(Mercola)—In an era where smartphones have become an extension of ourselves, British journalist Decca Aitkenhead conducted a bold experiment that might make you rethink your relationship with technology. Inspired by social psychologist Jonathan Haidt’s research on teen mental health, Aitkenhead challenged 10 teenagers — her two sons along with their friends — to give up their cellphones for one month.¹

The results, published in the U.K.’s Sunday Times Magazine, offer a compelling glimpse into how digital detox — intentionally abstaining from electronic devices — can transform young lives, echoing other recent research on the topic.

Digital Detox Leads to ‘Unexpected Resilience and Joy’

Haidt, a social psychologist at New York University, wrote, “The Anxious Generation,” a book describing the mental health crisis that’s risen along with children’s use of cellphones and social media. Haidt says this shift in technology usage, which occurred in the early 2010s, led to a “great rewiring of childhood,” including alterations in self-concept and social skills.²

Play-based childhoods have largely disappeared — the product of “social trust collapses among adults” and parents becoming “more fearful, overprotective, and less willing to let their kids spend time with other kids unsupervised in the real world.” Instead, phone-based childhoods are now the norm, and rates of depression, anxiety, self-harm and suicide among youth have increased.³

Haidt argues that excessive cellphone use among children and teens may impair development of executive function and social skills, leading to attention fragmentation, delayed maturity and impaired creativity, which could persist lifelong.⁴

In addition to ditching cellphones for a month, the teens took part in a two-day camping trip, unsupervised. While some were initially resistant, at the end of the experiment the teens reported having more energy and focus. They read more and reported feeling calmer and more efficient. The Defender reported:⁵

“The unsupervised camping trip proved particularly transformative. Despite initial doubts about the teens’ competence, they demonstrated remarkable growth, ‘In under 36 unsupervised hours, they appear to have grown up by about two years,’ Aitkenhead said. Although several kids later reported finding it challenging not to slip back into old patterns, at the end of the trip, all of them said they hadn’t missed their cellphones.”

Benefits of a Social Media Detox: Better Sleep and Less Stress

A study published in Behavioral Sciences explored the effects of limiting social media use among people aged 18 to 30.⁶ The results reveal that a “social media detox” could have significant benefits for your health and wellbeing.

Researchers recruited 43 young adults and tracked their cellphone and social media usage for two weeks to establish a baseline. Then, participants were asked to limit their social media use to 30 minutes daily for two weeks, followed by two weeks of normal use. Throughout the study, participants completed surveys about addiction, physical health, mental health and relationships. Some also participated in interviews about their experiences.

On average, participants reduced their social media usage by 77.7% during the detox period. This dramatic reduction led to some intriguing changes. Cellphone and social media addiction scores decreased significantly during the detox and remained lower even two weeks after returning to normal use. This suggests that taking a break from social media helps reset your relationship with your devices in a lasting way.

One of the most noticeable benefits reported was improved sleep. Participants experienced both longer sleep duration and better sleep quality during the detox period. Many shared that they fell asleep earlier because they weren’t scrolling late into the night. These sleep improvements were maintained to some degree even after returning to normal social media use.⁷

The detox also reduced stress levels among participants. They reported feeling less pressure to constantly check notifications or maintain an online presence. Several noted increased productivity and confidence as well. While the effects were relatively small, they were statistically significant and supported by participants’ interview responses.⁸

Measures of life satisfaction and overall wellness also showed improvement. These gains were maintained or even increased further during the two-week follow-up period. The study reveals that stepping back from social media, even temporarily, helps you gain perspective and feel more content with your life offline.

A Manageable Approach to Digital Wellness

If completely quitting social media sounds too extreme, this study suggests a more moderate approach is still beneficial. Most participants found limiting themselves to 30 minutes per day challenging but doable. After an initial adjustment period, many were surprised by how much they enjoyed the detox.

Some participants recommended personalizing limits based on your current usage or focusing on restricting the most “destructive” apps first. Others found it helpful to turn off notifications or delete social media apps from their phones during the detox period. The key is to start by finding an approach that feels sustainable for your lifestyle.

While some participants experienced feelings of disconnection initially, many ultimately reported spending more quality time with friends and family in person.⁹ The detox encouraged them to seek out other forms of connection and entertainment. Even after returning to normal use, many participants said they became more aware of their social media habits and took steps to better regulate their usage going forward.

Reclaiming Your Time and Attention: Study Findings

A comprehensive review published in Cureus analyzed 21 trials with 3,625 participants, shedding light on the additional benefits of abstaining from electronic devices.¹⁰ One of the most immediate benefits of a digital detox, as observed in multiple studies, is the reclamation of your time and attention.

One study examined the consequences of a 14-day period where young individuals limited their social media use to 30 minutes daily. Participants reported having more free time for activities that truly enrich their lives, such as reading, exercising or spending quality time with loved ones.¹¹

Many experienced a sense of relief and freedom from the constant demands of their devices. The study also found improvements in sleep quality, overall life satisfaction and stress levels. By stepping away from the digital world, you give yourself the opportunity to be more present in the physical world, leading to deeper connections and more meaningful experiences.

Digital Detox Improves Mental Health and Well-Being

The comprehensive review and other studies have shown significant positive impacts of digital detox on mental health as well. Excessive use of cellphones and social media has been linked to feelings of anxiety, depression and low self-esteem.¹² By taking a break from these digital platforms, many experience a reduction in these negative emotions.

One study also reported improvements in perceived healthiness and supportive connections among participants. Additionally, limiting your exposure to social media can help alleviate feelings of inadequacy or FOMO (fear of missing out).¹³ A qualitative study, involving interviews with seven individuals who experienced digital detoxes, revealed that participants gained a new perspective on their relationship with technology following the experience.¹⁴

They became more aware of their digital consumption patterns and better equipped to set boundaries around device usage. This newfound awareness led to more intentional and balanced use of technology in the long term.

Meanwhile, research focusing on cellphone addiction among young adults in India emphasizes the importance of digital detox in reducing excessive cellphone use and its adverse effects.¹⁵ It’s important to find a healthy balance that allows you to enjoy the benefits of technology without sacrificing your well-being or real-world connections.

Less Cellphone Use Helps Lower Your EMF Exposure

Another key benefit of taking a break from the digital world is reduced exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs). Exposure to radiofrequency EMFs from cellphones and other sources poses a substantial health risk. For instance, a controlled study found cellphone radiation causes acute cell death and disrupted cell division in cheek cells, with a 57% increase in cell death indicators after high exposure.¹⁶

A systematic review and meta-analysis also revealed that using a cellphone for over 1,000 cumulative hours in your lifetime — equivalent to just 17 minutes per day over 10 years — increased tumor risk by a striking 60%.¹⁷

Several studies have also found that EMFs have a deleterious effect on the reproductive systems of both men and women. Research published in Fertility and Sterility found that men who used their cellphones more than 20 times a day had significantly lower sperm counts than those who only used them once a week or less.¹⁸

A Path Forward: Embark on Your Own Digital Detox

Haidt suggests adopting the following tips as “norms” to help break smartphone addiction in children and teens:¹⁹

1. No smartphones before high school (around age 14)
2. No social media accounts until age 16
3. Phone-free schools with restricted or zero use during the school day
4. Give kids far more independence, free play and responsibility in the real world

“If we do those four things, we can actually fix this problem in the next year or two,” Haidt said. “We’re not going to burn the technology, [but] we need to delay it.”²⁰ However, even as an adult, taking digital detoxes and using your devices in moderation — with steps in place to reduce your EMF exposure — is important.

For teenagers looking to embark on a digital detox, it’s important to approach the process gradually and set realistic goals, like implementing a step-by-step reduction in screen time. Start by identifying your current usage patterns and the specific apps or activities that consume most of your time.

Then, set clear boundaries for when and how long you’ll use your devices each day. It’s also helpful to create “no-phone zones” in your home, such as the dinner table and your bedroom, to cultivate spaces that are completely free from digital distractions. To make your digital detox more effective and enjoyable, try replacing screen time with alternative activities. Here are some ideas to get you started:

• Engage in physical activities — Join a sports team, go for bike rides or daily walks, or try yoga
• Explore creative hobbies — Learn to play an instrument, try painting or start writing
• Spend time in nature — Go for hikes, have a picnic in the park or start a vegetable garden
• Connect with friends in person — Organize game nights, study groups or just hang out
• Learn a new skill — Take up cooking, photography or a foreign language
• Practice mindfulness — Try meditation or journaling to reflect on your experiences
• Read books — Visit your local library and discover new genres or authors
• Volunteer in your community — Find causes you care about and contribute your time

By gradually reducing your screen time and filling those hours with engaging, offline activities, you can develop a more mindful relationship with digital devices while improving your overall physical and mental well-being.

• ^{1, 2, 4, 5, 19, 20} Children’s Health Defense, The Defender August 13, 2024
• ³ The Anxious Generation March 2, 2024
• ^{6, 7, 8, 9} Behav Sci (Basel). 2023 Dec; 13(12): 1004
• ^{10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15} Cureus. 2024 Apr; 16(4): e58719
• ¹⁶ Environmental Research June 15, 2024, Volume 251, Part 1, 118634, Results
• ¹⁷ International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2020, 17(21), 8079; doi: 10.3390/ijerph17218079
• ¹⁸ Fertility and Sterility December 2023 Epub ahead of print

The Bible says that a God that loves us far more than we can possibly imagine created us and everything that we see. That is actually really good news.

Can you imagine what our world would be like if it had been created by some incredibly evil entity? The God of the Bible is a God of goodness, He is a God of order, and He is a God of science. And in recent years science and the Bible have been confirming one another again and again.

Of course the Bible is not a science textbook. It is a love letter to humanity that tells the entire story of the human race from the very beginning to the very end. But when the Bible speaks on matters of science, it is accurate.

For example, the Bible tells us that our universe is filled with vast numbers of stars.  In fact, it compares the number of stars to the number of sand grains along the shore.  This is what Genesis 22:17 says…

That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies

In ancient times, humans could see that there were thousands of starts in the sky, but they had no idea how vast the universe really is. Today, it is estimated that there are 200 billion trillion stars in the universe. Put another way, there are approximately 200 sextillion stars in existence. That is a lot of stars!

Interestingly, it has also been estimated that there are approximately 7.5 sextillion grains of sand on our planet. So if you are going to compare the number of stars in the universe to something on Earth, sand would be perhaps the closest thing.

The Bible also tells us that every star is different.  The is what  1 Corinthians 15:41 says…

There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.

In ancient times, humans had no idea that each star is very unique.

To the naked eye, they pretty much all look the same.

But now we know better.

In Job 26:7, we are told that the Earth does not rest on anything…

He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

Throughout history, various civilizations have come up with all sorts of bizarre theories about our planet.

For example, there is one ancient myth about the Earth resting on the back of a giant sea turtle.

Needless to say, that is not true.

Today, we know that the Earth is not sitting or resting on anything, and that is what the Bible said all along.

Let me switch gears and discuss the hydrologic cycle for a little bit.

There are several places in the Bible where we see accurate descriptions of the hydrologic cycle.  For instance, Amos 9:6 tells us that God “calleth for the waters of the sea, and poureth them out upon the face of the earth”.

That is pretty remarkable.

But that isn’t the only example…

–“He causeth the vapours to ascend from the ends of the earth; he maketh lightnings for the rain; he bringeth the wind out of his treasuries.” (Psalm 135:7)

–“When he uttereth his voice, there is a multitude of waters in the heavens, and he causeth the vapours to ascend from the ends of the earth; he maketh lightnings with rain, and bringeth forth the wind out of his treasures.” (Jeremiah 10:13)

–“For he maketh small the drops of water: they pour down rain according to the vapour thereof: Which the clouds do drop and distil upon man abundantly. Also can any understand the spreadings of the clouds, or the noise of his tabernacle?” (Job 36:27-29)

How is it possible that these passages express an advanced knowledge of the hydrologic cycle when they were written at a time when humanity had no idea how it really worked? Amazingly, we even see knowledge of the second law of thermodynamics in the Bible.

According to the second law of thermodynamics, the universe and everything in it is continually moving toward a state of entropy.

In other words, the universe and everything in it are wearing out over time. The Bible is in full agreement with this.

Psalm 102:25-26 tells us the following…

²⁵ Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands.

²⁶ They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed

And this is what Hebrews 1:10-12 says…

¹⁰ And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:

¹¹ They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;

¹² And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.

The Bible also demonstrates advanced knowledge of human biology.

In Genesis chapter 17, God instructed Abraham that every male child “who is eight days old among you” was to be circumcised.

So why would God specifically choose the eighth day? Not having enough vitamin K is the primary cause of vitamin deficiency bleeding, and prior to the eighth day newborns simply do not yet possess sufficient quantities of Vitamin K.

In addition, it turns out that the coagulating factor in the blood, prothrombin, is the highest that it will ever be in the entire life of a male on the eighth day. So the eighth day is literally the perfect day to circumcise a male child.

Another example is found in Leviticus chapter 17. In Leviticus 17:11, we are told that “the life of the flesh is in the blood”, and that is so true. Oxygen, water and everything else that our cells need to function is carried through our blood. Without our blood, there is no life.

At the time of the American Revolution, sick people were still being “bled” in order to cure them of various diseases. It was a barbaric practice, and it was a very foolish thing to do. If they just read their Bibles, doctors at that time would have understood that the life of the flesh is in the blood.

Leviticus chapter 17 also instructs us not to eat blood. For centuries, we did not understand why this is important. But now we know that blood can carry various pathogens.

In addition, the Bible instructs us not to eat pork, shellfish and other creatures that can make us very, very sick. Of course most people continue to eat such creatures today even though science has confirmed the dangers of eating them.

In particular, I don’t understand why so many people still eat so much pork.  Study after study has shown that eating pork is a highway to heart disease, cancer and diabetes.

Before I end this discussion, there is one more thing that I wanted to mention. In the Book of Leviticus, there are more than a dozen references to the benefits of bathing in water. For most of human history, this was not well understood.

In fact, as late as the Middle Ages common people did not bathe often, and there are many that believe that this greatly contributed to the spread of the bubonic plague throughout Europe.

It wasn’t until the 1860s that French chemist Louis Pasteur developed modern germ theory.  Now we understand the importance of washing our hands under running water and regularly taking baths or showers.

What I have covered here is just the tip of the iceberg. But hopefully it gives you some idea of how science and the Bible have been confirming one another through the years. The God who created all things knows exactly what He is doing. And He wants to have a relationship with you.

Michael’s new book entitled “Chaos” is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com, and you can subscribe to his Substack newsletter at michaeltsnyder.substack.com.

But Frio Cave has a darker history that visitors websites don’t mention. More than fifty years ago, two humans contracted rabies while spelunking there.

That humans would get infected with rabies while visiting a bat-infested cave isn’t altogether surprising. Bats are a reservoir for the terrifying disease – 99% fatal to humans once symptoms – like hyperactivity, hallucinations, seizures, and fear of water – develop. A simple bite from one of the millions of bats could have transmitted a lyssavirus that triggers rabies. However, in this instance, the spelunkers apparently weren’t bitten. Rather, it seems they caught the virus from the air itself.

A team of scientists subsequently investigated. They found that rabies virus could be transmitted to animals housed in empty cages within the cave, apparently just via the atmosphere itself. Moreover, the virus was isolated from samples collected via air condensation techniques.

The episode raised a disturbing prospect. Had rabies, the deadliest virus for humankind, gone airborne?

To be clear, it had not, at least not in a manner that would result in ultra-contagious, human-to-human spread. The sheer number of rabies-carrying bats in the cave likely transformed it into a “hot-box” of infection. Rabies remains transmitted almost entirely through bites and scratches from infected animals, and it is rapidly inactivated by sunlight and heat. However, for safety, members of the general public are now only allowed to enter Frio Cave on guided tours that remain near the mouth of the cave.

That doesn’t mean that rabies virus couldn’t mutate to become transmitted through the air. It’s an RNA virus, and these are known to have high mutation rates. Indeed, scientists have found “a vast array of antigenic variants of this pathogen in a wide range of animal hosts and geographic locations.”

Moreover, as two Italian scientists wrote in a 2021 article, “Even single amino acid mutations in the proteins of Rabies virus can considerably alter its biological characteristics, for example increasing its pathogenicity and viral spread in humans, thus making the mutated virus a tangible menace for the entire mankind.”

Another possible route for this to occur would be through a “gain-of-function” experiment, in which researchers employ gene-editing to tweak the rabies virus, making it evade current vaccines and endowing it with the ability to spread through the air like measles or influenza. Gain-of-function research has earned increased public scrutiny of late as there’s a small, outside chance it may have produced SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19.

Paul Offit, a professor of pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and co-inventor of a rotavirus vaccine, commented on the potential to augment rabies through gain-of-function in a recent Substack post.

“In the absence of an effective vaccine, it could eliminate humans from the face of the earth. The good news is that no one has tried to make rabies virus more contagious. But that doesn’t mean that it’s not possible or that no one would be willing to try.”

The “socialism” is settled, and it has NOTHING at all to do with science, otherwise, all the conspiracy theories would crumble to bits instantly. The science shows that vaccines are dangerous, and that the risk highly outweighs the benefits, if there even are any. The science shows the earth is actually in a slow cooling period lasting thousands of years. The science shows that cosmetic operations, hormone pills and breasts and genitalia-mutilation surgeries do not make a boy a girl, or a girl a boy, or a man a woman, or a woman a man. In those aspects, the science is settled, but don’t go arguing or debating “science” ever again, or the price you pay is censorship and social excommunication.

The “science is settled” means don’t talk about science when it comes to deadly vaccines, climate change hoaxes or gender-fluid role-playing (acting)

The science is never “settled,” or it’s not science at all. Nobody can say the Covid “vaccines” are safe and effective, because they can’t prove that with science, and there are no long term studies available because they’re just three years young. However, the short-term consequences are happening all around us, every day, as millions of people who got the biological weapons of mass-immune destruction injections (mRNA jabs) are suffering from vascular clots, myocarditis, pericarditis, spontaneous miscarriages, anxiety and depression, and that science is now “in.”

The science is only “settled” when that science is a lie and is part of a eugenics agenda, like with the deadly mRNA vaccines, and the bankrupt-the-middle-class climate change Ponzi scheme. No Leftist can have a healthy debate or civilized discussion about their “platforms” and narratives because it all falls apart the second someone brings up real science. They can’t prove the world is getting hotter, or that there are more hurricanes or earthquakes than ever before. The sea level is not rising, and no beaches are disappearing. Men still can’t get their period or birth children. Women still can’t play linebacker in the NFL, or compete with men in the UFC, it’s just biologically not going to work out so well.

The Science Wars are underway, but there’s only news about one side being published in the mainstream media, and that is where ALL the misinformation and disinformation is rooted and festers, 24/7/365. The Science Wars of 2024 have never been more dangerous for the populace, who walk around mis-educated and brainwashed, like sheeple living on the battlefield without a shield. They walk into health disasters daily, while relying on disinformation from their doctors, nurses, the CDC and the FDA. They are losing every battle in the Science Wars, by default, and they simply cannot figure out why.

The people on prescription medications are the sickest people in the world, and they believe the fake science that the pharma cartel publishes for them to gobble up. Just listen to the side effects advertised on TV for any medication. You have to be brainwashed to accept this as “science.” Tune your internet dial to Gender.news for updates on extreme liberals who hate science because it proves their fraud. Welcome to World War III, and it’s not about guns, bombs and missiles, it’s about BAD science, eugenics and depopulation. Wake up.

Sources for this article include:

• DailyCaller.com
• NaturalNews.com

The “Science” is always “settled” when it comes to huge scams propagated by billionaire globalists who want complete control of the world’s population

Oh yes, there is no arguing, investigating or discoveries left to be made when it comes to the biggest Ponzi schemes on planet earth. If they declared the earth was flat, how many millions of Americans would put those bumper stickers on their car and march for the cause to stop people from falling off the edge? And don’t go challenging the lies or you will be censored by all of social and mainstream media, including Google, YouTube, TikTok and the “nightly news.”

Now the globalists and big corporations are conning the sheeple into eating bugs instead of meat, because this too will save earth from sure destruction, according to the “science” that’s totally and utterly settled. Supposedly, it’s all those cow farts that are trapping the sun’s heat on Earth and causing all these illegal immigrants to flood into America, the only place where the weather is still tolerable for survival. According to fake news, illegal immigrants now have rights to illegally enter America because of, obviously, “climate change.”

Ever since the Vietnam War, Americans are all supposed to believe that the Russians are constantly trying to invade every other nation on the planet and take over. Any time anything bad happens, you can count on the fake news to blame Russia. When Trump won again in 2020, blame Russia. When NATO’s biolabs were discovered in Ukraine and the Biden Regime’s money-laundering hub was revealed, it was those pesky Russians that must be stopped. Send them all U.S. taxpayer money and all U.S. military weapons to save innocent Ukraine from the big bully Russians.

Still, as the Biden Regime dismantles the Republic we love, by crippling the supply chains, printing money by the trillions yearly and disappearing it and flooding America with tens of millions of illegal immigrants, the Ponzi schemes are in full effect, garnering continued support from the brainwashed masses of Liberals and Democrats.

The 8 most absurd proclamations by the globalists that the brainwashed masses believe

1. Co2 is causing “global warming” so humans need to stop breathing (die off) to save earth.
2. Humans must eat bugs instead of meat in order to stop “climate change”.
3. Americans must support Ukraine and send all their hard-earned money to them, or those pesky Russians will take over the world real soon.
4. Humans must buy electric cars because it will save the planet.
5. America must have open borders, otherwise we are all racists who hate immigrants.
6. All white people are born racists and must be taught that in school to realize it.
7. Democrats in the White House now want democracy and what is best for the USA.
8. Covid-19 mRNA vaccines were made to save the world from a “novel virus” (even though they were likely created to eliminate a few billion).

Tune your apocalypse dial to Preparedness.news  or updates on real news about surviving and thriving beyond what comes this way.

Sources for this article include:

• Censored.news
• NaturalNews.com
• CFR.org

The paper out of England states that fluoridation results in a mere two percent fewer cavities than non-fluoridation, two percent being a statistically insignificant figure that might as well be zero percent. Also, fluoridation does not prevent teeth from falling out.

The longstanding claim that artificially fluoridating water results in net economic benefits by lowering public dental costs is also a myth, the study states. To the contrary, fluoridating water results in a net economic loss when considering the capital costs of doing it.

Using the dental insurance records of 6.4 million adults living in England, the study found that those living in fluoridated areas show no reduction in tooth decay compared to those living in non-fluoridated areas.

“It’s the largest ever study of the effects of fluoridation on the dental health of adults,” wrote filmmaker and architect Robin Monotti on X.

“The LOTUS study, funded by the UK Department of Health, was intended to inform policy-makers of what to expect for future dental and economic outcomes from the current plan to expand fluoridation to all of England. Currently, only 10% of England is fluoridated. The study found ‘exceedingly small’ reductions in caries most people would not consider meaningful.”

(Related: Harvard researchers discovered more than a decade ago that consuming fluoridated water causes children to develop ADHD and other mental disorders.)

Fluoridated water kills

In a best-case scenario, consuming fluoridated water as opposed to non-fluoridated water might save a person $1 per year in dental care costs. This does not take into consideration the costs of expanding England’s fluoridation program, which as previously mentioned would more than likely lead to net economic losses.

On the other hand, the risks of consuming fluoridated water far outweigh any best-case scenario savings of $1 per person, per year, not the least of which include dental fluorosis, or the discoloration and breakdown of teeth and tooth enamel.

In areas of the United States where public drinking water is fluoridated, upwards of 70 percent of children now suffer from dental fluorosis, the cost of which to fix through cosmetic dentistry can be enormous. Not only that, fluoridated water damages brain tissue and leads to a reduction in IQ in children.

“The economic cost of nation-wide ‘brain drain’ would certainly dwarf the costs of filling a few cavities,” Monotti notes.

These findings from the LOTUS study come not long after those of the CATFISH study, which similarly found that water fluoridation is a pointless endeavor in terms of providing any actual benefits to dental health.

“That study found only 0.3 fewer cavities per child from fluoridation, and there was confounding in the study that might have caused even that small benefit to be exaggerated,” Monotti explains.

https://t.co/gH7hz6rVzC

— Robin Monotti (@robinmonotti) February 17, 2024

“Fluoride also calcifies your pineal gland or ‘third eye,'” responded someone on X to Monotti’s post.

When someone else responded in defense of continuing to fluoridate public water supplies, another responded that applying fluoride to tooth enamel is a whole lot different than consuming fluoride in water.

“Fluoride doesn’t do anything good for your teeth when it’s in your liver,” the second responder said. “Water isn’t mouthwash.”

“If it is not good for the public then it is good for the elites,” said someone else.

“Fluoridation in the brain attracts aluminum, which is believed to cause Alzheimer’s,” noted another about the link between fluoride consumption and dementia.

“It affects thyroid, pineal gland and most importantly for the global cartel, the brain and intelligence,” said another.

The latest news about toxic fluoride can be found at Fluoride.news.

Sources for this article include:

• Twitter.com
• NaturalNews.com

Over the past 50 years, there has been a tiny bit of warming, you might say, as the climate is always changing. Weather is always in flux, ebbing and flowing upwards and downwards with the changing seasons. With that in mind, climate data as it currently exists is hardly alarming when looking at it honestly without the usual climate paranoia.

The Heritage Foundation produced data in a commentary showing that actual temperatures over the years are much lower than the climate models suggest. And yet, we are constantly being told that the planet and oceans are on the verge of “melting” and “boiling” based on nothing more than unfounded fear and paranoia.

Climate worshippers everywhere insist that, unless we all stop eating meat, passing gas, driving cars and traveling overseas – and most importantly to them, unless we pay our carbon taxes – there will come a day when ocean levels rise and surpass most land masses, leaving nowhere for anyone to live except in a houseboat.

(Related: There is growing speculation that the next “pandemic” will be something related to global warming that results in the World Health Organization [WHO] unleashing climate lockdowns.)

Planetary melting will only happen when God unleashes it

What The Heritage Foundation’s report shows is that starting in 1945 – this date is used as a benchmark because carbon dioxide (CO2) so-called “emissions” really started to rise after World War II – average temperatures did somewhat increase.

“… when one compares the future warming response in 33 computer models to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 above preindustrial levels (called ‘2x CO2’), 1945 is the starting year that produces the highest correlation between those warming trends and the eventual total amount of global-average warming in response to 2xCO2,” explains the Daily Signal about the study.

“In other words, 1945 is the starting date when computer models’ past warming trends best predict future rates of global warming.”

Keep in mind that the above 33 count comes from a pool of computer models that was only 34 in totality, meaning all but one of the models actually matches reality as outlined in official temperature data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Even when using the computer models deemed most likely by the United Nations’ (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to have the most likely response to a doubling in CO2 levels, the model-average warming trend is still 54 percent higher than what is actually being observed. And similar to the above 33 out of 34 climate models from the NOAA being exaggerated, 25 of the 26 climate models in the UN category likewise depicted far more warming than actually occurred in real life.

All of this is critically important because climate models are what politicians everywhere are using to form climate policy. If the data they are relying on is incorrect, which it is, then harsh policies like driving and travel restrictions, as well as carbon credits and carbon taxes, are based on little more than climate fiction.

Truth be told, the planet will eventually “warm,” you might say, to the point of being burnt by fire, but that will be a prophetic act of God, not a result of mankind not living “green” enough for the globalists’ liking.

There is no such thing as man-made global warming, unless they mean geoengineering and other forms of deliberate weather manipulation. Find out more at Climate.news.

Sources for this article include:

• DailySignal.com
• Heritage.org
• NaturalNews.com
• BlueLetterBible.org

We are talking about chemtrails and other forms of geoengineering, which those who propagate such things used to deny before eventually admitting that, yes, there are attempts being made to alter the function of the natural order to stop “climate change.”

Concepts like “dumping chemicals in the ocean” and “injecting reflective particles in the sky” are making headlines in prominent media outlets that once denied the existence of such things. Because of the alleged “climate crisis,” deranged scientists are coming up with bizarre ideas like blocking out the sun with poison, which they claim will protect Earth from melting.

(Related: Last summer, Mexico banned chemtrails and geoengineering after an American startup firm tried to block out the sun with chemicals in Baja California Sur.)

Cloud brightening, atmospheric chemicals, dyed oceans

Just the other day, the Wall Street Journal reported on some of these newfangled projects, claiming that they stand to “reduce greenhouse gas emissions” at a much faster rate than existing technologies.

In order to stop “scary” things like heat waves, thunderstorms and floods, the climate industry is rushing to change the way clouds work and alter the pH levels of the ocean, among other large-scale planetary endeavors.

They still want everyone to stop eating meat and drive electric vehicles (EVs), of course, but those interventions are simply not enough to reach the “carbon-free economy” that they want to see take full shape by the year 2030.

One of the newest projects going on right now involves blasting a brine mixture into the sky to create larger, brighter clouds to reflect sunlight back into space. This project is taking place at Southern Cross University in Australia with funding from the government, other universities and various conservation organizations.

Across the world in Israel, a startup called Stardust Solutions is spending $15 million in private funding to blast reflective particles into the sky at high altitudes to try to reduce solar radiation. In the “next few months,” tests using the proprietary chemical blend will move from an indoor testing facility to the actual outdoors.

In the United States at Martha’s Vineyard, the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute is planning to dump thousands of gallons of sodium hydroxide dyed with chemical colorings into the ocean to create a so-called “carbon sink” to draw carbon dioxide (CO2) out of the atmosphere and into the water.

Then there was the infamous “Make Sunsets” geoengineering effort in California that eventually made its way down to Mexico, prompting widespread criticism and outrage because of the sulfur and other harmful chemicals that were released into the atmosphere.

The climate cult is finally starting to admit that its efforts to reduce carbon are not working, so this is why they are shifting to more extreme measures like trying to block out the sun and recreate atmospheric gas concentrations and ratios to “fix” whatever they think is wrong with the climate.

Over at the United Nations (UN), there is also growing talk that the age of “global warming” has actually ended, and now the world is shifting into a period of “global cooling.”

“All of this is a clear sign that the ‘climate crisis,’ or rather the ‘climate crisis’ narrative, is entering a dangerous new phase,” warns the National Pulse.

“Rational thinking increasingly leads to alarmism and, ultimately, hysteria about impending doom. Under such conditions, the most unreasonable and ill-considered responses will seem reasonable and appropriate.”

More of the latest news about globalist efforts to reconfigure the world in their image can be found at Geoengineering.news.

Sources for this article include:

• TheNationalPulse.com
• NaturalNews.com

[Editor’s Note: The short answer is, “NO!” These fake embryos should not be used for research or anything else. They should not exist. Unfortunately, they DO exist now which is why we are publishing this article. Dr. Joseph Mercola dives into the details and conflicts to help us gain an understanding so we can better oppose this. And while I don’t agree with everything Dr. Mercola writes — just as I know not everyone will agree with what I write — it’s important nonetheless to have this conversation now before it’s too late to address it.]

Researchers have succeeded in creating synthetic embryos for the first time, without stopping to first answer the question of if they should be created at all. The embryos exist without the need for egg, sperm or sexual reproduction of any kind. They were engineered from stem cells and provide a window into the earliest days of human development.¹

The scientists behind the synthetic embryos, including Magdalena Żernicka-Goetz, of the University of Cambridge and the California Institute of Technology, hope to study this so-called “black box” development period, as researchers are only legally allowed to grow human embryos up to 14 days.²

“We can create human embryo-like models by the reprogramming of [embryonic stem] cells,” Żernicka-Goetz said at the 2023 International Society for Stem Cell Research meeting in Boston.³ Further, the synthetic human embryos aren’t subject to the 14-day rule.⁴

Synthetic Human Embryos Form Distinct Cell Lines

The embryos were grown to the gastrulation stage of development, when distinct cell lines develop. While the embryos do not have a beating heart, gut or beginnings of a brain, they have primordial cells that are the precursors to egg and sperm. Żernicka-Goetz told The Guardian:⁵

“Our human model is the first three-lineage human embryo model that specifies amnion and germ cells, precursor cells of egg and sperm. It’s beautiful and created entirely from embryonic stem cells.”

The preprint study, which hasn’t been peer-reviewed yet, was published in bioRxiv,⁶ alongside a similar study by stem-cell biologist Jacob Hanna and colleagues at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel.⁷ Both studies have received some criticism that the synthetic embryos aren’t as advanced as they initially appear. Nature reported:⁸

“Alfonso Martinez Arias, a developmental biologist at Pompeu Fabra University in Barcelona, Spain, says there is ‘nothing’ in the results described by Zernicka-Goetz and her colleagues that can be considered analogous to real 14-day embryos.

‘What we can see is masses of cells separated into compartments, but no embryo-like organization,’ he says. He thinks that the over-expression of some genes needed to produce the extra-embryonic cell types ‘confuses what cells do,’ and argues that the results do not show anything that goes beyond earlier work.”

However, others have praised the work. Hanna’s team, which also produced a synthetic embryo-like structure from human stem cells, also stopped their experiment at the 14-day cutoff for human embryos, but Żernicka-Goetz and others have argued that allowing the synthetic embryos to develop longer would be useful to science.⁹

Speaking with Science, developmental biologist Jesse Veenvliet of the Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics said of the synthetic embryo developed by Hanna’s team, “The similarity to the natural embryo is remarkable, almost uncanny.”¹⁰

Prior to the synthetic human embryo, researchers created synthetic mouse embryos.¹¹ This was less than a year ago, showing how rapidly the field is moving. While the implications for research are exciting, there are significant ethical implications, since the synthetic embryos could, at least theoretically, grow into a human. Robin Lovell-Badge, told The Guardian:¹²

“The idea is that if you really model normal human embryonic development using stem cells, you can gain an awful lot of information about how we begin development, what can go wrong, without having to use early embryos for research.”

Legal and Ethical Implications Are Significant

While it’s currently against the law to attempt to implant a synthetic embryo into a human womb, the science is rapidly outpacing related regulations. “If the whole intention is that these models are very much like normal embryos, then in a way they should be treated the same,” Lovell-Badge told The Guardian. “Currently in legislation they’re not. People are worried about this.”¹³

In animal studies, synthetic embryos implanted into mice wombs did not survive. Similarly, when synthetic monkey embryos were implanted into monkey wombs, pregnancies were induced, although the embryos spontaneously stopped developing after a few days.¹⁴

However, if the synthetic embryos could one day grow into humans, we’d be entering into uncharted legal and ethical territory. Ethicist J. Benjamin Hurlbut of Arizona State University told Science that synthetic embryos represent “a matter of significant moral discussion and of significant moral concern.”¹⁵

Are We Headed for Mechanical Wombs?

Scientists are already working on how to grow life outside of a human womb and, in 2021, Hanna and colleagues grew a mouse embryo in a mechanical womb for about half of a typical gestational term — a time period equal to a human embryo at 5 weeks.¹⁶

Growing mouse embryos “ex utero,” the researchers said, is a valuable tool to investigate embryonic development in detail,¹⁷ but it comes with serious ethical questions, including might humans be next?¹⁸

The answer is yes, as Hanna told MIT Technology Review, “This sets the stage for other species. I hope that it will allow scientists to grow human embryos until week five.”¹⁹ Are we headed for an “era of motherless births,”²⁰ in which babies are gown in laboratories via artificial wombs? It does seem to be where the research is rapidly headed.

The term ectogenesis, which describes gestation that occurs outside a human body, from conception to birth, was coined in 1924 by scientist J.B.S. Haldane.²¹ But it’s only now, nearly a century later, that technology is nearing the point of making this a reality. Haldane predicted ectogenesis would make up more than 70% of human births by 2074.²²

First, however, will likely be partial ectogenesis, a field being rapidly pursued as a means to extend viability of extremely premature babies. Not only has artificial amniotic fluid been developed, but the layer of cells in the uterus that nourishes the pregnancy, known as the endometrium, is also being developed as a cell culture.

This paves the way for partial ectogenesis and then full-fledged ectogenesis in the not-so-distant future. According to the Genetic Literacy Project:²³

“The convergence of these technologies will make it possible to transfer a developing human into a system that includes the placenta and umbilical cord and supplies all consumables (oxygen and food), and removes all waste, directly through the blood. Thus, survival and continuing development would not depend on the lungs and other organs being ready yet to do their job.

Applying such a system to fetus delivered in the middle of pregnancy would constitute real partial ectogenesis. Furthermore, since bypassing the developing, not fully functional organs, stands to improve survival substantially, and might even decrease the costs of extreme premature birth, the movement of the technology from research to clinic is inevitable.

Once that happens, there will be no obstacle against pushing the limit further, toward full ectogenesis. But there will be no obstacle to pushing the limit akin to how lung viability has placed an obstacle to conventional pre-term care. At some point, an in vitro fertilized egg could be planted directly into the artificial womb, with no need for a natural uterus even for the early stages.”

Scientists Develop Robot ‘Skin’ Made From Human Cells

As robots continue to rollout into society, scientists are looking for ways to make them more human. This, they say, will promote their acceptance and further interactions with actual humans. Writing in the journal Matter, researchers explained:²⁴

“Humanoids are robots created with human forms or characteristics; these robots also have the potential to seamlessly interact with human beings. By replicating the appearances and functions (e.g., self-healing) of human beings, humanoids have the potential to establish more harmonic and natural human-robot interactions.”

To facilitate this, the team, from the University of Tokyo, Japan, created living skin for robots, made with human cells. They submerged a three-joint robotic finger into a solution of collagen and human dermal fibroblasts, which conformed to the finger, forming a primer for the next layer of cells, human epidermal keratinocytes. Together, the layers formed a skin-like surface that can even self-heal if wounded.

While the researchers were pleased with the outcome, stating, “We are surprised by how well the skin tissue conforms to the robot’s surface,” they explained, “This work is just the first step toward creating robots covered with living skin.”²⁵ Next, they intend to add sensory neurons, hair follicles, nails and sweat glands to make the robots appear just like humans.

“I think living skin is the ultimate solution to give robots the look and touch of living creatures since it is exactly the same material that covers animal bodies,” study author Shoji Takeuchi said in a news release.²⁶

Will People Be Turned Into Cyborgs?

As robots continue to look increasingly real, scientists are also working on making people more robotic. A May 2021 project report by the U.K. Ministry of Defense, created in partnership with the German Bundeswehr Office for Defense Planning, is titled “Human Augmentation — The Dawn of a New Paradigm, a Strategic Implications Project.”²⁷

As noted in the report, “Human augmentation has the potential to … change the meaning of what it means to be a human.” Merging humans with machines is precisely what Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum (WEF), has stated is the goal of The Fourth Industrial Revolution.²⁸

Schwab dreams of a world in which humans are connected to the cloud, able to access the internet through their own brains. This, of course, also means that your brain would be accessible to people who might like to tinker with your thoughts, emotions, beliefs and behavior. The report further explains:²⁹

“Human augmentation will become increasingly relevant, partly because it can directly enhance human capability and behavior and partly because it is the binding agent between people and machines.

Future wars will be won, not by those with the most advanced technology, but by those who can most effectively integrate the unique capabilities of both people and machines. The importance of human-machine teaming is widely acknowledged but it has been viewed from a techno-centric perspective.

Human augmentation is the missing part of this puzzle. Thinking of the person as a platform and understanding our people at an individual level is fundamental to successful human augmentation.”

In May 2023, Elon Musk’s brain-chip company, Neuralink, received approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for a human clinical trial — the first of its kind. The company plans to implant a brain chip into a tetraplegic or paraplegic patient in 2023.³⁰

It’s likely that one day transhumanism will involve the use of technologies that are physically embedded in the human body or brain to offer superhuman cognition or forms of mind control. Gene-edited babies have also been developed. In 2018, He Jiankui, a Chinese scientist, modified the DNA of human embryos during in vitro fertilization by disabling a gene called CCR5, which could potentially make the babies resistant to infection with HIV.³¹

The babies, twin girls known as Lulu and Nana, were born in 2018,³² and a third baby with an edited CCR5 gene was born in 2019.³³ He’s team received major backlash from the highly controversial move, as while the technology to genetically edit human babies has existed for some time, ethical considerations had stopped researchers from tinkering with the human germline.

He went to jail for three years as a result of the “illegal medical practice,”³⁴ but the momentum to create lab-grown designer babies continues. A February 1, 2022, article in Futurism, for instance, announced that Chinese scientists developed an artificial intelligence nanny robot to care for fetuses grown inside an artificial womb.³⁵

As transhumanism gets underway in earnest, there’s little doubt that growing synthetic human embryos is only the beginning — and ethical considerations about growing babies in laboratories will be largely ignored in favor of advancing technology.

Sound off about this on the End Medical Tyranny Substack.

• ^{1, 2, 3, 5, 12, 13, 14} The Guardian June 14, 2023
• ^4, 8 Nature June 16, 2023
• ⁶ bioRxiv June 15, 2023, doi: 10.1101/2023.06.15.545082
• ⁷ bioRxiv June 15, 2023, doi: 10.1101/2023.06.14.544922
• ^9, 10, 15 Science June 17, 2023
• ¹¹ Cell August 1, 2022
• ^16, 18 Popular Mechanics March 18, 2021
• ¹⁷ Nature March 17, 2021
• ¹⁹ MIT Technology Review March 17, 2021
• ^{20, 21, 22, 23} Genetic Literacy Project April 22, 2022
• ²⁴ Matter June 9, 2022
• ^25, 26 EurekAlert! June 9, 2022
• ^27, 29 Human Augmentation — The Dawn of a New Paradigm, A Strategic Implications Project May 2021
• ²⁸ WEF The Fourth Industrial Revolution
• ³⁰ Reuters June 16, 2023
• ³¹ Vox November 30, 2018
• ³² BBC News June 3, 2019
• ³³ CNBC May 21, 2019
• ³⁴ DW April 20, 2023
• ³⁵ Futurism February 1, 2022

(Mercola)—The video above, “CO₂, The Gas of Life,” features a lecture given at the Summit Old Guard Meeting in New Jersey, October 3, 2023, by William Happer, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of physics at Princeton University and former scientific adviser to the Bush and Trump administrations.

The topic: carbon dioxide (CO₂), commonly mischaracterized as a harmful waste product of respiration and a pollutant that is disrupting the planetary climate. As explained by Happer in this lecture, CO₂ is actually an essential gas necessary for life. Moreover, its impact on Earth’s temperatures is negligible, and will remain negligible even if the current concentration in the atmosphere were to double.

CO₂ Is Not a Pollutant

At present, the CO₂ concentration in the atmosphere at a few thousand feet of elevation is around 430 parts per million (ppm). Closer to the ground, concentrations vary widely, both by location and time of day. This is because ground-level readings are impacted by photosynthesis and the respiration of insects and the like.

In the room where Happer was giving his lecture, the CO₂ reading was 1,800 ppm — the result of having a large group of people breathing in a closed space. Air conditioning systems have CO₂ meters that turn on fans to bring outdoor air inside when levels get too high.

The question of what is too high is an important one, considering The Great Resetters are pushing a green agenda that demands the dismantling of energy infrastructure and farming in the name of stopping climate change, which quite obviously threatens our quality of life and food supply. Ultimately, it may threaten human existence altogether.

The fact of the matter is that CO₂ is not the “bad guy” it’s made out to be, and the “net zero” agenda is wholly inappropriate if maintaining life on Earth is part of the equation.

“CO₂ is a very essential and natural part of life,” Happer says. “It is the gas of life. We’re made of carbon after all, mostly carbon, and we breathe out a lot of CO₂ a day just by living. Each of us breathes out about 2 pounds of CO₂ a day. Multiply that by 8 billion people and 365 days a year, and just [by] living, people are a non-negligible part of the CO₂ budget of the Earth.

Nevertheless, we are living through a crusade against so-called pollutant CO₂. People talk about carbon pollution. [But] every one of us is polluting Earth by breathing, [so] if you want to stop polluting … apparently God wants us to commit suicide …

We’re doing all sorts of crazy things because of this alleged pollutant … more and more beautiful meadows are being covered with black solar panels. It doesn’t work very well; it doesn’t work at all at night. It doesn’t work on cloudy days. It doesn’t work terribly well in the middle of the winter because of the angle of the sun.

But nevertheless we’re doing it. We’re being misled into climate hysteria, and if you haven’t read this book, I highly recommend it. It was published first in 1841, called ‘Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds.’ It’s as relevant today as it was then …

I’m a physicist. I’m proud to say that no one could call me a climate scientist, but I know a lot about climate and I was a coauthor of one of the first books on the effects of carbon dioxide 41 years ago. This was a study done by the Jason Group which I was a member of. I was chairman for a while and it had really good people there.”

Long-Term Impact of Increasing Atmospheric CO₂

The key question when it comes to global warming is, how much do you warm the Earth if you double the atmospheric CO₂ concentration? This is called the climate sensitivity question. The GUESS is that doubling CO₂ would result in a 3-degree centigrade rise in the global temperature.

“It was not based on any hard calculations,” Happer says. “It was because of group-think. That’s what everybody else thought, and so that’s what we thought. Now, in my defense, one of the reasons I didn’t pay much attention to this [is because] I was working on something at this time that I thought was much more important. So, let me tell you about that, so you get a feeling for why I think I’m qualified to pontificate about this subject.

It was the beginning of the Strategic Defense Initiative, of Star Wars … President Reagan … wanted some way to defend the United States so that we didn’t have to have this mass suicide pact, and among other things we considered using high-powered lasers to burn up incoming missiles …

But here’s the problem. If you take the 1 megawatt laser on the ground and you send it toward the missile, by the time it gets to the missile, the beam — instead of focusing all the power on the missile — breaks up into hundreds of sub beams — speckles — and this was something that was well-known to astronomers. You have the same problem when you’re looking at distant stars and galaxies.

Astronomers knew how to fix this … If you can measure how much this wave is bent, then you can bounce it off a mirror bent in the opposite direction, and when the wave bounces up it’s absolutely flat. That’s called adaptive optics and it works beautifully. Then, when you focus the corrected beam, you get a single spot instead of hundreds of [beams].

The trouble with that is that if you look at the night sky, there are only four or five stars that are bright enough to have enough photons to do the measurement of the distortion of the wave. So, we had a classified meeting in the summer of 1982. There were a number of Air Force officers there who explained the problem. By chance, I knew how to solve it.

You can make an artificial star anywhere in the sky by shining a laser tuned to the sodium frequency onto the layer of sodium above our heads, at 90 to 100 kilometers.”

While the Air Force was initially dubious about there being a sodium layer in the atmosphere, they did eventually build the sodium laser proposed by Happer, and if you go to any ground-based telescope today, you’ll usually see one or two of them. Anyway, that story was simply to impress you with the fact that Happer knows what he’s talking about when it comes to atmospheric constituents and their related phenomena.

CO₂ Has No Discernible Impact on Earth Temperatures

According to the climate alarmists, rising CO₂ will result in global warming that will threaten all life on earth. In actuality, however, CO₂ “is a very puny tool to do anything to the climate,” Happer says.

Keep in mind that there’s no single temperature on the Earth. It varies by location and altitude. For every kilometer of altitude, you have an average cooling of 6.6 degrees C. This is known as the lapse rate. That cooling continues up to the troposphere, where it stops.

The cooling is due to the fact that warm air rises and cool air descends. “It’s the convection that sets that rapid drop of temperatures — 6-and-a-half degrees per kilometer,” Happer says. He then explains the following graph, which details the thermal radiation to space from the Earth, assuming a surface temperature of 15.5 degrees C. The greenhouse gases is the area beneath the jagged black curve.

According to Happer, this is only 70% of what it would be without greenhouse gases, which is shown as the smooth blue curve, because as the sun heats the earth, greenhouse gases — mostly water vapor — impede cooling.

The most important part of this graph is the red jagged line, shown here with a red arrow pointing to it. That red line shows the effect that a doubling (a 100% increase) of CO₂ would have on the surface temperature of Earth. As you can see, it’s negligible. It decreases radiation into space by just 1.1%.

As noted by Happer:

“Let that sink in. We’re far from doubling [CO₂] today. It’ll take a long time, [and] it only causes a 1% change. So, CO₂ is a very poor greenhouse gas. It’s not an efficient greenhouse gas.”

If you remove ALL CO₂, you end up with the green jagged curve. As you can see, the green and black jagged lines run parallel with the exception of one spot. There’s a huge effect if you go from zero CO₂ to 400 ppm (green arrow). But it’s again negligible when you go from 400 ppm to 800 ppm (black arrow). As explained by Happer:

“You get all of the effect in the first little bit of added CO₂ … So, it’s really true that doubling CO₂ only causes a 1% decrease of radiation. The IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] gets the same answer so this is not really controversial, although they will never show you the curve or tell you that it’s 1%. That would interfere with the narrative …

So, this is radiation to space. How do you change that into a temperature? They’re worried that we’ll get intolerable warming of the surface of the Earth where we live, or other parts of the atmosphere.

Here again it’s important to do the first order calculation … and it says that the warming from doubling CO₂ is … less than one degree … 0.7 [degree] C. Very small. You really can’t feel that.”

Why, Then, the Alarm Over Rising CO₂?

Needless to say, this is a huge problem for the climate science community, because a 0.7 degree C difference means there’s no climate emergency, and no matter what we do to reduce CO₂ emissions, it’s not going to impact the climate.

So, to fabricate an emergency where there really is none, the IPCC “assumes enormous positive feedbacks,” Happer says. Because CO₂ is not a potent greenhouse gas, the tiny direct warming caused by it is amplified by factors of anywhere from four to six to make it seem like it has a discernible impact.

“I like to say it’s affirmative action for CO₂,” Happer says. “It’s not very good at warming but if you assume lots of feedback, you can keep the money coming in.” The problem with that is that most who have a background in physical chemistry and physics know that most natural feedbacks are negative, not positive.

The 0.7 degree C of warming you get when you double the CO₂ is probably an overestimate, because there are probably negative feedbacks operating in this very complicated climate system that we live in.” ~ William Happer, Ph.D.

This is known as the Chatelier Principle, named after the French chemist who first discovered that “when a simple system in thermodynamic equilibrium is subjected to a change in concentration, temperature, volume or pressure … the system changes to a new equilibrium and … the change partly counteracts the applied change.”

So, the 0.7 degree C of warming you get when you double the CO₂ is “probably an overestimate,” Happer says, “because there are probably negative feedbacks operating in this very complicated climate system that we live in. The atmosphere, the oceans, everything is nonlinear.”

The key take-home from all this is that whether we’re at 400 ppm of CO₂ or 800 ppm doesn’t matter when it comes to impacting the temperature of the earth. In short, the climate hysteria is just that. It’s not based on any real threat. Only if we were able to get to absolute zero CO₂ would there be a change, but doing so also means we’d exterminate all living things on the planet. It’s nothing short of a suicide agenda.

More CO₂ Will Green the Planet

As explained by Happer, more CO₂ will green the planet, making it more hospitable to plant life. The more CO₂ there is, the better plants and trees grow, so if we want lush forests and bountiful harvests, cutting CO₂ is the last thing we’d want to do.

“All plants grow better with more CO₂ [in the air],” he says. “Plants are really starved [of] CO₂ today. We know plants need many essential nutrients. They need nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium; most important of all they need water. But they also need CO₂, and like many of the other nutrients, CO₂ today is in short supply.”

CO₂ benefits plants by reducing their water needs, hence less risk from drought. Higher CO₂ levels also reduce harmful photorespiration. According to Happer, C3-type plants lose about 25% of their photosynthesis potential due to increased photorespiration. For more in-depth information about the role of CO₂ in plant growth and photosynthesis, please view the video. This discussion begins around the 40-minute mark.

Lies, Ignorance, Stupidity or Something Else?

In closing, Happer makes an effort to explain what’s driving the climate hysteria:

“In spite of incontrovertible arguments that there is no climate emergency — CO₂ is good for the Earth — the campaign to banish CO₂, ‘net zero,’ has been very successful. So, how can that be? I’m really out of my depth here because now I’m talking about human nature. I’m really good with instruments and with solving differential equations but I’m not very good at understanding human beings.

But here are some of the drivers: noble lies, political lies, ignorance, stupidity, greed. Noble lies goes back to Plato who discusses it in ‘The Republic.’ ‘In politics, a noble lie is a myth or untruth, often, but not invariably of a religious nature, knowingly propagated by an elite to maintain social harmony or to advance an agenda.’

And here there’s a clear agenda. If you could somehow unite mankind to fight some external threat, for example CO₂ pollution, then we won’t fight each other. There won’t be wars. So, I think many sincere people have latched on to the CO₂ narrative partly for that reason. You can actually read about it in the early writings of the Club of Rome.

Then there are political lies. This is one my favorite H.L. Menken quotes: ‘The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.’”

Ignorance, of course, is widespread, and largely based on incomplete knowledge or a flawed understanding of the facts. And what of stupidity? Dietrich Bonhoeffer, one of the few German clergymen who opposed Hitler and eventually paid for his public dissent with his life, once wrote about human stupidity:

“Against stupidity we have no defense. Neither protest nor force can touch it. Reasoning is of no use. Facts that contradict personal prejudices can simply be disbelieved — indeed, the fool can counter by criticizing them, and if they are undeniable, they can just be pushed aside as trivial exceptions.

So the fool, as distinct from the scoundrel, is completely self-satisfied. In fact, they can easily become dangerous, as it does not take much to make them aggressive. For that reason, greater caution is called for than with a malicious one.”

Happer himself has experienced the danger of opposing stupidity. “I regularly get phone calls threatening me, my wife and children with death,” he says. “So, what kind of movement is this?” Lastly, greed. A.S. Pushkin once said, “If there should happen to be a trough, there will be pigs.” And climate science is currently where the big bucks are — provided your work furthers the global warming narrative and the need for net zero emissions.

Whatever the drivers are, responsible people everywhere need to push back against the false climate change narrative and the net zero agenda, as it will accomplish nothing in terms of normalizing temperatures, but will rapidly erode quality of life and the sustainability of food production, and shift wealth into the hands of the few.