Read on..Yahoo.news

In 1960, Science, one of the world’s leading science journals, published an article with an unambiguous title: Doomsday: Friday, 13 November, A.D. 2026. It predicted that on this future date – just over a month from today – the human population would approach infinity and effectively annihilate itself.

The outlandishness of the claim landed the article widespread public attention. More surprisingly — because its underlying research and math seemed sound — it also received careful and sustained scientific attention.

Covid and Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) , “the long-term rise in Earth’s average surface temperature caused directly by human activities rather than natural climate cycle“, jump right out at me! But, I digress.

The authors — Heinz von Foerster, an Austrian-American professor and cybernetics expert and two of his students, Patricia M. Mora and Lawrence W. Amiot — argued that human populations are exceptional and might grow beyond an exponential rate, at an ever-increasing one.

“Our great-great-grandchildren will not starve,” they argued. “They will be squeezed to death.”

The article was regularly cited, and its predictions appeared remarkably accurate — until around 1993, halfway to the predicted “Doomsday,” when the global population began falling behind its forecasts.

Today, the global birth rate is slightly less than half what it was in 1960. Hopefully, we will all wake up on 13 November to an ordinary day. Nonetheless, this article remains exemplary, for blending rigorous science with the art of stagecraft to staggering effect.
Unique human capacities

The mid-20th century saw increasing societal concern about global population growth and its potential to lead to resource scarcity and geopolitical conflict. Underlying much of this concern was implicit or explicit acceptance of the Malthusian idea that whereas population has the potential to grow exponentially, it is kept constantly under check by its capacity to feed itself.

In their article, however, von Foerster and his co-authors argued that as far as populations go, humans may be exceptional.

Given our capacity to communicate and form “coalitions” that help us resolve problems, rising population density might simply mean more opportunities for collaboration, so that our numbers might grow not only beyond an exponential rate but at an ever-increasing one.

They then used 24 estimates of the world population stretching across the past 2,000 years to show that human numbers have in fact continually outpaced expectations. All this was presented in calm, scientific prose and aided by dense mathematical equations.

‘Squeezed to death’

Von Foerster and his co-authors then projected these historical figures into the future, calculating that thanks to ever-increasing growth, in the year 2026 our numbers would near infinity.

Thankfully, the same capacity for collaboration that assisted our species’ development throughout history could now avert this catastrophe. Since we are unlikely to want to reduce our life spans, they concluded, we should work together to reduce the global birth rate by half.

This publication caused an immediate stir. There were stories in Time and The New York Times. It became the subject of a series of Pogo comic strips and many commentators took the article as strictly a tongue-in-cheek comment on population fears.
A population explosion

Rather than the story dying out, a funny thing happened. When Science published letters to the editor from mathematicians and demographers attacking von Foerster and his colleagues’ work — calling it “ridiculous” and “manifestly absurd” — the authors responded with spirited defences that doubled down on the underlying math and its conclusions.

Throughout the 1960s through to the 1980s, the “Doomsday” equation became regularly cited — usually at face value — in textbooks on genetics, ecology and demography.

It appeared in stranger places, too. In a 1963 Canadian Parliamentary committee, for example, a witness from the chemical industry prominently cited it as reason chemical pesticides were required: to feed the approaching population explosion.

In a 1971 U.S. Supreme Court abortion case leading up to Roe v. Wade, it was cited as why there was no compelling reason for the government to favour increased population.

Science and stagecraft

We will probably not all wake up on Friday, November 13 “squeezed to death.” But before simply moving on — prepping for the next doomsday scenario — it is worth asking what we can learn from this one.

For me, the lesson is in how we present our beliefs to the world. Heinz von Foerster was, at one point in his life, a stage magician. Borrowing the classic language of stagecraft, an effective illusion relies on three parts: the setup, the extraordinary turn and the final reveal that returns the situation to normal.

Von Foerster and his co-authors’ article gained attention because it was an ordinary scientific article wrapped in an extraordinary title and conclusion. It retained significance because it was firmly grounded in research and argument.

So, thoughts? Because certainly extraordinary predictions have been made around AGW… None of which have panned out.

Natural gas futures mercifully slipped 10% on Wednesday after Russian President Vladimir Putin promised that the gas-rich nation would send more natural gas to Europe.

Gas prices are still twice as high as they were last month.

On Tuesday, natural gas futures had settled at a high not seen in more than a decade.

But Putin said Russia could send more gas to Europe via Ukraine—even more than contracted—and are set to hit a record this year.

Russia’s state-run gas giant, Gazprom, has come under fire in recent weeks for failing to send as much gas to Europe as analysts have alleged it could.

Russia has denied that this is the case.

Putin also took the opportunity to blame the high natural gas prices on Europe. What’s more, Putin blamed Europe’s energy market crisis on the green transition.

Putin used the phrases “unbalanced decisions” and “drastic steps” when referring to how the transition away from fossil fuels and toward renewable energy was being handled.

“Some people are speculating on climate change issues, some people are underestimating some things, some are starting to cut back on investments in the extractive industries. There needs to be a smooth transition,” Putin said, according to Reuters.

“They have made mistakes,” Putin said during a meeting with Russian energy officials. Putin was quick to point out the danger of relying on the spot market in favor of long-term contracts.

Putin has long maintained that the world needs oil, gas, and coal, and that the world should be focused on responsible extraction and production.

Hullo, the word does need oil, gas and coal. Just stating the obvious.

And it is this very production that the world is now clamoring for, as winter blackouts and soaring energy prices loom, not just for Europe, but for Asia and the United States as well

LA Times– Science

Research conducted in Southern California has confirmed the dramatic erosion of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine’s protection against “breakthrough” coronavirus infections.

The new study, one of the largest and longest to track the effectiveness of a vaccine in Americans, found that the vaccine’s ability to protect against infection stood at 88% in its first month, then fell to 47% after just five months.

But even as the Delta variant became the predominant strain across the Southland, the vaccine’s effectiveness at preventing COVID-19 hospitalizations held steady at close to 90% for as long as six months. What’s more, it maintained that power across vaccine recipients of all age groups.

The vaccine was never shown to protect against infection. It was never claimed to protect against infection.. therefore it cannot effectively reduce hospitalizations..Most persons who were infected with coronavirus didn’t require hospitalization!

The study, funded by Pfizer and published Monday in the journal Lancet, also provides strong new evidence that the waning immunity against infection probably would have been seen with or without the arrival of the Delta variant.

Of course waning immunity would have been seen regardless of the “delta” or any other variant. Since the vaxx was never shown to create immunity.

The researchers, led by infectious disease epidemiologist Sara Tartof of Kaiser Permanente Southern California, drew on several findings to conclude the Delta variant was not the driving factor in the vaccine’s waning efficacy against infection. Instead, the passage of time appeared to be the key to a vaccinated person’s resurgent vulnerability.

For starters, Tartof and her colleagues found that a fresh inoculation with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine protected just as well against an infection with the Delta variant as it did against infection with other versions of the coronavirus.

By showing that waning immunity, not the Delta variant, was the likely reason for the rise in breakthrough infections, the study suggests it may not be necessary to reformulate a Pfizer-BioNTech booster that specifically targets Delta. For now, at least, a third shot identical to the first two would probably extend the vaccine’s early record of protection against all strains, including Delta, Tartof said.

Probably?

The Southern California research scoured the medical records of 3,436,957 patients ages 12 and older who were enrolled in Kaiser Permanente Southern California’s healthcare system between mid-December and early August. Close to 2.3 million of them remained unvaccinated during that period, while just over 1 million received two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, now known as Comirnaty.

The rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection, as well as of hospitalization for COVID-19, were tallied for both groups of patients and compared for as long as six months.

The protection provided by Comirnaty beyond six months has been an open question, hinted at only by Israeli studies that suggest COVID-19 hospitalization rates rise in those above 60 years of age.

In another recent study, researchers from Emory University and Stanford found that six months after being inoculated with Comirnaty, roughly half of 56 young and middle-aged adults had no detectable neutralizing antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The reduced immunity was particularly dramatic against the coronavirus variants Delta, Beta and Mu.

That study was posted last week on BioRXiv, a site where researchers share preliminary work before it has been peer-reviewed. But its findings of “a substantial waning of antibody responses” — as well as a drop in the immunity provided by T cells — suggest that a third booster immunization “might be warranted,” its authors wrote.

Research that has not been peer reviewed and undoubtedly skewed towards profit for big pharma

The Lancet study reflects a very large and diverse population of Californians who are still being tracked. As such, it is poised to offer U.S. policymakers some insight into who needs boosters most, and when.

“We really do need to track closely to make sure we catch it quickly if it does happen,” Tartof said in an interview.

She said the Kaiser Permanente team, in collaboration with Pfizer, continues to analyze its data weekly. The team is poised to alert public health officials if hospitalizations begin to creep up in any slice of the population, she added.

Bull$hit Alert

American Journal of Medicine commentary says COVID-19 vaccines should be shored up with a plant-based diet

Vegans and more effective vaxx???

Does anyone else get the sense of two campaigns being run together- Morphed into one. Covid/Climate change. It’s been seeded from the get go. Looks as if it’s going to become more unified.

Co2. Carbon is the basis of life, on this, our carbon based planet. The insane switch over to ‘green’ energy cannot provide for our needs. Not even close. Co2 is in short supply because energy prices have soared to intolerable levels. It’s going to be a tough winter for us all in the northern hemisphere.

Independent

““The UK benefits from having access to highly diverse sources of gas supply to ensure households, businesses and heavy industry get the energy they need at a fair price.”

CF Industries Holdings closed two of its plants in Billingham in Stockton-on-Tees and Ince in Cheshire on Thursday, both of which are estimated to account for up to 60 per cent of the UK’s CO2 supplies.

It said it was halting production due to the rising prices of natural gas, and had no indication as to when it would resume.”

UK vows to manage fallout from soaring gas prices

Britain said on Saturday it would work with the energy industry to try to stem the fallout from soaring gas prices after fears grew that more energy providers and food producers would struggle to operate with such high costs.

“Protecting customers during a time of heightened global gas prices is an absolute priority,” he said on Twitter.

RENEWABLES

The government has been moved to act after low gas storage levels, decreased supplies from Russia, demand from Asia, low renewables output and nuclear maintenance outages combined to more than triple European gas prices this year, hitting record highs.

There were many people who stated quite clearly and in plain wording the renewables were never going to provide the required for human life, energy. And the green cult said well you must be supported by “big oil”! No, that’s actually been the green cult that’s washed big oils dirty laundry for them.

Bleak House: Why Europe faces Steep Winter Energy Bills

But prices have sky-rocketed due to low gas storage stocks, high European Union carbon prices, low liquefied natural gas tanker deliveries due to higher demand from Asia, less gas supplies from Russia than usual, low renewable output and gas and nuclear maintenance outages.

So many people actually believed the so called ‘green’ energy which isn’t that green was going to provide for the energy needs of the population. Gullible. Naive. Uninformed.

Why do we need CO2?

In what might come as a surprise to some, CO2 is pretty much essential when it comes to the UK’s food and drinks industry.

From putting the fizz in drinks such as beer to extending the shelf life of many packed fresh foods such as meat and poultry, CO2 is a vital ingredient for getting products on the shelf.

The gas is pumped into the packaging of perishable goods to make them last longer, making lettuce an unlikely casualty of the crisis – but that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

It is also required for some medical procedures and used in the nuclear and semi-conductor industries.

Food supplies at risk as gas prices soar

“Availability [of fertiliser] is low and that will sell really quickly. There is talk about ‘let’s bring it in from elsewhere’ – but you need special licences and haulage ports.

“If the plants aren’t given the right nutrients, they are not going to grow very well so you wouldn’t have the great quality we are all used to on our shelves.

“Less harvest, less crops – that’s when we will potentially see the food on our tables next year costing a lot more money than now. This going to have implications globally.”

Carbon Dioxide Co2 is used in green houses- Extensively to increase crop production

The benefits of carbon dioxide supplementation on plant growth and production within the greenhouse environment have been well understood for many years.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an essential component of photosynthesis (also called carbon assimilation). Photosynthesis is a chemical process that uses light energy to convert CO2 and water into sugars in green plants. These sugars are then used for growth within the plant, through respiration. The difference between the rate of photosynthesis and the rate of respiration is the basis for dry-matter accumulation (growth) in the plant. In greenhouse production the aim of all growers is to increase dry-matter content and economically optimize crop yield. CO2 increases productivity through improved plant growth and vigour. Some ways in which productivity is increased by CO2 include earlier flowering, higher fruit yields, reduced bud abortion in roses, improved stem strength and flower size. Growers should regard CO2 as a nutrient.

For the majority of greenhouse crops, net photosynthesis increases as CO2 levels increase from 340–1,000 ppm (parts per million). Most crops show that for any given level of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), increasing the CO2 level to 1,000 ppm will increase the photosynthesis by about 50% over ambient CO2 levels.