LinkedIn Bans Principia Scientific International Without Warning
Popular social media business platform LinkedIn bans without warning registered UK science body, Principia Scientific International (PSI) as it ramps up censorship of users dissenting against scientifically-unproven pandemic ‘lockdown’ measures.
As a fully incorporated and regulated non-profit based in London, England PSI is a 6,500+ member organisation which has been dutifully reporting on the scientific evidence, including that which is contrary to the official pandemic narrative.
After fairly reporting the news yesterday that no fewer than 7,000 medics worldwide, signed the Great Barrington Declaration urging a new, softer strategy by governments to combat the pandemic, LinkedIn swiftly removed our account (screenshot below).
This apparent act of bias and contempt for free speech on a matter of the most urgent public policy concern exposes not only LinkedIn but other social media giants who are systematically conspiring (and profiting) against lawful use of social media when it conflicts with the agenda of the richest one percent of society.
As a London-based organisation our offices are not far from Parliament where Prime Minister Boris Johnson was quick to denounce the Great Barrington Declaration. So we know whose side the corrupt crony capitalist politicians are on.
As we have previously highlighted, in the UK there have already been up to 10,000 excess deaths as a result of seriously ill people avoiding hospitals due to COVID-19 or not having their hospital treatments cancelled.
Professor Richard Sullivan also warned that there will be more excess cancer deaths in the UK than total coronavirus deaths due to people’s access to screenings and treatment being restricted as a result of the lockdown.
Billionaires and Political Classes Love Lockdown
As we reported earlier this week, the lockdown policies enacted globally have cast extremes among the winners and losers. Among the losers are our civil rights, small business, jobs, normal social and family interactions and our general health and well being.
Among the winners are the billionaire class (including the owners of the social media giants) who have seen their wealth skyrocket 27 percent since the start of the lockdown measures in March 2020.
The Declaration is fast gaining support because it applies common sense, including traditional medical protocols that have worked during similar such pandemics. As the Declaration’s medical experts agree ” social distancing and mask mandates are causing ‘damaging physical and mental health impacts.’”
What is clear is that the corrupt politicians are focused only on their fraudulent PCR testing scam and ignoring any and all non-Covid related deaths, suffering and related social and economic consequences. We have now reached a crisis point where our political masters are committing crimes against humanity and should face the consequences.
We appeal to all our readers who are also users of LinkedIn to contact LinkedIn and please register your complaint on our behalf and all others who have been unfairly silenced simply for seeking the truth about COVID19.
To contact LinkedIn please do the following:
Note: You must be signed in to your LinkedIn account in order to contact them.
Ask ‘Please remove immediately the Account Restriction on John O’Sullivan and Principia Scientific International.’
To submit a support case:
-
- Click Contact us at the bottom of the page.
- Select Get help from us from the available options. You can also click:
- Find an answer in Help Forum – to take advantage of community knowledge
-
- Find out how to do something – to get the answer you need, right now
- Suggest an improvement – to tell us how we can make your experience better
About the author: John O’Sullivan John is CEO and co-founder (with Dr Tim Ball) of Principia Scientific International (PSI). John is a seasoned science writer and legal analyst who assisted Dr Ball in defeating world leading climate expert, Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann in the ‘science trial of the century‘. O’Sullivan is credited as the visionary who formed the original ‘Slayers’ group of scientists in 2010 who then collaborated in creating the world’s first full-volume debunk of the greenhouse gas theory plus their new follow-up book.
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Einstein
| #
Hi John,
LinkedIn will be contacted by me of course.
However,
Aren’t they entitled to do what they do as a non governmental company.
For all I care, they can sit and snuggle up in their little boat nice and cosy all ventilating similar views and opinions to each other for as long as they like.
If they do not want to expose themselves to alternative and interesting views uttered by a large community of interesting, well educated and developed individuals who like to investigate and check opinions and findings based on scientific evidence or at least some logical argued explanations ….. then that’s up to them.
So we’re not welcome on their precious little site…
Dust on my shoes it is.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
I saw this coming after your last post about linkedin going after climate scam deniers.
Sorry posting my article forced this upon you.
☹☹☹
The climate scam is all about geothermal denial. There is no greenhouse effect. There is no atmosphere pressure warming effect.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Zoe,
I have been pondering what you do here at PSI. Repeated Argument over and over. I agree that we should not ignore the geothermal energy contributions to the earth’s meteorology of today and to the climate changes that have been observed in the past. But these contributions cannot be quantified just as tomorrow’s solar radiation (realtime) incident at this or that location cannot be predicted. Why? Chaotic clouds is the major factor but not the only unpredictable factor. And as soon as you write an equation you are pretending to be able to quantify that which cannot be quantified.
So if were John O’ I might choose to censor your impossible reasoning after having given you a chance to express your ideas on PSI as he has done.
I had stooped submitting my essays to John because there seemed to be nothing new that I could submit. But because I have ‘Followed’ the Mosaic Expedition (which is coming to an end) I have learned about what some scientists are doing and not doing. So I plan to begin composing essays again, with the help of MattH to reduce the number of my too common errors, For I reason that some PSI readers, like myself before, may not familiar with the Arctic region and its study.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Jerry,
The mainstream approach is:
Solar Energy Out = Solar Energy In
What’s the temperature of the sun’s target?
Before me, I didn’t notice anyone asking this insanely simple question.
Imagine you take an object (A) and place it in front of another object (B). Object A emits only shortwave. Object A emits ~300 W/m^2 to object B.
What will be the temperature of object B? (The side directly facing object A).
Remember, you’re not allowed to ask what temperature B is at originally!
As for sun and clouds … it’s not enough. I address that here:
http://phzoe.com/2020/03/11/40-years-of-climate-change/
Sorry if you find the truth annoying. I assure you I find it more annoying than you. It shouldn’t be up to me to promote it. Any real men wanna take over? Please do it.
As for the stale “small geothermal heat flux” argument:
https://i.ibb.co/YhNq3Jq/postmafallacy.png
The heat flux is not the available energy at the surface, it’s a DIFFERENTIAL. And there are many profiles with the same heat flux:
https://phzoe.files.wordpress.com/2020/04/geohf.gif
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Zoe,
You still don’t understand thermodynamics. When the suns rays heat the surface of the Earth it gets hotter. That heat is then transmitted by convection to the cooler soil underneath, increasing it temperature. It does not just remain on the surface being radiated into space or be transferred to the few air molecules in contact with the surface by convection. Those are both slow ways to transfer energy while the transfer of energy to the subsoil is faster. The sun is not just heating the surface of the Earth it is heating it to a depth where the added solar energy is equal to the geothermal energy coming from the interior. Before the surface of the Earth can lose geothermal energy by radiation or convection to the atmosphere the solar energy stored in the subsoil must be lost first.
Herb
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Thank you for supporting my hypothesis, Herb.
Yup, the sun spends 12 hours heating below the surface, and the next 12 hours that solar energy is drained out.
“it is heating it to a depth where the added solar energy is equal to the geothermal energy coming from the interior.”
So it very much matters what that geothermal energy is. Doesn’t it?
Whether geothermal provides 36K or 277K makes a HUGE difference.
The reason the moon is ~200K and not ~270K as predicted by SB equation, is precisely because solar radiation energy is used up conducting to the subsurface. And again it matter what geothermal delivers. In the moon’s case it’s around ~100K.
Herb Rose
| #
Zoe,
It would be true that the solar heat would be lost in twelve hours if the rate of lose to the atmosphere by radiation and convection to 1/1000 the molecules in the atmosphere was the same as the transfer of heat be convection to the more numerous molecules in contact with the molecule absorbing the heat in the Earth. Think of how fast heat would be transferred into water from the surface layer to the water below as compared to being transferred into the air above the water. It takes longer transfer energy into the atmosphere and therefore the energy absorbed in twelve hours is greater than the energy lost in twelve hours and solar energy is stored in the Earth.
On the moon there is no atmosphere so energy is only lost by radiation and not stored in the atmosphere.
Herb
Zoe Phin
| #
Herb,
Why are you trying to confuse things?
Only ~168 Wm2 of solar reaches the surface. 0 Wm2 reaches 10 meters below the surface.
What solar is stored at 10 meters below? Nothing.
“the energy absorbed in twelve hours is greater than the energy lost in twelve hours and solar energy is stored in the Earth.”
Provide evidence for this lack of symmetry.
This is nonsense. The Sun does NOT heat Earth over time, only in real-time.
geran
| #
“Only ~168 Wm2 of solar reaches the surface.”
That’s the average, which is meaningless in radiative physics. The REAL value (672 W/m^2) has an equilibrium BB temperature of 57 ºC, 134 ºF.
No geothermal needed.
Herb Rose
| #
Zoe,
If you dive into a lake of water you will see that the sun heats the water deeper than the surface and that water retains some of that warmth over night. If you go diving you will find that light from the sun penetrates the water with the shorter more energetic waves penetrating deeper before being absorbed. If you go to the arctic and dig you will find the top layer of soil is heated by the sun and the heat penetrates down to the permafrost where the ice never melts.
The light from the sun may be absorbed by matter but that matter converts the light into energy which is then transferred to other matter causing the flow of energy not to cease when one particular wavelength stops.
Herb. .
Zoe Phin
| #
Herb,
“retains some of that warmth over night.”
That overnight warmth is not from the sun.
“down to the permafrost where the ice never melts.”
That’s also not from the sun.
“light from the sun penetrates the water with the shorter more energetic waves penetrating deeper before being absorbed”
10 meters is for land. ~120 meters is for ocean. Still, 120m below you get 0 W/m^2.
Geran,
“That’s the average, which is meaningless in radiative physics. The REAL value”
The sun delivers a 12hr day-time average of 336 W/m^2 to the surface, and a 12hr night-time average of 0 W/m^2 to the surface. Over 24hrs, this yields 168 W/m^2.
12hr heating, followed by 12 hour cooling. There is nothing stored from the sun. And the temp would go down to 3K just before sunrise, if not for geothermal.
Zoe Phin
| #
Correction:
I meant water having warmth over 3K just before sunrise, is not due to the sun, but geothermal.
Obviously water retains warmth for the night, though it’s dwindling down to nothing.
geran
| #
Again Zoe, averaging flux is an indicator you don’t understand radiative physics. Climate “science” does that. The infamous DC does that. Don’t do that.
Learn some physics.
And your naive belief that “the temp would go down to 3K just before sunrise, if not for geothermal” is just that, a naive belief.
Herb Rose
| #
Zoe,
Geothermal heat is generated by reactions in the Earth and flows to the surface the Earth. Solar heat comes from the sun and flows to the Earth.
Do you maintain that geothermal heat flowing from the Earth’s interior decreases with distance then skips over cold deeper layers of earth or water then heats surface matter to a higher temperature than the lower layers? Utterly ridiculous. It is solar energy heating the surface and that solar energy is not completely dissipated at night. When a tree or other organic matter decomposes releasing its stored energy do you consider that geothermal energy too?
Herb
Herb Rose
| #
Zoe,
The surface temperature of water changes seasonally as the amount of energy from the sun changes. Why would the tilt of a sphere’s axis cause changes in how energy is radiated from its center?
Herb
Zoe Phin
| #
“skips over cold deeper layers of earth or water then heats surface matter to a higher temperature than the lower layers? Utterly ridiculous.”
That is indeed the most ridiculous strawman I’ve heard.
“and that solar energy is not completely dissipated at night.”
Then it would get hotter every day.
“When a tree or other organic matter decomposes releasing its stored energy do you consider that geothermal energy too?”
Aside from a material difference in heat capacity, there is nothing more remarkable about wood’s ability to hold heat versus dirt’s. Dead or alive doesn’t matter much to thermodynamics.
Without geothermal, the tree would not exist. The sun would provide a small sliver of surface a temperature of -42C.
Read my article “Deducing Geothermal” again.
The sun does NOT heat and cause storing of anything. It heat in REAL time, not over time.
Meanwhike, geothermal is on all the time.
geran
| #
Zoe, you may be so obsessed with geothermal that you are unable to think rationally. But if you can still reason, consider this:
The 168 W/m^2 is linked to your obsession. You believe that is a meaningful value for solar. Fine, then let’s use that invalid value.
Now geothermal at the surface is 0.09 W/m^2. So even using your reduced solar value, Sun is over 1800 times “hotter” than geothermal. That’s the sort of facts you have to ignore to stay with your obsession.
Zoe Phin
| #
Geran,
How many times will you fail to understand reality?
ALL of these profiles have the same heat flux:
https://phzoe.files.wordpress.com/2020/04/geohf.gif
Look again at your mistake:
https://i.ibb.co/YhNq3Jq/postmafallacy.png
geran
| #
I realize that you can prepare graphs and diagrams that match your obsession. That’s done all the time in pseudoscience. I also realize that you can ignore facts counter to your obsession. Again, that’s quite common in pseudoscience.
You may have to just outgrow your obsession. Sometimes time is the only solution.
Herb Rose
| #
Zoe,
A decomposing tree releases energy as oxidation reverses the process of photosynthesis and converts hydrocarbon molecules into CO2 and H2O. It releases the same heat as when the wood is burned and is energy that came from the sun.
Heat deceases with increasing distance from its source. Since the diameter of the Earth at the poles is smaller than its diameter at the equator, according to you the surface temperature at night resulting from geothermal energy is greatest at the poles.
You still ignore the permafrost as it doesn’t fit your narrative.
Herb
Zoe Phin
| #
Herb,
Trees and Photosynthesis is not the surface, is it?
You can also find plenty of life under the antarctic ice. Did the sun do that?
As, I’ve already explained, when you have hot magma rotating in solid crust, there will be more crust eaten away at the equator – the plane of rotation.
The geotherm is more oblate than the surface, meaning there is shorter distance to the same temperature at the equator than the poles.
Since Venus rotates slowly, the poles are essentially as hot as the equator.
Rotation speed determines change of geothermal vs. latitude.
Herb Rose
| #
Zoe,
Your contention that the rotating magma at the equator eats away at the crust making it thinner is more of your made up nonsense unsupported by data.
The crust is thickest under the continents and mountains and thinnest under the ocean. It is a result of the magma cooling which does not involve a slowing of velocity but the radiating of energy.
Zoe Phin
| #
“The crust is thickest under the continents and mountains and thinnest under the ocean.”
True, but this has nothing to do with latitude thickness distribution which is also true at the same time.
“unsupported by data.”
Except by ALL the borehole, mines, etc data.
You need to go down deeper to reach the same temperature in the poles compared to equator. And no, the sun does not reach down there.
Maybe you are secretly Doug Cotton? You know … solar to the core!!!
This isn’t rocket science. Fill a hollow tennis ball with acid diluted in water. Gyrate the ball so the water spins inside about a fixed plane. Pour the acid out, measure the thickness of the walls. The poles will be thickest, and the equator thinest. You get it?
Herb Rose
| #
Zoe,
Bore holes are inconsistent data since much of the thermal properties depend on the surrounding matter. There are bore holes where after a certain depth the temperature increases and later at a lower depth the temperature decreases. If you want to compare the thickness of the crust at different latitudes look at the fault lines and seismic activity. Doesn’t seem to be concentrated at the equator.
The example of the tennis ball is more of your nonsense. The interior of a tennis ball is made from rubber and will not be affected by acid. If you want to use that example fill the tennis ball with a liquid form of the same rubber the ball is made from. Do not gyrate the ball but spin it and soon the inside material will move in unison with the outer layer.
Zoe Phin
| #
Herb,
You really enjoy complicating things so as not to understand anything at a fundamental level.
There is both a latitude and a crust/mountain/hill/height component at the same time. I’m not saying the latitude thing is perfect. I’m not saying the Earth is flat (mountain wise).
Look at the data:
https://phzoe.com/2020/03/13/geothermal-animated/
https://phzoe.com/2019/12/06/measuring-geothermal-1/
richard
| #
I know one thing , in the last ice age when glaciers covered Canada and the US, the Arctic was similar to today with seasonal open waters.
Volcanic heat?
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Zoe, Certainly you are NOT to blame. We battle on against those who prefer censor inconvenient ideas over open and honest debate.
Reply
JaKo
| #
Hi John,
I’d like to add that Zoe needs a word of encouragement — can you / Dr. Ball / ANYBODY out there convince her to publish her Geo-Thermal Paper??? Tim could have a look and then have a word of advice and support — that would be the most constructive way. First of all, she should stop begging: “Any real men wanna take over? Please do it.” What would be a role for a “Real Woman” then? Hey, think of Sklodowska.
PSI could even sound like very “woke,” eh?
Cheers to all, JaKo
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
I don’t want to be a scientist. I want scientists to say correct things about reality, so that I don’t have to. I’m a muse, not a mule. Let someone else carry the burden of truth. I will continue on until OTHER people publish my correct view.
But thank you for the encourgement.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Darn it. What if it is all up to me?
Why am I so concerned about this?
I don’t think I’m ready. This will take some time.
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
JaKo, of course, we are very supportive of new ideas and analysis and will continue to give a platform for open debate of ideas such as Zoe’s. Obviously, there will be disagreements. But over time the better arguments and analyses get recognized.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi John O’ and Zoe,
Zoe just wrote: “I don’t want to be a scientist”. Principlia Scientific International uses the word Principla that is commonly used to title (The Principia) of Isaac Newton’s classical book. Which is a foundational book of a general subject we commonly term physical science,
You wrote: “of course, we are very supportive of new ideas and analysis and will continue to give a platform for open debate of ideas such as Zoe’s.”
Now a fact is that Newton (Book III) wrote four rules of reasoning in the philosophy which we term physical science. In Rule I we find the words (as translated to English by Motte):’natural things’ and in Rule II the words ‘natural effect’ with the obvious common word ‘natural’.
Zoe began an argument by considering the factual observation of the existence of natural geothermal energy. Of which its existence there should be no question, debate, or argument. But then she went to some artificial mathematical calculation based upon what seems an artificially defined system that does not naturally exist.
Now, you both may try to turn to my attention to the fact of Newton’s mathematical reasoning about the effect of the natural semidiurnal ocean tides that clearly needed have an explained cause. But what one should recognize that at the same time there he proposed his cause for the semidiurnal ocean tides that other location there were observed diurnal ocean tides. Which clearly demonstrated there were also other factors not directly considered by Newton’s explanation of the semi-diurnal tides. Hence, in the case of these tides Newton know the tidal effect was not as simple as he had mathematically, hence artificially,, considered.
John, you seem to except al ideas at the same time you know there have been absolutely wrong scientific ideas which have existed for thousands of years by philosophers who only reasoned and argued and debated, and never acetic;u did the actual thought experiments that could have been done as Galileo actia;;u did do. And I have read that some philosophers (not scientists) still claim that Galileo never did the experiments about which he wrote.
Moat people can observe simple things but they do not have the ability to understand complicated higher mathematical ideas. And this (that ordinary people with ordinary practical talents can do great things which benefit all the people of the world.) seems to bother some of these more intellectual philosophers greatly.
Yes, we practical people ramble because many things are related to other things. Which, if one has tunnel vision and do not ramble, will never see (discover) these sometimes critically important relationships.
Have a good day, Jerry
Zoe Phin
| #
“But then she went to some artificial mathematical calculation based upon what seems an artificially defined system that does not naturally exist.”
Thanks for sharing your opinion.
Geothermal heat flux can reach 1.2 W/m^2 in key places in Iceland. If you think geothermal investors are after 1.2 W/m^2, then …
you’re not as smart as you think.
My math is correct and consistent with physics.
But you can think what you want.
geran
| #
Zoe, here’s some math for you:
(168 W/m^2) / (0.09 W/m^2) = 1867
Solar is 1867 times larger than geothermal.
And that’s even using the reduced solar!
Your effort to bring geothermal to articles like this shows your desperate attempt to promote your nonsense. It reminds me of Cotton. He plagued every blog, every article, to sell his “heat creep” nonsense. Of course, it was all to promote his book
When’s your book coming out?
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Zoe,
Here is an example of the argumentation in which you have commonly engaged with Geran and Herb. Both of whom commonly engage in argumentation without citing actually observed data like the fact the the sounding data of the troposphere’s layer just above the earth’s surface does not always decrease with increasing altitude.
Relative to the diurnal and season storage of geothermal energy by the soil there are to two USA funded projects which measure the hourly temperatures of the soil at various depths. It took me great effort to discover these projects and I have composed essays which refer to the data of these projects. So, you make the effort to discover the data of these projects as I had too. IF you don’t, you confirm you are a lazy scientist.
Oh, I almost forgot; you don’t claim to be a scientist!
Have a good day, Jerry.
geran
| #
“…engage in argumentation without citing actually observed data…”
Now Jerry, you shouldn’t state things that are not true. Not only did I use Zoe’s own data, I even did the simple division for her.
If there were a way I could make it easier for you, I would.
Have a great day.
Zoe Phin
| #
Geran,
You can’t compare a conductive heat flux to insolation.
I explain this here:
http://phzoe.com/2020/05/22/equating-perpendicular-planes-is-plain-nonsense/
Jerry,
The soil data shows how solar adds to geothermal.
“you don’t claim to be a scientist!”
I don’t get paid to be a scientist.
But if you consider economics and financial speculation a science, then I am a scientist.
geran
| #
Zoe, I’m not comparing “conductive heat flux to insolation”. I am comparing the dissipated result of Earth’s estimated core energy (47 TW) to your agreement with GHE pseudoscience’s reduced solar of only 168 W/m^2.
The ratio of 1867 means geothermal is not significant, even using the bogus reduced solar figure.
I can understand why you don’t like the results, as it disproves your own pseudoscience, hence your constant links to advertise your blog.
When did you say your book was coming out?
James McGinn
| #
Zoe:
I’ve never been able to figure out what exactly is your point regarding geothermal. You constantly accuse your detractors of denying the existence of geothermal factors. Yet your detractors have never stated anything to that effect other than to say that they believe the input to the surface to be negligible relative to the sun’s input to the surface. So it really comes off as a strawman argument on your part. It comes off as you putting words in other people’s mouths. in order to bring attention to your pet obsession.
If you think the input by geothermal factors has been underestimated by your detractors then you need to make that argument with numbers and stop trying to label those that disagree with you as deniers when it is clear they do not deny the influence of geothermal factors.
Untangling Meteorology’s Dishonest Rhetoric Regarding Physics of Storms
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Untangling-Meteorologys-Dishonest-Rhetoric-Regarding-Physics-of-Storms-edmvie
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
“they believe the input to the surface to be negligible relative to the sun’s input to the surface.”
That’s what I call geothermal denial.
“I’ve never been able to figure out what exactly is your point regarding geothermal.”
But others have. Maybe the problem is you?
“make that argument with numbers”
I did. Pay attention. Read again.
I can’t make the blind see.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Zoe:
I can’t make the blind see.
JMcG:
So, instead of just dealing with the details to those with whom which you disagree you try to convince us that they are blind–why the desperation?
The ‘Missing Link’ of Meteorology’s Theory of Storms
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Instead of reading my articles and seeing the details, you act like a member of the left and completely ignore all arguments and try to claim bad behavior on my part.
It’s so lame and pathetic. Would you like to understand my work? Read my blog. Then try again, if you still feel the need.
Thanks
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
I looked at some of the data cited by Zoe. It consisted of a un readable animation resembling a flow of spilled paint and was created by Zoe Phin. Zoe’s data consists of what she says so you must believe it.
Herb.
James McGinn
| #
It’s the kind of mundane rhetoric typical of right wingers. Like many on the right Zoe is obsessed with what is known and, therefore, intellectually incapable of realizing that much of what is believed is flawed by oversimplified modelling assumptions. She thinks like an engineer or technician (not like a scientist)–thus the obsession with thermodynamics (just like Joe Postma);. waving their hands all the time as if the LoT’s were discovered yesterday.
James McGinn / Genius
Joseph Olson
| #
“Earth’s Missing Geothermal Flux” > one of a dozen articles I’ve written on volcanic forcing, which is not trivial, and is not constant. I met Dr Arthur Viterito at Heartland ICCC-9 and he has NOAA temperature and USGS seismic data to prove volcanic forcing of the PDO and AMO, his articles at PSI.
Reply
Dean Michael Jackson
| #
Marxists do us a favor when they self-identify as Marxist by regurgitating laughably obvious imbecilities in order to follow Marx’s directive for the “abolition” of religion”, and the destruction of those civilizations “whose spiritual aroma is religion”, hence the ‘climate change fraud’, the COVID-19 ‘pantasy’, and various other absurdities that affect procreation/societal cohesion: infanticide; the ‘transgender’ canard’; divorce at will; encouraging homosexuality, where no procreation is possible while at the same time separating men and women:
Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, Karl Marx (1843)
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/Marx_Critique_of_Hegels_Philosophy_of_Right.pdf
“The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.”
…and…
“The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.”
…and…
“It is, therefore, the task of history, once the other-world of truth has vanished, to establish the truth of this world.”
Now you know what Marxists are referring to when they utter the phrase, “The Struggle”…
“The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.”
At my blog, read the articles…
‘The Marxist ‘Gender Pay Gap’ – Class Struggle Meets Gender Struggle: Females Earn More Than Their Equally Matched Male Counterparts’
‘House of Cards: The Collapse of the ‘Collapse’ of the USSR’
‘Playing Hide And Seek In Yugoslavia’
Then read the article, ‘The Marxist Co-Option Of History And The Use Of The Scissors Strategy To Manipulate History Towards The Goal Of Marxist Liberation’
Solution
The West will form new political parties where candidates are vetted for Marxist ideology/blackmail, the use of the polygraph to be an important tool for such vetting. Then the West can finally liberate the globe of vanguard Communism.
My blog’s link is located at my Disqus home page.
Reply
Dean Michael Jackson
| #
Let’s take a closer look at one aspect of the COVID 19 ‘pantasy’ operation:
No software-based test can identify a sequence of DNA nucleotides…
https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Nucleotide
…as belonging to any particular pathogen, as inadvertently admitted by software programs (FASTA and BLAST being two such widely used software programs)…
https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi
…that search for similarities…
https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi
…when running a Query and Database Sequence
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK1734/
….searching for a match between a database of billions of nucleotide sequences with that of the target nucleotide sequence being amplified. Similarity* informs us the target nucleotide can’t be identified (‘seen’) by the software, otherwise there would be a precise match with the database nucleotide sequences.
What the PCR non-test is actually identifying are the numbers of nucleotide sequences amplified in green dye. When amplification is, let’s say, 20x the software gives a negative result because it can’t detect the green-dye. When amplification is increased to 35x the PCR non-test will give a positive result approximately 5% of the time because it can detect the green dye. At 50x amplification the PCR non-test will give an 75% positivity rate. When amplification is increased to 60x, the PCR non-test gives 100% positivity.
https://principia-scientific.com/ny-times-nine-out-of-ten-covid19-tests-are-wrong/
What the PCR non-test is actually identifying is the green dye(!):
“SYBR® Green I is a commonly used fluorescent dye that binds double-stranded DNA molecules by intercalating between the DNA bases. It is used in quantitative PCR because the fluorescence can be measured at the end of each amplification cycle to determine, relatively or absolutely, how much DNA has been amplified.”
https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/life-science/molecular-biology/pcr/quantitative-pcr/sybr-green-based-qpcr.html#:~:text=SYBR%C2%AE%20Green%20I%20is,much%20DNA%20has%20been%20amplified.
Without the green fluorescent dye, the PCR non-test is incapable of even ‘seeing’/detecting the billions of nucleotide sequences created, let alone ‘see’/detect a particular target nucleotide sequence to determine if similarities exist between the target nucleotide sequence and the databank nucleotide sequences. If the green fluorescent dye is removed from the PCR non-test, the result of the non-test will show 0% positivity 100% of the time!
Imagine criminal forensic science requiring only similarities for fingerprint identification! Yeah, just as with the false positive laden PCR test, 100% of the nation would be guilty of a crime every time a fingerprint check was run! Or how about forensic DNA matching requiring only similarities! Imagine running a forensic ballistic test and only looking for similarities in bullet striations! Now one can fully appreciate the fraud behind the PCR non-test.
Reply
Dean Michael Jackson
| #
Let’s take a look at the shocking missing atmospheric data no one has directed our attention to, including those who affirm there is no ‘climate change’:
Greater than 94% of the energy contained within nitrogen and oxygen are unaccounted for by the ‘climate change’ narrative, informing us of the massive scientific fraud taking place, the purpose of the fraud to further weaken the West’s economies.
[On March 16 Trump directed the nation to stay home for 15 days(!), his Marxist economic sabotage directive still in play. Immediately following Trump’s directive, governors/mayors declared illegal Executive Orders to lockdown the nation, thereby proving Marxist coordination between Federal/State/Local governments.
No new investments will be taking place because investments require recouping the investments, and with the spectre of the fake COVID-19 returning, or equally fake new pandemics, future lockdowns are in the future, therefore no investments are on the horizon. In short, the United States has been turned into a Banana Republic overnight.]
Nitrogen and oxygen constitute, by volume, 99.03% of the atmosphere’s gasses, while the trace gases account for 0.97%, or just under 1% of the atmosphere’s gasses. If we include water vapor (H2O) in the atmosphere, which accounts for, on average, 2% of the atmosphere’s gases by volume, we therefore subtract this 2% from the atmosphere’s gasses, where nitrogen and oxygen will constitute 97.0494%, and the trace gasses will constitute 0.9506%.
Nitrogen and oxygen don’t absorb much infrared radiation (IR) emitted from the ground, and assuming they absorb 100% of thermal energy from the surface, constituting approximately 5% of Earth’s energy budget, we’re left with a massive energy deficit for nitrogen and oxygen, confirming that those two molecules derive their energy from thermal ground/ocean emissions instead, but since the ‘climate change’ narrative identifies such emissions as not thermal but IR, we have proof that the energy being emitted isn’t IR but thermal because nitrogen and oxygen absorb a miniscule amount of IR.
Nitrogen and oxygen obtain 5.1% of their heat energy from thermal energy emanating from the surface…
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg/1200px-The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg
…and another .078% of their heat energy from outgoing infrared radiation, leaving an energy deficit of approximately 94.8%.
Since nitrogen and oxygen constitute by volume 97.0494% of the atmosphere’s gasses (when water vapor is included in the calculations making for a more precise calculation), they must therefore retain that volume amount of heat energy, but 18.4 Wm2 only constitutes 5.1% of the Earth’s energy budget of 358.2 Wm2. Nitrogen and oxygen’s absorption of infrared radiation only infinitesimally affects this missing heat energy.
The missing energy levels for nitrogen and oxygen direct our attention to another aspect of the scientific fraud taking place: Misidentified outgoing energy types. IR is assigned an energy magnitude of 358.2 Wm2, and thermals 18.4 Wm2. The opposite is closer to the truth, where IR is assigned 18.4 Wm2, and thermals 358.2 Wm2.
Hence why:
THERMODYNAMICS IS AWOL
Climate change mechanics conspires to do away with the physics of the atmosphere, where action and reaction is abandoned. When a new gas molecule is introduced into the dense troposphere, dislocation takes place, where if the new molecule is denser than the atmosphere (contains less heat energy), such as carbon dioxide, the gas molecule sinks displacing upwards the warmer nitrogen and oxygen molecules, thereby cooling the area of dislocation. Conversely, if the new gas molecule has more heat energy than the nitrogen-oxygen based atmosphere (such as methane), the new molecule rises, displacing relatively cooler nitrogen and oxygen molecules downwards, which displaces upwards relatively more heat retaining nitrogen and oxygen molecules, thereby cooling the area of dislocation. Thermodynamics in action in the atmosphere that keeps the Earth cool when increased radiation isn’t the new variable introduced.
Reply
Tom O
| #
I recognize that social media does allow sites such as yours to monetize to a degree. That is, of course, their big hammer when it comes to driving their agenda. It is a shame that there isn’t a non agenda driven social platform for us all to be on, but money drives the world, like it or not. Money is not the root of all evil, but the unethical pursuit of it sure is. Maybe – but not likely – the funding from it can be replaced by donations from your users. Best of luck in maintaining this open channel to truth.
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Thanks, Tom
Reply
Andy Rowlands
| #
Geologist and climate skeptic Greg Wrightstone had his Linked In account suspended for exactly the same reason three days ago, in his case it was a post about the increasing polar bear population that caused his suspension.
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Andy, thanks for the heads up. Seems like it may be part of a new round of purges prior to the US election.
Reply
Andy Rowlands
| #
Quite possibly. I was told of an alternate platform a few days ago, called Nebu2, quite similar to Fb in funcationality. I’ve joined in case Fb gets too oppressive. It is free of ‘fact-checkers’ and other censorship.
Reply
John V
| #
From the 1992 movie “Sneakers” – Cosmo: “There’s a war out there, old friend. A world war. And it’s not about who’s got the most bullets. It’s about who controls the information.”
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
As Newt Gingrich, previously Republican Speaker of the US Lower House warned a few years ago, “free enterprise is in a fight to the death with the progressives”. The irrational hysteria coming from the Democrats on a daily basis, confirms Newt’s prediction and tells me the outcome of the coming US Presidential election is critical for the whole world.
Reply
Jerry Krause,
| #
Hi Robert,
Yes, and I (in the USA) am amazed that my acquaintances do not seem to see the seriousness of this war between the forces of good and evil. For none seem to even listen the ‘conservative’ commentators on ‘talk’ radio.
Today Rush Limbaugh had President Trump on his program for much of three hours. This reflects the seriousness that these two recognize.
For a fact is that in 2015-16 Rush appeared uncertain what Trump would do if elected. Even though these two were golf buddies. Too many campaign one way and once they have won forget what they said. But Trump clearly surprised us by trying to do (and doing) what he said he would do. People seem to forget that in war there is no such thing as being ‘civil’. For the enemy is trying to kill you.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Hi Jerry,
We get Sky News and CNN live in Australia, and saw the Rush Limbaugh interview. The difference in reporting “news” items between these outlets is astounding. The two ‘Presidential’ debates are good examples of this difference.
I can understand your concerns regarding views held by some acquaintances. There seems to be bubble group think clusters, particularly in academic institutions. We have examples of senior academics suffering extreme harassment for simply expressing their free speech rights – particularly when it comes to AGW or Covid. Stepping out of the group think can be very hazardous.
It seems copies of the Clinton emails have survived ‘bleaching’. I suspect they will be released a week before election day.
Reply
Dev
| #
Event 201 4th segment (iirc) predicted (enacted) increasing censorship of internet dissidence.
The overarching content of that event is of violence aimed at and framed passively for public consumption.
Mass consumption is a major disease.
I am finding access increasingly difficult to many sites presently John. A sign that awareness is increasing perhaps!
Many Thanks
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
I do not use FaceBook, Twitter, LinkedIn, or any social media, only e-mail. Why support you”re enemies and add to their advertising revenue?
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Me neither. Are you gonna change your mind now?
Reply
richard
| #
but at the same time you can use it to connect to others who think the same way. Facebook sensors but if you chop the words up a bit it bypasses that.
Reply
MattH
| #
Censorship by Linked In sounds like a medal of honour.
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Matt, Agreed, Like Tim Ball always told me, if they ban you and attack you it proves you’re over the target.
Reply
Rob
| #
I figured that someone was going to start going after principia-scientific soon enough.
I post a LOT of your articles on Facebook and people ask me all the time how I knew this was fake or where I got that information about masks from six months or more before it came out in other media and I tell them to come to this website.
I’m expecting to get a notice from Facebook one day soon when I try to post something from here telling me this site is now listed as fake news site, even though it’s just an aggregate site which is what I tell people who say it’s a fake science website. These morons still think snopes is a real site to.
Reply