States leaders gleefully followed his example.The following is just a sample of Donny’d denials, lies, guesses and prevarications about the pandemic.“All the President’s Lies About the CoronavirusAn unfinished compendium of Trump’s overwhelming dishonesty during a national emergencyCHRISTIAN PAZNOVEMBER 2, 2020THE ATLANTICEditor’s Note: The Atlantic is making vital coverage of the coronavirus available to all readers. Find the collection here.Updated at 2:20 p.m. ET on November 2, 2020.President Donald Trump has repeatedly lied about the coronavirus pandemic and the country’s preparation for this once-in-a-generation crisis.Here, a collection of the biggest lies he’s told as the nation endures a public-health and economic calamity. This post will be updated as needed.When: Friday, February 7, and Wednesday, February 19The claim: The coronavirus would weaken “when we get into April, in the warmer weather—that has a very negative effect on that, and that type of a virus.”The truth: When Trump made this claim, it was too early to tell whether the virus’s spread would be dampened by warmer conditions, though public-health experts and epidemiologists were immediately skeptical of Trump’s comment. But the spring and summer have passed, and the pandemic is still raging.When: Thursday, February 27The claim: The outbreak would be temporary: “It’s going to disappear. One day, it’s like a miracle—it will disappear.”The truth: Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, warned days later that he was concerned that “as the next week or two or three go by, we’re going to see a lot more community-related cases.” He was right—the virus has not disappeared.When: Multiple timesThe claim: If the economic shutdown continues, deaths by suicide “definitely would be in far greater numbers than the numbers that we’re talking about” for COVID-19 deaths.The truth: More than 200,000 Americans have died from COVID-19. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, suicide is one of the leading causes of death in the United States. But the number of people who died by suicide in 2017, for example, was roughly 47,000, nowhere near the COVID-19 numbers. Estimates of the mental-health toll of the Great Recession are mixed. A 2014 study tied more than 10,000 suicides in Europe and North America to the financial crisis. But a larger analysis in 2017 found that although the rate of suicide was increasing in the United States, the increase could not be directly tied to the recession and was attributable to broader socioeconomic conditions predating the downturn.When: Multiple timesThe claim: “Coronavirus numbers are looking MUCH better, going down almost everywhere,” and cases are “coming way down.”The truth: When Trump made these claims in May, coronavirus cases were either increasing or plateauing in the majority of American states. Over the summer, the country saw a second surge even greater than its first in the spring.Juliette Kayyem: The emotionally challenging next phase of the pandemicWhen: Wednesday, June 17The claim: The pandemic is “fading away. It’s going to fade away.”The truth: Trump made this claim ahead of his rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma, when the country was still seeing at least 20,000 new daily cases and a second spike in infections was beginning.When: Thursday, July 2The claim: The pandemic is “getting under control.”The truth: Trump’s claim came as the country’s daily cases doubled to about 50,000, a higher count than was seen at the beginning of the pandemic, and as the number continued to rise, fueled by infections in the South and the West.When: Saturday, July 4The claim: “99%” of COVID-19 cases are “totally harmless.”The truth: The virus can still cause tremendous suffering if it doesn’t kill a patient, and the WHO has said that about 15 percent of COVID-19 cases can be severe, with 5 percent being critical. Fauci has rejected Trump’s claim, saying the evidence shows that the virus “can make you seriously ill” even if it doesn’t kill you.When: Monday, July 6The claim: “We now have the lowest Fatality (Mortality) Rate in the World.”The truth: The U.S. had neither the lowest mortality rate nor the lowest case-fatality rate when Trump made this claim. As of July 13, the case-fatality rate—the ratio of deaths to confirmed COVID-19 cases—was 4.1 percent, which placed the U.S. solidly in the middle of global rankings. At the time, it had the world’s ninth-worst mortality rate, with 41.33 deaths per 100,000 people, according to Johns Hopkins University.When: Multiple timesThe claim: Mexico is partly to blame for COVID-19 surges in the Southwest.The truth: Even before Latin America’s COVID-19 cases began to rise, the U.S. and Mexico had jointly agreed in March to restrict nonessential land travel between the two countries, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection says illegal border crossings are down compared with last year. Health experts say blaming Mexican immigrants for surges is misguided, especially when most of the individuals crossing the border are U.S. citizens who live nearby.When: Multiple timesThe claim: Children are “virtually immune” to COVID-19.The truth: The science is not definitive, but that doesn’t mean children are immune. Studies in the U.S. and China have suggested that kids are less likely than adults to be infected, and more likely to have mild symptoms, but can still spread the virus to their family members and others. The CDC has said that about 7 percent of COVID-19 cases and less than 0.1 percent of COVID-19-related deaths have occurred in children.When: Thursday, August 27The claim: The U.S. has “among the lowest case-fatality rates of any major country anywhere in the world.”The truth: When Trump said this, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, and India all had lower case-fatality rates than the U.S., which sat in the middle of performance rankings among all nations and among the 20 countries hardest hit by the virus.When: Thursday, August 27The claim: Trump “launched the largest national mobilization since World War II” against COVID-19, and America “developed, from scratch, the largest and most advanced testing system in the world.”The truth: These claims are incorrect and misleading. The federal government’s coronavirus response has been roundly criticized as a failure because of flawed and delayed testing, entrenched inequality that has amplified the virus’s effects, and chaotic federal leadership that’s left much of the country’s response up to the states to handle. Trump vacillated on fully invoking the Defense Production Act in March, set off international panic when he mistakenly said he was banning all travel from European nations, and was slow to support social-distancing measures nationwide. Widespread use of the DPA was still rare in July, despite continued shortages of medical supplies.Another claim: Trump celebrated a gain of 9 million jobs as “a record in the history of our country” and said that the United States had experienced “the smallest economic contraction of any major Western nation.”The truth: The country did gain 9 million jobs from May to July—after losing more than 20 million from February to April, during the pandemic’s first surge. And more than a dozen developed countries have recorded smaller economic contractions than America’s recession.When: Multiple timesThe claim: America is “rounding the corner” and “rounding the final turn” of the pandemic.The truth: Trump made these claims before and after the country registered 200,000 coronavirus deaths. As the winter approaches, the number of coronavirus cases is increasing in almost every state; in the last week of October, cases rose faster than reported tests in 47 of the 50 states, according to the COVID Tracking Project.When: Multiple timesThe claim: The media is overblowing fears about the virus ahead of Election Day.The truth: There is no media conspiracy to hype up the virus threat. Cases and hospitalizations are rising across the country, and America set and broke multiple daily case records during the last week of October, nearing 100,000 cases in a single day on Friday.When: Multiple timesThe claim: "What happens is, you get better” after being sick with COVID-19. “That's what happens: You get better.”The truth: While most cases of COVID-19 are mild, that doesn’t negate the risk the virus poses. As of the beginning of November, it has killed more than 220,000 Americans.Another claim: “You get better and then you’re immune.”The truth: Although similar viruses provide some short-term immunity after recovery, doctors don’t yet know how long COVID-19 immunity lasts, especially given anecdotal reports of reinfection. Trump’s claim also ignores the long-term side effects of contracting COVID-19 that so-called long-haulers have reported.When: Multiple timesThe claim: A CDC study shows that “85 percent of the people wearing masks catch” the virus.The truth: The CDC study that the president cited in interviews does not suggest that people who wear masks get the virus at higher rates than those who don’t, CNN reported. The lie also distorts the purpose of mask-wearing, which is chiefly to protect other people from the virus, not to protect only the mask-wearer herself.Blaming the Obama AdministationWhen: Wednesday, March 4The claim: The Trump White House rolled back Food and Drug Administration regulations that limited the kind of laboratory tests states could run and how they could conduct them. “The Obama administration made a decision on testing that turned out to be very detrimental to what we’re doing,” Trump said.The truth: The Obama administration drafted, but never implemented, changes to rules that regulate laboratory tests run by states. Trump’s policy change relaxed an FDA requirement that would have forced private labs to wait for FDA authorization to conduct their own, non-CDC-approved coronavirus tests.When: Friday, March 13The claim: The Obama White House’s response to the H1N1 pandemic was “a full scale disaster, with thousands dying, and nothing meaningful done to fix the testing problem, until now.”The truth: Barack Obama declared a public-health emergency two weeks after the first U.S. cases of H1N1 were reported, in California. (Trump declared a national emergency more than seven weeks after the first domestic COVID-19 case was reported, in Washington State.) While testing is a problem now, it wasn’t back in 2009. The challenge then was vaccine development: Production was delayed and the vaccine wasn’t distributed until the outbreak was already waning.When: Multiple timesThe claim: The Trump White House “inherited” a “broken,” “bad,” and “obsolete” test for the coronavirus.The truth: The novel coronavirus did not exist in humans during the Obama administration. Public-health experts agree that, because of that fact, the CDC could not have produced a test, and thus a new test had to be developed this year.The claim: The Obama administration left Trump “bare” and “empty” shelves of medical supplies in the national strategic stockpile.The truth: The 2009 H1N1 outbreak did deplete the N95 mask supply and was never replenished, but the Obama administration did not leave the stockpile empty of other materials. While the stockpile has never been funded at the levels some experts have requested, its former director said in 2019, before the coronavirus pandemic, that it was well-equipped. (The outbreak has since eaten away at its reserves.)When: Sunday, May 10The claim: Referring to criticism of his administration’s response, Trump tweeted: “Compare that to the Obama/Sleepy Joe disaster known as H1N1 Swine Flu. Poor marks ... didn’t have a clue!”The truth: It is misleading to compare COVID-19 to H1N1 and to call the Obama administration’s response a disaster, as my colleague Peter Nicholas has reported. In 2009, the CDC quickly flagged the new flu strain in California and began releasing antiflu drugs from the national stockpile two weeks later. A vaccine was available in six months.Another claim: Trump later attacked “Joe Biden’s handling of the H1N1 Swine Flu.”The truth: Biden was not responsible for the federal government’s response to the H1N1 outbreak, as Nicholas has also explained.On Coronavirus TestingWhen: Friday, March 6, and Monday, May 11The claim: “Anybody that needs a test, gets a test. We—they’re there. They have the tests. And the tests are beautiful” and “If somebody wants to be tested right now, they’ll be able to be tested.”The truth: Trump made these two claims two months apart, but the truth was the same both times: The U.S. did not have enough testing.When: Wednesday, March 11The claim: In an Oval Office address, Trump said that private-health-insurance companies had “agreed to waive all co-payments for coronavirus treatments, extend insurance coverage to these treatments, and to prevent surprise medical billing.”The truth: Insurers agreed only to absorb the cost of coronavirus testing—waiving co-pays and deductibles for getting the test. The Families First Coronavirus Response Act, the second coronavirus-relief bill passed by Congress, later mandated that COVID-19 testing be made free. The federal government has not required insurance companies to cover follow-up treatments, though some providers announced in late March that they will pay for treatments. The costs of other non-coronavirus testing or treatment incurred by patients who have COVID-19 or are trying to get a diagnosis aren’t waived either. And as for surprise medical billing? Mitigating it would require the cooperation of insurers, doctors, and hospitals.Read: The dangerous delays in U.S. coronavirus testing haven’t stoppedWhen: Friday, March 13The claim: Google engineers are building a website to help Americans determine whether they need testing for the coronavirus and to direct them to their nearest testing site.The truth: The announcement was news to Google itself—the website Trump (and other administration officials) described was actually being built by Verily, a division of Alphabet, the parent company of Google. The Verge first reported on Trump’s error, citing a Google representative who confirmed that Verily was working on a “triage website” with limited coverage for the San Francisco Bay Area. But since then, Google has pivoted to fulfill Trump’s public proclamation, saying it would speed up the development of a new, separate website while Verily worked on finishing its project, The Washington Post reported.When: Tuesday, March 24, and Wednesday, March 25The claim: The United States has outpaced South Korea’s COVID-19 testing: “We’re going up proportionally very rapidly,” Trump said during a Fox News town hall.The truth: When the president made this claim, testing in the U.S. was severely lagging behind that in South Korea. As of March 25, South Korea had conducted about five times as many tests as a proportion of its population relative to the United States. For updated data from each country, see the COVID-19 Tracking Project and the database maintained by the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.When: Monday, May 11The claim: America has “developed a testing capacity unmatched and unrivaled anywhere in the world, and it’s not even close.”The truth: At the time, the United States was still not testing enough people and was lagging behind the testing and tracing capabilities that other countries had developed. The president’s testing czar, Brett Giroir, and Fauci confirmed the need for more testing at a May 12 Senate hearing.Another claim: The United States has conducted more testing “than all other countries together!”The truth: By May 18, when Trump last made this claim, the U.S. had conducted more tests than any other country. But it had not conducted more tests than the rest of the world combined. (As of May 27, more than 14 million tests have been administered in America.)When: Multiple timesThe claim: “Cases are going up in the U.S. because we are testing far more than any other country.”The truth: COVID-19 cases were not rising because of “our big-number testing.” Outside the Northeast, the share of tests conducted that came back positive was increasing in the summer, with the sharpest spike happening in southern states. In some states, such as Arizona and Florida, the number of new cases being reported was outpacing any increase in the states’ testing ability. And as states set new daily case records and reported increasing hospitalizations, all signs pointed to a worsening crisis.When: Multiple timesThe claim: “The Cases are up because TESTING is way up”The truth: The president made this claim multiple times during the summer surge of the pandemic, and is repeating that lie now as the country experiences a third surge. In reality, positive cases are outpacing tests around the country, the COVID Tracking Project reports, following a similar trajectory as the summer surge.On Travel Bans and TravelersWhen: Wednesday, March 11The claim: The United States would suspend “all travel from Europe, except the United Kingdom, for the next 30 days,” Trump announced in an Oval Office address.The truth: The travel restriction would not apply to U.S. citizens, legal permanent residents, or their families returning from Europe. At first, it applied specifically to the 26 European countries that make up the Schengen Area, not all of Europe. Trump later announced the inclusion of the United Kingdom and Ireland in the ban.Another claim: In the same address, Trump said the travel restrictions would “not only apply to the tremendous amount of trade and cargo but various other things as we get approval.”The truth: Trump followed up in a tweet, explaining that trade and cargo would not be subject to the restrictions.When: Thursday, March 12The claim: All U.S. citizens arriving from Europe would be subject to medical screening, COVID-19 testing, and quarantine if necessary. “If an American is coming back, or anybody is coming back, we’re testing,” Trump said. “We have a tremendous testing setup where people coming in have to be tested … We’re not putting them on planes if it shows positive, but if they do come here, we’re quarantining.”The truth: Testing was already severely limited in the United States when Trump claimed this in the spring. It was not true that all Americans returning to the country were being tested, nor that anyone was being forced to quarantine, CNN reported.Read: Trump’s European travel ban doesn’t make senseWhen: Tuesday, March 31The claim: “We stopped all of Europe” with a travel ban. “We started with certain parts of Italy, and then all of Italy. Then we saw Spain. Then I said, ‘Stop Europe; let’s stop Europe. We have to stop them from coming here.’”The truth: The travel ban applied to the Schengen Area, as well as the United Kingdom and Ireland, and not all of Europe as he claimed. Additionally, Trump is wrong about the United States rolling out a piecemeal ban. The State Department did issue advisories in late February cautioning Americans against travel to the Lombardy region of Italy before issuing a general “Do Not Travel” warning on March 19. But the U.S. never placed individual bans on Italy and Spain.When: Multiple timesThe claim: “Everybody thought I was wrong” about implementing restrictions on travelers from China, and “most people felt they should not close it down—that we shouldn’t close down to China.”The truth: While the WHO did say it opposed travel bans on China generally, Trump’s own top health officials have made clear that the travel ban was the “uniform” recommendation of the Department of Health and Human Services. Fauci and Deborah Birx, the coordinator of the coronavirus task force, both praised the decision too.When: Multiple timesThe claim: The Trump administration’s travel restrictions on China were a “ban” that closed up the “entire” United States and “kept China out.”The truth: Nearly 40,000 people traveled from China to the United States from February 2, when Trump’s travel restrictions went into effect, to April 4, The New York Times reported. Those rules also do not apply to all people: American citizens, green-card holders and their relatives, and people on flights coming from Macau and Hong Kong are not included in the “ban.”On Taking the Pandemic SeriouslyWhen: Tuesday, March 17The claim: “I’ve always known this is a real—this is a pandemic. I felt it was a pandemic long before it was called a pandemic … I’ve always viewed it as very serious.”The truth: Trump has repeatedly downplayed the significance of COVID-19 as outbreaks began stateside. From calling criticism of his handling of the virus a “hoax,” to comparing the coronavirus to a common flu, to worrying about letting sick Americans off cruise ships because they would increase the number of confirmed cases, Trump has used his public statements to send mixed messages and sow doubt about the outbreak’s seriousness.When: Thursday, March 26The claim: This kind of pandemic “was something nobody thought could happen … Nobody would have ever thought a thing like this could have happened.”The truth: Experts both inside and outside the federal government sounded the alarm many times in the past decade about the potential for a devastating global pandemic, as my colleague Uri Friedman has reported. Two years ago, my colleague Ed Yong explored the legacy of Ebola outbreaks—including the devastating 2014 epidemic—to evaluate how ready the U.S. was for a pandemic. Ebola hardly impacted America—but it revealed how unprepared the country was.On COVID-19 Treatments and VaccinesWhen: Monday, March 2The claim: Pharmaceutical companies are going “to have vaccines, I think, relatively soon.”The truth: The president’s own experts told him during a White House meeting with pharmaceutical leaders earlier the same day that a vaccine could take a year to 18 months to develop. In response, he said he would prefer that it take only a few months. He later claimed, at a campaign rally in Charlotte, North Carolina, that a vaccine would be ready “soon.” Many months later, this is still not true.When: Thursday, March 19The claim: At a press briefing with his coronavirus task force, Trump said the FDA had approved the antimalarial drug chloroquine to treat COVID-19. “Normally the FDA would take a long time to approve something like that, and it’s—it was approved very, very quickly and it’s now approved by prescription,” he said.The truth: FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, who was at the briefing, quickly clarified that the drug still had to be tested in a clinical setting. An FDA representative later told Bloomberg that the drug has not been approved for COVID-19 use, though a doctor could still prescribe it for that purpose. Later that same day, Fauci told CNN that there is no “magic drug” to cure COVID-19: “Today, there are no proven safe and effective therapies for the coronavirus.”When: Friday, April 24The claim: Trump was being “sarcastic” when he suggested in a briefing on April 23 that his medical experts should research the use of powerful light and injected disinfectants to treat COVID-19.The truth: Trump’s tone did not seem sarcastic when he made the apparent suggestion to inject disinfectants. Turning to Birx and a Department of Homeland Security science-and-technology official, he mused: “I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning? … It would be interesting to check that.” When he walked this statement back the next day, he added that he was only asking his experts “to look into whether or not sun and disinfectant on the hands [work].”When: Friday, May 8The claim: The coronavirus is “going to go away without a vaccine … and we’re not going to see it again, hopefully, after a period of time.”The truth: Fauci has repeatedly said that the coronavirus’s sudden disappearance “is just not going to happen.” Until the country has “a scientifically sound, safe, and effective vaccine,” Fauci said in May, the pandemic will not be over.Read: Why does the president keep pushing a malaria drug?When: Multiple timesThe claim: Taking hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19 is safe and effective. “I happen to be a believer in hydroxy. I used it. I had no problem. I happen to be a believer,” Trump said on one occasion. “It doesn’t hurt people,” he commented on another.The truth: Trump’s own FDA has warned against taking the antimalarial drug with or without the antibiotic azithromycin, which Trump has also promoted. Several large observational studies in New York, France, and China have concluded that the drug has no benefit for COVID-19 patients, and Fauci and Trump’s testing czar, Brett Giroir, have also cautioned against it as the president has repeated this claim in recent months.Another claim: “One bad” study from the Department of Veterans Affairs that found no benefit among veterans who took hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19 was run by “people that aren’t big Trump fans.” The study “was a Trump-enemy statement.”The truth: There’s no evidence that the study was a political plot orchestrated by Trump opponents, and it reached similar conclusions as other observational reports. The VA study was led by independent researchers from the University of Virginia and the University of South Carolina with a grant from the National Institutes of Health.Another claim: Many frontline doctors and workers are taking hydroxychloroquine to prevent COVID-19.The truth: Multiple trials are under way to determine if health-care workers should take the drug as a preventative. But there are no conclusive numbers for how many workers are taking the drug outside of those studies.When: Thursday, August 6The claim: A coronavirus vaccine could be ready by Election Day.The truth: The timeline Trump proposes contradicts health experts’ consensus that early 2021 is likely the soonest a vaccine could be widely available.When: Tuesday, September 29The claim: “We’re weeks away from a vaccine,” Trump said at the first debate.The truth: Redfield has said a COVID-19 vaccine may not be widely available to the American public until the summer of next year. Two of the three drug companies working on a vaccine have said they hope to have only initial clinical-trial results by the end of this year.When: Multiple timesThe claim: A CDC study shows that “85 percent of the people wearing masks catch” the virus.The truth: The CDC study that the president cited in interviews does not suggest that people who wear masks get the virus at higher rates than those who don’t, CNN reported. The lie also distorts the purpose of mask-wearing, which is chiefly to protect other people from the virus, not to protect only the mask-wearer herself.On the Defense Production ActWhen: Friday, March 20The claim: Trump twice said during a task-force briefing that he had invoked the Defense Production Act, a Korean War–era law that enables the federal government to order private industry to produce certain items and materials for national use. He also said the federal government was already using its authority under the law: “We have a lot of people working very hard to do ventilators and various other things.”The truth: Federal Emergency Management Agency Administrator Peter Gaynor told CNN on March 22 that the president has not actually used the DPA to order private companies to produce anything. Shortly after that, Trump backtracked, saying that he had not compelled private companies to take action. Then, on March 24, Gaynor told CNN that FEMA plans to use the DPA to allocate 60,000 test kits. Trump tweeted afterward that the DPA would not be used.Jane Chong: How to actually use the Defense Production ActWhen: Saturday, March 21The claim: Automobile companies that have volunteered to manufacture medical equipment, such as ventilators, are “making them right now.”The truth: Ford and General Motors, which Trump mentioned at a task-force briefing the same day, announced earlier in March that they had halted all factory production in North America and were likely months away from beginning production of ventilators, representatives told the Associated Press. Since then, Ford CEO James Hackett told CNN that the auto company will begin to work with 3M to produce respirators and with General Electric to assemble ventilators. GM said it will explore the possibility of producing ventilators in an Indiana factory. Tesla CEO Elon Musk, whose company Trump highlighted in a tweet, has said that the company is “working on ventilators” but that they cannot be produced “instantly.”On States’ ResourcesWhen: Tuesday, March 24The claim: Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York passed on an opportunity to purchase 16,000 ventilators at a low cost in 2015, Trump said during the Fox News town hall.The truth: Trump seems to have gleaned this claim from a Gateway Pundit article. That piece, in turn, cites a syndicated column from Betsy McCaughey, a former lieutenant governor of New York, which includes a figure close to 16,000. The number comes from a 2015 report from the state’s health department that provided guidance for how New York could handle a possible flu pandemic. The report notes that the state would need 15,783 more ventilators than it had at the time to aid patients during “an influenza pandemic on the scale of the 1918 pandemic.” The report does not include a recommendation to Cuomo for additional purchases or stockpiling. Trump “obviously didn’t read the document he’s citing,” a Cuomo representative said in a statement.Another claim: Trump also repeated a claim from the Gateway Pundit article that Cuomo’s office established “death panels” and “lotteries” as part of the state’s pandemic response.The truth: The 2015 report and the accompanying press release announced updated guidelines for hospitals to follow to allocate ventilators. The guidelines “call for a triage officer or triage committee to determine who receives or continues to receive ventilator therapy” and describes how a random lottery allocation might work. (Neither should be the first options for deciding care, the report notes.) Cuomo never established a lottery.When: Sunday, March 29The claim: Trump “didn’t say” that governors do not need all the medical equipment they are requesting from the federal government. And he “didn’t say” that governors should be more appreciative of the help.The truth: The president told Fox News’ Sean Hannity on Thursday, March 26, that “a lot of equipment’s being asked for that I don’t think they’ll need,” referring to requests from the governors of Michigan, New York, and Washington. He also said, during a Friday, March 27, task-force briefing, that he wanted state leaders “to be appreciative … We’ve done a great job.” He added that he wasn’t talking about himself, but about others within the federal government working to combat the pandemic.When: Sunday, March 29, and Monday, March 30The claim: Hospitals are reporting an artificially inflated need for masks and equipment, items that might be “going out the back door,” Trump said on two separate days. He also said he was not talking about hoarding: “I think maybe it’s worse than hoarding.”The truth: There is no evidence to show that hospitals are maliciously hoarding or inflating their need for masks and personal protective equipment when reporting shortages in supplies. Although Cuomo reported anecdotal stories of thefts from hospitals early in March, he was referring to opportunists trying to price-gouge early in the pandemic. Reuters has reported a handful of stories of nurses hiding masks to conserve supplies amid shortages, but not wide-scale thefts as Trump claimed.On ChinaWhen: Tuesday, April 14The claim: Asked about his past praise of China and its transparency, Trump said that he hadn’t “talk[ed] about China’s transparency.”The truth: Trump lauded the country in tweets he sent in late January and early February. In one, he highlighted the Chinese government’s “transparency” about the coronavirus outbreak.Read: How China is planning to win back the worldWhen: Friday, May 29The claim: The WHO ignored “credible reports” of the coronavirus’s spread in Wuhan, the Chinese city that first reported the new virus, including those published in The Lancet medical journal in December.The truth: The Lancet said it did not publish such reports in December. Its first reports on the virus’s spread in Wuhan were published on January 24.Another claim: Taiwanese officials had warned the WHO about human-to-human transmission of a new virus by December 31.The truth: Taiwan did not cite “human to human” transmission in the communications Trump referenced, but it did ask for more information and compared the virus to SARS.Another claim: In mid-January, the WHO said the coronavirus could not be transmitted between humans.The truth: The WHO did say on January 12 that early investigations by China could find “no clear evidence” of human-to-human transmission in Wuhan, but it did not rule such transmission out. Two days later, a WHO official said during a press conference that “it is possible that there is limited human-to-human transmission” among families, and warned hospitals around the world to prepare for a greater outbreak.”So, the Governor’s hear Trump’s fairy tales and say to themselves, “hell, there’s nothing to worry about” or something very similar. The dereliction of duty by our president almost outweighs the grievous actions of the red State governors. The COVID-19 deaths and infections could have been reduced significantly if Donny would have jumped out of his reality television host persona and actually acted presidential. But not our Donny, no, no, being an actual leader is way out of his comfort zone.