The science of the people who want to be FREE
Koutsoyiannis et al agree with Berry, Harde, and Salby on the cause of the CO2 increase
September 27, 2023
Ed Berry, PhD, Theoretical Physics, CCM
Koutsoyiannis et al. (2023) prove that increase in global temperature causes the increase in atmospheric CO2, and not vice-versa. That is a significant proof.
Also, because increased temperature does not control human CO2 emissions, and human CO2 emissions are about 4% of the total of human and natural emissions, they AGREE — with Berry (2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2023a, 2023b), Harde (2017, 2019, 2023), Harde and Salby (2021a, 2021b, 2022), and Salby (2013, 2016, 2018) — that natural CO2 causes the increase in atmospheric CO2 and human emissions are insignificant to climate.
Below is a pdf copy of Koutsoyiannis et al. (2023). No Tricks Zone and Judith Curry also reviewed Koutsoyiannis et al. (2023).
There’s no pretending or pulling punches in Neil Oliver’s monologue this week. In fact, the theme of blood and carnage weaves throughout the presentation as Oliver walks through some recent events in the UK, Canada, Ukraine and the United States.
Biowarfare
Yet, there are scientists who walk among us who still claim human CO2 emissions cause all the CO2 increase above 280 ppm, and the natural CO2 level remained at 280 ppm.
They claim the e-time for human CO2 is hundreds of years while the e-time for natural CO2 is 3.5 years. This belief contradicts the CO2 Equivalence Principle that says, since human and natural CO2 molecules are identical, their e-times are identical.
Their belief needs a demon in the atmosphere to trap human CO2 and let natural CO2 flow out of the atmosphere. This has the makings of a good fairy tale. Unfortunately, all free-world countries base their climate laws on this myth.
Koutsoyiannis et al. (2023) write the following (quotes):
Nonetheless, as a side product, in the Appendices to the paper, we provide several indications of the following (Page 18):
The dependence of the carbon cycle on temperature is quite strong and indeed major increases of [CO2] can emerge as a result of temperature rise. In other words, we show that the natural [CO2] changes due to temperature rise are far larger (by a factor > 3) than human emissions (Appendix A.1).
There are processes, such as the Earth’s albedo (which is changing in time as any other characteristic of the climate system), the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the ocean heat content in the upper layer (represented by the vertically averaged temperature in the layer 0–100 m), which are potential causes of the temperature increase, unlike what is observed with [CO2], their changes precede those of temperature (Appendices A.2–A.4).
On a large timescale, the analysis of paleoclimatic data supports the primacy of the causal direction T → [CO2], even though some controversy remains about this issue (Appendix A.5).
The human CO2 emissions due to the burning of fossil fuels have largely increased since the beginning of the industrial age. However, the global temperature increase began succeeding the Little Ice Period, at a time when human CO2 emissions were very low.
This role can be summarized in the following points, examined in detail and quantified in Appendix A.1. (Page 19)
Terrestrial and maritime respiration and decay are responsible for the vast majority of CO2 emissions [32], Figure 5.12.
Overall, natural processes of the biosphere contribute 96% to the global carbon cycle, the rest, 4%, being human emissions (which were even lower in the past [33]).
The biosphere is more productive at higher temperatures, as the rates of biochemical re- actions increase with temperature, which leads to increasing natural CO2 emission [2].
Additionally, a higher atmospheric CO2 concentration makes the biosphere more productive via the so-called carbon fertilization effect, thus resulting in greening of the Earth [34,35], i.e., amplification of the carbon cycle, to which humans also contribute through crops and land-use management [36].
Conclusions (Page 22):
All evidence resulting from the analyses of the longest available modern time series of atmospheric concentration of [CO2] at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, along with that of globally averaged T, suggests a unidirectional, potentially causal link with T as the cause and [CO2] as the effect. This direction of causality holds for the entire period covered by the observations (more than 60 years).
Seasonality, as reflected in different phases of [CO2] time series at different latitudes, does not play any role in potential causality, as confirmed by replacing the Mauna Loa [CO2] time series with that in South Pole.
The unidirectional T → ln[CO2] potential causal link applies to all timescales resolved by the available data, from monthly to about two decades.
The proposed methodology is simple, flexible and effective in disambiguating cases where the type of causality, HOE or unidirectional, is not quite clear.
Furthermore, the methodology defines a type of data analysis that, regardless of the detection of causality per se, assesses modeling performance by comparing observational data with model results. In particular, the analysis of climate model outputs reveals a misrepresentation of the causal link by these models, which suggest a causality direction opposite to the one found when the real measurements are used.
Extensions of the scope of the methodology, i.e., from detecting possible causality to building a more detailed model of stochastic type, are possible, as illustrated by a toy model for the T-[CO2] system, with explained variance of [CO2] reaching an impressive 99.9%.
While some of the findings of this study seem counterintuitive or contrary to mainstream opinions, they are logically and computationally supported by arguments and calculations given in the Appendices.
2 Comments
Dennis Slatton says:
Thanks for all you do Ed. I pray that we can eventually convince the masses that the obviously errant Global warming narrative is just that. A big lie that is being foisted on us all to make the elites very rich and give them the absolute power over the masses they so viciously covet.
DMA says:
No Tricks Zone has another one today by Stewart Harris although it doesn’t appear to present any new data or methodology. When will someone that has the public ear and the courage to get this into public circulation show up? I wrote this for the Bozeman paper but they will not thouch it.:
Demetris Koutsoyiannis, and three coauthors have published a new scientific data analysis that should be front page news. Its conclusion states: “However, if we stick to the facts, two things are clear: (i) changes in CO₂ concentration have not been warming the planet; (ii) climate models do not reflect what the observational data tell us on this issue.” So all, and I mean ALL, of the problems predicted by climate models are scientifically unsupported. None of the imagined climate catastrophes we hear about every day can be attributed to CO2 let alone anthropogenic CO2. The law suits that site litanies of imagined climate damages are unsupported by any scientific data. The 75 trillion recommended in the latest version of the Green New Deal is aimed at a problem that does not exist.
So what is our response to this new paper that is added to the growing number that falsify the assumption of human caused dangerous climate change? Does the climate change industry have enough control of the world’s finances and imagination to just continue this fantasy, draining the assets of almost everyone to fill the coffers of the privileged few with no environmental benefit possible? Do we let the media continue to frighten our children with these now thoroughly refuted lies to get wider coverage?I am struck with the constricting immorality on so many levels of this lie and yearn to see the freedom that the truth could bring. I fear I am a voice crying in the wilderness drowned out by the lie’s noise, denigrated as misinformation and dismissed as an uninformed crank. Follow the data not the hype.
Biowarfare
STORY AT-A-GLANCE
Yale University researchers have developed an airborne method for delivering mRNA right to your lungs
In a study on mice, the scientists created polymer nanoparticles to encapsulate mRNA, making it inhalable
Researchers say this “new method of delivery could ‘radically change the way people are vaccinated,’” making it easier to vaccinate people in remote areas or those who are afraid of needles
An airborne mRNA product could be used to rapidly vaccinate the masses, without their knowledge or consent
Academic endorsement exists for the use of compulsory, covert bioenhancements, including drugs and vaccines, on the public; the U.S. government also has a history of covert bioweapon experiments
Yale University researchers have developed a new airborne method for delivering mRNA right to your lungs. The team has also used the method to vaccinate mice intranasally,1 opening the door for human testing in the near future.
While scientists are hailing the creation as an easy way to vaccinate the masses, critics wonder if the development of an airborne vaccine could be used for nefarious purposes, including covert bioenhancements,2 which have already been recommended in academic literature.3
Yale Team Develops Airborne mRNA, Delivers It to Lungs
In a study on mice, Yale scientists created polymer nanoparticles to encapsulate mRNA, making it inhalable so it can reach the lungs. Courtney Malo, editor with Science Translational Medicine, which published the study, explained:4
"The ability to efficiently deliver mRNA to the lung would have applications for vaccine development, gene therapy, and more. Here, Suberi et al. showed that such mRNA delivery can be accomplished by encapsulating mRNAs of interest within optimized poly(amine-co-ester) polyplexes [nanoparticles].
Polyplex-delivered mRNAs were efficiently translated into protein in the lungs of mice with limited evidence of toxicity. This platform was successfully applied as an intranasal SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, eliciting robust immune responses that conferred protection against subsequent viral challenge. These results highlight the potential of this delivery system for vaccine applications and beyond."
The team, led by cellular and molecular physiologist Mark Saltzman, explained that the inhalable mRNA vaccine successfully protected against SARS-CoV-2, which "opens the door to delivering other messenger RNA (mRNA) therapeutics for gene replacement therapy and other treatments in the lungs."5
For the study, mice received two intranasal doses of nanoparticles carrying mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, which proved to be effective in the animals. In the past, lung-targeted mRNA therapies had trouble making it into the cells necessary to express the encoded protein, known as poor transfection efficiency.6
"The Saltzman group got around this hurdle in part by using a nanoparticle made from poly(amine-co-ester) polyplexes, or PACE, a biocompatible and highly customizable polymer," a Yale University news release explained.7 In a previous study, Saltzman had tried a "prime and spike" system to deliver COVID-19 shots, which involved injecting mRNA shots into a muscle, then spraying spike proteins into the nose.8
It turned out the injection portion may be unnecessary, and Saltzman has high hopes for the airborne delivery method, beyond vaccines:9
"In the new report, there is no intramuscular injection. We just gave two doses, a prime and a boost, intranasally, and we got a highly protective immune response. But we also showed that, generally, you can deliver different kinds of mRNA. So it's not just good for a vaccine, but potentially also good for gene replacement therapy in diseases like cystic fibrosis and gene editing.
We used a vaccine example to show that it works, but it opens the door to doing all these other kinds of interventions."
Air Vax Could ‘Radically Change’ How People Are Vaccinated
Saltzman says this "new method of delivery could ‘radically change the way people are vaccinated,’" making it easier to vaccinate people in remote areas or those who are afraid of needles.10 But that’s not all. An airborne vaccine makes it possible to rapidly disseminate it across a population.
By releasing the vaccine in the air, there’s no need to inject each person individually — which is not only time-consuming but difficult if an individual objects to the shot. This isn’t the case with an airborne vaccine, which can be released into the air without consent or even the public’s knowledge.
A similar strategy is being used with mRNA in shrimp, which are too small and numerous to be injected individually. Instead, an oral "nanovaccine" was created to stop the spread of a virus. Shai Ufaz, chief executive officer of ViAqua, which developed the technology, stated:11
"Oral delivery is the holy grail of aquaculture health development due to both the impossibility of vaccinating individual shrimp and its ability to substantially bring down the operational costs of disease management while improving outcomes ..."
While the Yale scientists are targeting an intranasal mRNA product, the outcome is the same — get as many exposed as possible with the least amount of cost and effort. According to the Yale study:12
"An inhalable platform for messenger RNA (mRNA) therapeutics would enable minimally invasive and lung-targeted delivery for a host of pulmonary diseases. Development of lung-targeted mRNA therapeutics has been limited by poor transfection efficiency and risk of vehicle-induced pathology.
Here, we report an inhalable polymer-based vehicle for delivery of therapeutic mRNAs to the lung. We optimized biodegradable poly(amine-co-ester) (PACE) polyplexes [nanoparticles] for mRNA delivery using end-group modifications and polyethylene glycol. These polyplexes achieved high transfection of mRNA throughout the lung, particularly in epithelial and antigen-presenting cells.
We applied this technology to develop a mucosal vaccine for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and found that intranasal vaccination with spike protein–encoding mRNA polyplexes induced potent cellular and humoral adaptive immunity and protected susceptible mice from lethal viral challenge. Together, these results demonstrate the translational potential of PACE polyplexes for therapeutic delivery of mRNA to the lungs."
US Government Has History of Bioweapons Release
When you put the pieces of the puzzle together, a disturbing picture emerges. As reported by The Epoch Times, we have a history of the U.S. government taking extreme measures to mandate and promote COVID-19 shots to the public. Now, researchers have developed an airborne mRNA vaccine, offering a vehicle by which to rapidly vaccinate the masses without their knowledge or consent.13
Is there proof that the government or another entity has plans to covertly release an air vax on the population? No. But there is a history of it carrying out secret bioweapon simulations on Americans. In 1950, the U.S. Navy sprayed Serratia marcescens bacteria into the air near San Francisco over a period of six days.
Dubbed "Operation Sea Spray," the project was intended to determine how susceptible the city was to a bioweapon attack. Serratia marcescens turns whatever it touches bright red, making it easy to track. It spread throughout the city, as residents inhaled the microbes from the air. While the U.S. military initially thought Serratia marcescens wouldn’t harm humans, an outbreak occurred, with some developing urinary tract infections as a result.
At least one person died "and some have suggested that the release forever changed the area's microbial ecology," Smithsonian Magazine reported.14 This wasn’t an isolated incident, as the U.S. government carried out many other experiments across the U.S. over the next 20 years.15 So, while it’s disturbing to think of an air vax experiment being conducted on an unsuspecting public, it’s not unprecedented.
Bioethics Study Promotes Covert, Compulsory Bioenhancement
Adding to the story is academic endorsement of the use of compulsory, covert bioenhancements. Writing in the journal Bioethics,16 Parker Crutchfield with Western Michigan University, Homer Stryker M.D. School of Medicine, discusses moral bioenhancements, which refers to the use of biomedical means to trigger moral improvements.
Drug treatments, including vaccines, and genetic engineering are potential examples of bioenhancements.17 Further, according to Crutchfield:18
"It is necessary to morally bioenhance the population in order to prevent ultimate harm. Moral bioenhancement is the potential practice of influencing a person’s moral behavior by way of biological intervention upon their moral attitudes, motivations, or dispositions.
The technology that may permit moral bioenhancement is on the scale between nonexistent and nascent, but common examples of potential interventions include infusing water supplies with pharmaceuticals that enhance empathy or altruism or otherwise intervening on a person’s emotions or motivations, in an attempt to influence the person’s moral behavior."
Some argue that moral bioenhancements should be compulsory for the greater good. Crutchfield believes this doesn’t go far enough. He also wants them to be covert:19
"I take this argument one step further, arguing that if moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory, then its administration ought to be covert rather than overt. This is to say that it is morally preferable for compulsory moral bioenhancement to be administered without the recipients knowing that they are receiving the enhancement."
He even goes so far as to suggest "a covert compulsory program promotes values such as liberty, utility, equality and autonomy better than an overt program does."20 So here we have evidence of academic support for covertly releasing drugs and other bioenhancements onto the public. This, combined with the creation of an airborne mRNA vaccine and the government’s history of experimenting on the public, paints an unsettling picture of the future.
Problems With mRNA COVID Shots Persist
Aside from the concerns of airborne delivery, mRNA COVID-19 shots are associated with significant risks — no matter how you’re exposed. People ages 65 and older who received Pfizer’s updated (bivalent) COVID-19 booster shot may be at increased risk of stroke, according to an announcement made by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration.21
Further, a large study from Israel22 revealed that Pfizer’s COVID-19 mRNA jab is associated with a threefold increased risk of myocarditis,23 leading to the condition at a rate of 1 to 5 events per 100,000 persons.24 Other elevated risks were also identified following the COVID jab, including lymphadenopathy (swollen lymph nodes), appendicitis and herpes zoster infection.25
At least 16,183 people also say they’ve developed tinnitus after receiving a COVID-19 shot.26 The reports were filed with the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database. But considering only between 1%27 and 10%28 of adverse reactions are ever reported to VAERS, the actual number is likely much higher.
It's because of risks like these that informed consent is essential for any medical procedure, including vaccinations. The development of airborne mRNA jabs, however, makes the possibility of informed consent being taken away all the more real.
Cult of the Medics
This is Chapter One of a new documentary series about the occult history of the medical industrial complex, created by David Whitehead.
Something is terribly wrong with our world. Deep down I am sure you feel it or you would not be watching a series like this. So strap yourself in. It is time we learn about and explore one of the world’s most ancient and most powerful cults, that I refer to as “the cult of the medics."
Download Chapter 1 + trailer here
The People's Declaration
·
SEP 4
Share this link: ThePeoplesDeclaration.com
Chapter Two explores the history of the Knights of Malta, the Red Cross, The concept of "sustainable development", the founding of the United Nations, and the difference between conspiracy theories and conspiracy facts.
Download Chapter 2 here
Chapter Three explores the Nuremberg Trials, the Nuremberg Code, and individual rights. I then investigate the Jim Jones cult and compare it to current events. Discussions on BlackRock and Vanguard also featured.
Archive available on the above platforms + Rumble, BitChute, Brighteon, and Vimeo.
Featured in Chapter 3
VANGAURD/BLACKROCK Follow the Money with Chris Vleck
Download Chapter 3 here
Chapter Four delves into the nature/origins of evil, the dark history of human sacrifice, human experimentation, bizarre cult rituals, mind control/crowd control, the one vs the many, the psychic war on consciousness, the warrior path.
Download Chapter 4 + trailer here
Chapter Five discusses Black Magick, Transhumanism and the question of our time: What does it mean to be human?
Download Chapter 5 episode + trailer here
Featured in Chapter 5
unslaved.com - Michael Tsarion Post-human World Presentation (Premium Content)
Drive with Dave V-Log (end of chapter 5 clip)
Interview with Josh Reid - The Red Pill Project
What is Cult of the Medics (17 mins) with Sonia Poulton
More Interviews with David here
Chapter Six "Missing Pieces" covers Pandemic of Corruption, The Club of Rome, The Order of the Alchemists, Deep Church/Deep State, Etymology, The Rockefeller Syndicate, Human 2.0, Dark Matter, Moral of the Story
Download Chapter 6 & trailer here
Chapter Seven: "There is no explanation that is...innocent..."
Featured in Chapter 7
WHAT IS PHARMAKIA? Gary Wayne Interview
Download Chapter 7 episode + trailer here
We live in the sunlit world of what we believe to be reality. But there is, unseen by most, an Underworld, a place that is just as real, but not as brightly lit, a dark side if you will…
Featured in Chapter 8:
Jane Interview (Human Trafficking)
Michael Tsarion (Serpent Symbolism)
Loralee Scaife Interview (mp3/listen only) Podbean or iTunes
Download Chapter 8 episode + trailer here
The Beginning of the End. We don't need the cult. We are more powerful than you could ever know and the cult has to work around the clock to suppress us. I will face my fear.
Featured in Chapter 9:
Kid Carson Interview (Spotify)
Download Chapter 9 episode + trailer here
Chapter Ten
In production 2023