Craziest activist photos from the #MarchForScience

Their true colors shine brightly:

This Earth Day, April 22, Earth Day Network and the March for Science are co-organizing a rally and teach-in on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. The day’s program will include speeches and trainings with scientists and civic organizers, musical performances, and a march through the streets of Washington, D.C. The crowd will gather at 8:00am, and the teach-in will begin at 09:00 am.

Here’s a photo of AP’s science writer Seth Borenstein doing an interview with, er, Barney. I think. Pretty well sums up Seth’s outlook.

Godwin’s law was proven early, and this sign, pretty well sums up the insanity:

I seem to recall leftists went berserk when the Heartland institute put up a billboard with a similar meme, using the unabomber. But, apparently its OK when they do it.

Ummm….WTF?

Ecosexuals Believe Having Sex with the Earth Could Save It

The title of this article is not a joke, neither is it fake news nor political satire. It is the title of an article by Neil McArthur from Vice.com.

McArthur reports:

From skinny dippers to people who have actual intercourse with nature, ecosexuality is a growing movement taking a new approach to combatting climate change.

If you happen to find yourself in Sydney this week, you have the unique opportunity to have sex with the earth. You just need to stop by the “ecosexual bathhouse,” which is currently part of the Syndey LiveWorks Festival of experimental art. The bathhouse is an interactive installation created by artists Loren Kronemyer and Ian Sinclair of Pony Express, who described the work to me as a “no-holds-barred extravaganza meant to dissolve the barriers between species as we descend into oblivion” as the result of our global environmental crisis. But they also see their piece as a part of a much larger ecosexual movement, which they say is gathering momentum around the world.

And they may be right. Jennifer Reed, a PhD candidate in sociology at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, is writing a dissertation on ecosexuality, and says that the number of people who identify as ecosexuals has increased markedly in the past two years. And Google search data confirms that interest in the term has spiked dramatically over the past year. We may look back on 2016 as the year ecosexuality hit the mainstream.

Ecosexuality is a term with wide-ranging definitions, which vary depending on who you ask.

Read more…

According to Wikipedia, “Earth religion is a term used mostly in the context of neopaganism.”

I wish after reading McArthur’s column I could find a way to justify this renewal of barbarism, this neopaganism. But I can’t.

If this isn’t worshiping a false idol I don’t know what is.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of participants at the Ecosexual Bathhouse by the art group Pony Express. Photo by Matt Sav

‘March for Science’ invokes God, Hitler, Gay Marriage, Racism, Sexism

“Having spent the day in D.C. on April 22 interviewing the marchers, it struck me about how this is first and foremost a march for endless government funding, ideology and in support of a no dissent policy. (Another new study gives plenty of reason to dissent: New Climate Study Calls EPA’s Labeling Of CO2 A Pollutant ‘Totally False’) The Trump administration can help make science great again by resisting these pay up and shut up demands for taxpayer research money.” See: Bloomberg News: Obama ‘stashed’ $77 billion in ‘climate money’ across agencies to elude budget cuts

Watch: Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer criticizes ‘March for Science’: ‘It is sort of a religious belief for them’ – Dr. Will Happer on Fox News: Asked about more government funded science?  Happer: “We’ve had 8 years of very highly politicized so-called research on climate. It’s not what most of us would recognize as real scientific research. Something where the outcome was demanded before the funding was provided. We should tend to real environmental problems and fix them and stop chasing these phantom problems that are really just religious dogma.”

Watch CNN Debate: Bill Nye blows gasket when a real scientist Dr. Will Happer schools him on ‘climate change’

Pictures and reports about the ‘March for Science’

HITLER DFOUBTED

‘March for Science’: Politics Disguised as Science: When to Doubt a Scientific ‘Consensus’ – The early claims of 97% ‘consensus’: In 1992, former Vice President Al Gore reassured his listeners, “Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled.”

Climatologist Dr. Roger A. Pielke Sr: “If there was any doubt the “March on Science” is political – The march is explicitly a political movement” See full article

Science March 2

Anti-Trump ‘March For Science’ Protest Has Problems W/ Bill Nye Because He’s A White Guy

13 Most Ridiculous Predictions Made on Earth Day, 1970

March For Science To Bill Nye, The Science Guy: Take A Back Seat, You’re White.

Gender strudies

Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry rips ‘march for science’ as ‘a self-serving navel gazing exercise for scientists’ — A ‘we don’t like Trump’ tantrum

The March is over: 

Prof. Roger Pielke Jr.: ‘The smartest people on the planet want to oppose Trump and the best they can come up with is a march in support of themselves?’

Why This Scientist Did Not Attend The ‘Science March’ – ‘Hijacked’ by ‘political partisanship’

Bio Sex

Warmist Michael Mann at ‘March for Science’: ‘Science & scientists are now under attack in this country’

Neil deGrasse Tyson: Elected Science Deniers Are a Threat to Democracy

MARCH FOR SCIENCE UNDER ATTACK FOR LEFT-TILTING POLITICAL AGENDA – “It clearly has a partisan framing,” said Roger A. Pielke Sr., senior research scientist, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at the University of Colorado Boulder. Mr. Pielke, who has been criticized by the climate-change movement for challenging the “consensus,” said he fears the event may erode the public’s trust in science by reinforcing the impression that research is being spun to advance political causes. “I feel this will hurt the reputation of scientists as honest brokers,” said Mr. Pielke in an email. “This march will make them (appropriately) seen as advocates for the liberal side of the Democratic Party. This is not healthy for science, and more broadly, in terms of how scientists engage with policymakers.”

Science March

The Anti-Science ‘March for Science’: ‘Soviet-style central planning of economy in name of ‘saving’ Mother Earth – Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.: “If the climate science is “settled”, as claimed at the March, why argue for so much money for multidecadal climate prediction modeling?”

Bill Nye, The Cognitive Dissonance Guy – ‘He is a junk science guy’

Physicist: ‘March For Science’ is deeply misguided, unethical – Trying to get money for left-wing activists & pretend it’s money for science – Physicist Dr. Lubos Motl on March For Science: “It’s a political event organized by extreme leftists whom I can’t respect and it tries to promote various pet causes of these extremists such as the affirmative action as well as junk science such as the climate hysteria to the status of science, and to get money for basically left-wing activists, although they want to pretend it’s the money for science.”

A real ‘March for Science’ would celebrate scientific puzzles, disagreements, & competing ideas’

Climate Depot’s Marc Morano interviewing at the march

Climate Marches Aren’t About Science — They’re About Trump

The ‘March for Science’ Is Actually a Threat to Science Itself

Craziest activist photos from the #marchforscience #sciencemarchdc

‘March For Science’: ‘The whole march parodies itself’ – ‘Not even Hitler doubted climate change’

Earth Day Must Divorce Itself From The Climate Scare

CNN criticized on Earth Day for daring to air a climate skeptic

March “for Science” — an attempt to replace the failing Earth Day

Our Air Is Cleaner Than Ever, So Why Do People Think It’s Getting Worse?

John Stossel: ‘Gore creatively misremembers his own movie’ & Climate march is ‘really marching for a left-wing religion’ – John Stossel: ‘Now Gore claims “the most criticized” part of the film was his assertion that the 9/11 memorial site would flood. Then, during Hurricane Sandy, it did! But Gore creatively misremembers his own movie. He had claimed the World Trade Center would flood because of a permanent 20-foot sea-level rise. Actual scientists called that nonsense. It would take hundreds of years for such a thing to possibly happen. But since the area flooded, briefly, Gore spins that as confirmation of his exaggerations.’

On March for Science in DC: ‘The alarmists claim they’re marching for “science,” but they’re really marching for a left-wing religion.’

Analysis: ‘March for Science a Dud’

March for Science rallies take aim at climate change skepticism, proposed budget cuts

Analysis: Stand up and ‘March for Science’ say people who don’t know what science is

March “for Science” — an attempt to replace the failing Earth Day

Meteorologist Joe Bastardi: The March for … What?

Democrats Scramble All Over Each Other To Show Support For Science March

Stand up and ‘March for Science’ say people who don’t know what science is

It’s a march for “robust funding” (give us the money)

AFL-CIO: ‘Unionized Scientists March in Protest of Attacks on Science and Jobs’ – Oppose Budget Cuts

It’s not a ‘March for Science’ – it’s ‘Anti-Trump Day’

This Isn’t A ‘March For Science’ — This Is About Economic And Political Policy
CFACT’s David Rothbard at the March filming:

Limit the number of Marijuana Dispensaries in Pinellas County

On Tuesday, April 25th, the Pinellas Board of County Commissioners will consider an ordinance to regulate marijuana cultivation sites and dispensaries. We have analyzed the ordinance and are concerned with the number of dispensaries it would allow.

The proposed ordinance says that it would allow each approved licensee with the state to have 2 dispensaries in unincorporated Pinellas County; this would mean 14 to 16 shops initially with more to come as additional licenses are granted by the state.

The Marijuana Policy Group research paper suggests the optimal number of dispensaries depends upon the number of patients likely to register, the local area population, and the required scale of operation for dispensaries to remain profitable. The average resident ratio among similar states (with laws similar to Amendment 2) is one dispensary per 67,222 residents (1:67,222). This ratio is found to be “optimal” by the MPG for cities an d counties in Florida.

Approximately 280,848 reside within unincorporated Pinellas County. Going by the numbers suggested by the industry, 4 dispensaries in unincorporated Pinellas would be preferred. Other counties in Florida have adopted one dispensary per 100,000 residents.

We respectfully suggest that the commission amend the ordinance to reflect language used by other Florida municipalities to reduce the number of allowed marijuana dispensaries and urge you to

Please click on the Action Alert button below and send a letter to the commissioners supporting a reduced number of dispensaries.

action alert

International Journal ‘New Concepts in Global Tectonics’ launched

DARK WINTER BOOK COVERAs a past supporter of my efforts to get the government and media to help get our country prepared for the next cold climate epoch, I thought you might also be interested in an existing, yet newly commercialized science journal that pursues a similar quest. It is called the New Concepts in Global Tectonics (NCGT) Journal. We have just launched its first commercial version, the March 2017 edition. See it at www.ncgtjournal.com.

Though this internationally known, twenty year old, science journal has its roots in geology, it has expanded its list of covered fields of science. So whether you have a science background or not, this journal has papers and opinions on a wide variety of subjects including current subjects of interest among the general public like earthquakes, volcanoes, sea levels, and climate change.

Under the dedicated leadership of Editor-in-Chief, Dr. Dong Choi, in Canberra, Australia, the NCGT Journal has grown dramatically over the years in readership and its list of contributing authors. In addition to regular contributions of research papers and opinions of the Journal’s Editorial Board of distinguished researchers, the Journal also publishes and actively solicits papers from other researchers.

The NCGT Journal offers several advantages that may satisfy a curious mind. Most important among them is the question of value. Many science journals often charge $30 to $40 per research paper for a single download! The current NCGT Journal comes out each quarter with five or more papers per edition. For the March 2017 edition with over eight papers, the NCGT Journal is only $8.90 per copy! Prior Journal edition prices range from $4.45 each to as low as $2.50 each! With these average science paper prices at or below $1 each, you can now have access to top quality and often controversial science that challenges establishment thinking. That’s just the kind of journal I like and why I have decided to help Dr. Choi make his NCGT Journal a more successful science product.

You are cordially invited to examine this extensive compilation of research at www.ncgtjournal.com. There, you can freely view the table of contents for each of the nearly 100 Journals and past Newsletters going back to the founding edition from December 1996. In the current March 2017, edition you can review abstracts of the numerous papers published, prior to deciding whether the NCGT Journal fits your needs.

Importantly , when you contribute to the newly commercialized  NCGT Journal, you help us build the financial base for a needed science product that could be available long after the founders have gone.

Please go to the web site right now (www.ncgtjournal.com) and pick up one or more editions of the NCGT Journal today and help us make its launch a big success!

ABOUT THE NEW CONCEPTS IN GLOBAL TECTONICS

The NCGT Newsletter, the predecessor of the NCGT Journal, was initiated on the basis of discussion at the symposium “Alternative Theories to Plate Tectonics” held at the 30th International Geological Congress in Beijing in August 1996. The name is taken from an earlier symposium held in association with 28th International Geological Congress in Washington, D. C. in 1989. The NCGT Newsletter changed its name in 2013 to the NCGT Journal. Now in March of 2017 the NCGT Journal initiates its commercialized phase.

Aims include:

  1. Providing an international forum for the open exchange of new ideas and approaches in the fields of geology, geophysics, solar and planetary physics, cosmology, climatology, oceanography and other fields that affect or are closely related to physcial processes occuring on the Earth from its core to the top of its atmosphere.
  2. Forming an organizational focus for creative ideas not fitting readily within the scope of dominant tectonic models.
  3. Forming the basis for the reproduction and publication of such work, especially where there has been censorship or discrimination.
  4. Create a publication that can serve as an exchange of methods and concepts devoted to the prediction, well in advance, of catastrophic earthquakes. Forum for discussion of such ideas and work which has been inhibited in existing channels.

UN Paris Accord ‘A Dead Deal Walking’ as $100 Billion Climate Fund Disappears

Shocking news—the magic $100 billion climate fund appears not to be taking shape! First world donors have been busily relabeling other foreign aid as contributions to the climate kitty. For developing countries, this is a cheat — they expect $100 billion in new money. Or, to put it more accurately, they are not nearly stupid and naive enough to believe the lies Western diplomats tell when trying to bamboozle naive green voters at home that they are “Doing Something” about climate change. So they don’t really expect all that money, but hope to use these commitments to pry something out of the West. This, one notes, is the house of cards that the last Administration claimed was a big piece of its legacy. —The American Interest, 11 April 2017

China, Brazil, India and South Africa have urged industrialized countries to honor financial commitments made in Paris in 2015 to help developing countries fight against global climate change, they said in a statement on Tuesday. Following a meeting in Beijing, climate change ministers from the “BASIC” bloc of four major emerging economies called on rich countries “to honor their commitments and increase climate finance towards the $100 billion goal”, and said more clarity was needed to “track and account for” those pledges. —Reuters, 11 April 2017

Climate ministers from Europe, India, Brazil and South Africa have gone to Beijing in recent weeks, hoping to sustain momentum from the Paris talks despite the Trump administration’s dismantling of US regulations meant to limit American emissions. But discussions have quickly run up against the issue of financing.  “Developed countries have not met their commitments. In their reports a lot of their commitment is in the form of development aid. That doesn’t meet the commitment to contribute to new funds,” China’s top climate change negotiator, Xie Zhenhua, told a briefing on Tuesday. –Lucy Hornby, Financial Times, 11 April 2017

1) Paris Climate Accord Is A Dead Deal Walking As $100 Billion Climate Fund Disappears
The American Interest, 11 April 2017

2) Emerging Nations Urge Trump Administration To Honour Obama’s $100 Billion Climate Funding Pledge
Reuters, 11 April 2017

3) No Consensus: G7 Energy Ministers Fail To Agree On Climate Change
Daily Mail, 10 April 2017

4) Trump’s Climate Demands Roil U.S. Allies
Politico, 11 April 2017

5) China’s New Coal Boom: China’s Coal-Conversion Plants Surge Back To Life
Financial Times, 12 April 2017

6) British Anti-Fracking Campaigners Lose High Court Battle
ITV News, 12 April 2017

G7 energy ministers have failed to agree a statement on climate change this afternoon because of ‘US reservations’, it has emerged. Top officials from the Group of Seven industrial nations gathered in Rome, Italy today amid growing concerns over the US administration’s moves to unravel policies aimed at stalling global warming. However, the US ‘reserved its position’ on the text about commitments made by G7 countries under the Paris accord, said Carlo Calenda, the Italian minister for economic development, who chaired the meeting in Rome. Lacking unanimity, Italy, which currently presides the Group of Seven, decided against proposing the joint statement, Calenda said. —Daily Mail, 10 April 2017

President Donald Trump’s abrupt turnaround on U.S. climate policy is fueling tension with several of America’s closest allies, which are resisting the administration’s demands that they support a bigger role for nuclear power and fossil fuels in the world’s energy supply. The dispute blew up at this week’s meeting of G-7 energy ministers, at which Trump administration officials pushed to include stronger pro-coal, pro-nuclear language in a proposed joint statement on energy policy. G-7 officials, led by the Europeans, refused to agree to stronger language touting fossil fuels without assurances from the United States that it would stay in the Paris climate change agreement, according to officials briefed on the discussions. –Andrew Restuccia, Politico, 11 April 2017Water-guzzling coal-conversion projects are springing to life in arid western China, setting the stage for the large-scale deployment of what was previously a niche industry. A three-year downturn in coal prices has revived projects that convert coal to motor fuel, petrochemical feedstock or gas, after many were shelved in 2008 because of concerns about water supply and pollution. Successful development in China opens the door to the export of coal-intensive technologies, undercutting international efforts to limit emissions of carbon and other greenhouse gases. –Lucy Hornby, Financial Times, 12 April 2017

Fracking looks set to go ahead on a Lancashire site after campaigners lost a High Court challenge. Opponents urged the court to find a government decision approving planning for the site in Fylde either unfair or unlawful. But following a public inquiry, the planning inspector recommended the scheme. Environmentalists and local campaign groups reacted angrily to the decision, which they said went against the wishes of residents. —ITV News, 12 April 2017

1) Paris Climate Accord Is A Dead Deal Walking As $100 Billion Climate Fund Disappears
The American Interest, 11 April 2017

Shocking news—the magic $100 billion climate fund appears not to be taking shape! Even optimistic estimates sat the fund is $40 billion short, and developing countries say that understates the problem.

The Financial Times:

Climate ministers from Europe, India, Brazil and South Africa have gone to Beijing in recent weeks, hoping to sustain momentum from the Paris talks despite the Trump administration’s dismantling of US regulations meant to limit American emissions.

But discussions have quickly run up against the issue of financing.  “Developed countries have not met their commitments. In their reports a lot of their commitment is in the form of development aid. That doesn’t meet the commitment to contribute to new funds,” China’s top climate change negotiator, Xie Zhenhua, told a briefing on Tuesday. “A lot of countries don’t want to chip in. I said to the European minister: that’s your problem as developed countries. It’s your responsibility to work together and sort it out.”

First world donors have been busily relabeling other foreign aid as contributions to the climate kitty. For developing countries, this is a cheat — they expect $100 billion in new money.

Or, to put it more accurately, they are not nearly stupid and naive enough to believe the lies Western diplomats tell when trying to bamboozle naive green voters at home that they are “Doing Something” about climate change. So they don’t really expect all that money, but hope to use these commitments to pry something out of the West. Also, since the West will certainly default on these bogus commitments, developing countries have all the justification they need to blow off their own commitments when the time comes.

This, one notes, is the house of cards that the last Administration claimed was a big piece of its legacy.

Full post

2) Emerging Nations Urge Trump Administration To Honour Obama’s $100 Billion Climate Funding Pledge
Reuters, 11 April 2017

China, Brazil, India and South Africa have urged industrialized countries to honor financial commitments made in Paris in 2015 to help developing countries fight against global climate change, they said in a statement on Tuesday.

Following a meeting in Beijing, climate change ministers from the “BASIC” bloc of four major emerging economies called on rich countries “to honor their commitments and increase climate finance towards the $100 billion goal”, and said more clarity was needed to “track and account for” those pledges.

Climate financing was a major bone of contention during negotiations to seal a new global deal to curb and reduce climate-warming greenhouse gases in Paris at the end of 2015, with China and other developing nations adamant that the bulk of the burden should fall to advanced industrialized nations like the United States.

As part of the Paris deal, developed countries agreed to make more funding available to a Green Climate Fund (GCF), which is designed to be used by poor and climate-vulnerable countries.

But the agreement has been plunged into uncertainty after U.S. President Donald Trump, who has questioned the scientific basis of global warming, last month proposed an end to payments to the GCF and signed an order to undo climate change regulations introduced by his predecessor.

At a media briefing after the Tuesday meeting, South Africa’s deputy minister of environmental affairs, Barbara Thompson, said recent changes in U.S. policy were “of major concern”.

But “the position of the U.S. is still very unclear to us”, she said, adding “we believe there are different views within the U.S. administration” on this issue.
At the same briefing, China’s chief climate envoy, Xie Zhenhua, insisted China remained willing to work closer with the United States.

Xie told Reuters after the briefing that he expected China and the United States to hold talks on climate issues, and that discussions were going on at multiple levels.

Joint pledges made by China and the United States, the world’s two biggest emitters of climate-warming greenhouse gases, helped bridge the gap between developed and developing countries and provided the momentum to seal the deal in Paris.

Full story

3) No Consensus: G7 Energy Ministers Fail To Agree On Climate Change
Daily Mail, 10 April 2017

G7 energy ministers have failed to agree a statement on climate change this afternoon because of ‘US reservations’, it has emerged.

Top officials from the Group of Seven industrial nations gathered in Rome, Italy today amid growing concerns over the US administration’s moves to unravel policies aimed at stalling global warming.

Environmental activists fear US President Donald Trump is dismantling Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan, which aimed at reducing carbon pollution from power plants.

Greenpeace was holding a sit-in outside Monday’s meeting, calling on officials to maintain their commitments to reduce greenhouse gases under the 2015 Paris Agreement.

However, the US ‘reserved its position’ on the text about commitments made by G7 countries under the Paris accord, said Carlo Calenda, the Italian minister for economic development, who chaired the meeting in Rome.

The ministers’ agenda had called for discussion of energy security, policies to move away from coal, natural gas routes and supply, sustainable development of electricity sources, alternative fuel scenarios and energy access and investments in Africa.

Lacking unanimity, Italy, which currently presides the Group of Seven, decided against proposing the joint statement, Calenda said.

Full story

4) Trump’s Climate Demands Roil U.S. Allies
Politico, 11 April 2017

Documents show the administration pushed other G-7 countries to embrace larger roles for nuclear power and fossil fuels. They refused.

Andrew Restuccia

Fracking looks set to go ahead at Preston New Road. Credit: ITV News
Shale company Cuadrilla originally made an application to drill up to four wells at Preston New Road.

The plan was supported by Lancashire County Council officials but turned down by the planning committee.

But following a public inquiry, the planning inspector recommended the scheme.

Environmentalists and local campaign groups reacted angrily to the decision, which they said went against the wishes of residents.

Full story

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer right about Syria, Sarin Gas and the Nazis

Daily we are bombarded with fake news. The latest is about what White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said about the use of sarin gas in Syria and the Nazis. You would think that by now the fakestream media would know about Google search and the internet.

While Hitler did use Zyklon B, a cyanide-based pesticide invented in Germany in the early 1920s, to kill millions of Jews and other enemies of the Nazis, he did not use Sarin gas during the war.

But there is a connection between Assad’s Ba’ath party and the Nazis.

al-AssadGeorge Kerevan in an article titled The Syrian-Iraqi Baath party and its Nazi beginnings reported:

In Arabic, baath means renaissance or resurrection. The Baath Arab Socialist Party, to give the organisation its formal title, is the original secular Arab nationalist movement, founded in Damascus in the 1940s to combat Western colonial rule. But since then, the Baath Party has undergone many chameleon-like twists in belief and purpose. Even the young men in Iraq who today claim its discredited banner might be surprised at the party’s real origins.

[ … ]

But the rise of German fascism also played a role. Many in the Arab world saw Hitler as an ally. In 1941, the Arab world was electrified by a pro-Axis coup in Baghdad. At that time, Iraq was nominally independent but Britain maintained a strong military presence. An Arab nationalist by the name of Rashid Ali al-Kailani organised an army coup against the pro-British Iraqi monarchy and requested help from Nazi Germany. In Damascus, then a Vichy French colony, the Baath Party founders immediately organised public demonstrations in support of Rashid Ali.

[ … ]

Like the Nazi and Communist parties, the Baath is organised through small cells in a rigid hierarchy. [Emphasis added]

Read more…

Like Zyklon B, Sarin gas was created by a German. The Times of Israel reported on April 8th that sarin gas was discovered in Nazi Germany and was the chemical agent was used by Saddam Hussein’s regime to gas thousands of Kurds in 1988.  The Times of Israel stated:

Originally conceived as a pesticide, sarin was used by Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein’s regime to gas thousands of Kurds in the northern town of Halabja in 1988.

[ … ]

“Sarin is 26 times more deadly than cyanide gas. Just a pinprick-sized droplet will kill a human,” according to the World Health Organization.

[ … ]

The name sarin comes from the [German] chemists who discovered it by chance: Schrader, Ambros, Ruediger et Van der Linde. The scientists had been trying to create stronger pesticides but the formula was then taken up by the Nazi military for chemical weapons.

adolf hitler

Adolf Hitler

In a column titled Hitler refused to use sarin during WWII. The mystery is why. by Washington Post reporter Michael S. Rosenwald notes:

Adolf Hitler gassed and killed 6 million Jews during World War II — a genocide that makes his reluctance to use sarin against his military adversaries an enduring mystery.

[ … ]

White House press secretary Sean Spicer on April 11 said Adolf Hitler didn’t use chemical weapons during World War II. Hitler’s regime exterminated millions of Jews in gas chambers. (Reuters)

And it wasn’t because Hitler didn’t have sarin. A German scientist had stumbled onto sarin while experimenting with compounds in an attempt to kill beetles. The German military built a sarin factory in 1943. Officers pleaded with Hitler to use it.

He didn’t.

Why?

Over the years, historians (armchair and scholarly) and psychologists have speculated that maybe Hitler didn’t use sarin because he was a victim of a mustard gas attack in 1918, during World War I, and knew the misery of such weapons.

“He and several comrades, retreating from their dug-out during a gas attack, were partially blinded by the gas and found their way to safety only by clinging on to each other and following a comrade who was slightly less badly afflicted,” Ian Kershaw wrote in his critically acclaimed Hitler biography.

Read more…

It is also important to note that the United States and Great Britain planned on using mustard gas during WWII. According to Rense.com:

Both the USA and Great Britain planned and meant to use gas during WWII. Germany as a consequence of the Versailles dictate of 1919, was forbidden to produce and import any kind of gas or liquids that could be used to produce such gasses, Article 171.

The Reich kept strictly to the requirement of the Versailles dictate regarding chemical warfare equipment. Even the Weimar Republic kept to the dictate. During the Sea Disarmament Conference, 1921/22, in Washington, the following nations did not agree to gas or any chemical weapons being dangerous weapons: USA, England, France, Japan and Italy. The use of chemical weapons were discussed, but without an agreement being signed.

In June 1925 in Geneva the question was once again discussed, one reached the so-called Geneva Gas-War Protocol. Out of the 44 nations attending the Geneva conference 38 had, by the end of 1935, signed the protocol. 21 nations took reservation, 17 were reluctant. By the end of 1935, 28 nations had ratified the convention. But 10 refused, among those were USA, Japan, Czechoslovakia, Luxemburg, and various nations in South America. The Reich signed without any reservations.

Read more…

RELATED ARTICLE: Nazi poison gas: Gas, Gas, Already yet! FAEM April 1995

On Abundance

Allegory of the Eucharist by Alexander Coosemans, c. 1680 Musée de Tessé, Le Mans

The dominant contemporary “feeling” is that we live in a parsimonious world. Nature is running out of gas. Natural resources are scandalously being “used up,” never to be replaced. Besides, too many people exist on the planet, consuming everything in sight. Species of birds and bugs die out. “Consumerism” knows no bounds to desires. The great enemy of mankind is man himself. He is out of control. Survival prospects for even a small number of gaunt human being are grim. We must act now, decisively, before it is too late.

This doomsday scenario is found in schools, media, governments, churches, and businesses. In the minds of its advocates, its validity is stronger than any faith. To question its tenets approaches blasphemy. Mother Earth is finally unveiled as a cruel goddess. Many find meaning in this collective panic over presumed decreasing resources. It provides an urgent mission. We can now venture forth in a mighty cause to save the world from itself. Evil is now defined not by sins, but by our greedy use of spare resources. Governments are empowered with the welcome task of controlling man by drastically limiting the goods needed for his long-term survival down the planetary ages.

Is there an alternative vision? Why doesn’t the evidence incline us to look at the world’s extraordinary abundance? How is it possible that already so much was available to us for so long? The word “abundance” means overflow, plenty. It comes from the Latin word for wave (unda). When a wave crashes over itself, the sea is filled, full, surging with overflowing waters. The more puzzling thing about the world is not that it contains too little for its purposes, but, astonishingly, way too much, as if it had another purpose in mind.

The initial question is not: “How many resources do we have?” But, “Do we have sufficient and more than sufficient resources for the purpose of our existence on this earth?”

Calculations about what might be needed and what is given have little direct relation to the reason why man exists on this planet. No reason can be found to think that, when man ends his stay on this planet, resources to support him will have run out at the same time

Click here to read the rest of Father Schall’s column . . .

James V. Schall, S.J.

About James V. Schall, S.J.

James V. Schall, S.J., who served as a professor at Georgetown University for thirty-five years, is one of the most prolific Catholic writers in America. Among his recent books are The Mind That Is Catholic, The Modern Age, Political Philosophy and Revelation: A Catholic Reading, Reasonable Pleasures, and, new from St. Augustine’s Press, Docilitas: On Teaching and Being Taught.

Some Recent Energy & Environmental News

The newest edition of the Energy and Environmental Newsletter is now online.

I give an enthusiastic endorsement to Alex Epstein’s efforts to assist us ALL in improving our communication on the issues we’re involved with. Please see his excellent document: Constructive Conversation Scorecard.

Some of the more informative energy articles in this issue are:

Witnessing wind industry’s influence on the Legislature    

The Mafia Is Moving Into Green Energy

The flawed thinking at the heart of the renewable energy swindle

A Requiem for the 2015 Clean Power Plan: It had more flaws than a cheap dirigible

Energy Policy Will Be About Cutting Costs, Not Emissions (!)

Health Canada’s Flawed and Fraudulent Wind Turbine Health Study

Wind Turbines:  Unsafe at any distance

ISO acknowledges motion sickness from low-frequency oscillatory motion

Independent Infrasonic Investigations: Golden West Wind Facility, Colorado

Tracking Government subsidies stymied by inconsistent transparency

Comments Against the Proposed Increase of Incidental Take for Hawaii’s Nene and Hoary Bats

Worthwhile website: Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy

Some of the more interesting Global Warming articles in this issue are:

Confessions of a Climate Change “Denier”

Congressional Testimony: Science is a Process

By the Numbers: Ending the Social Cost of Carbon

There is no such thing as a Conservative CO2 Tax Plan

Take-aways from the Heartland Climate Conference

Video of President Trump’s Inspiring NASA Talk

Agenda 21 Course

Sun’s impact on climate change quantified for first time

PS: As always, please pass this on to open-minded citizens, and on your social media sites. If there are others who you think would benefit from being on our energy & environmental email list, please let me know. If at any time you’d like to be taken off the list, simply send me an email saying that.

PPS: I am not an attorney, so no material appearing in any of the Newsletters (or our WiseEnergy.org website) should be construed as giving legal advice. My recommendation has always been: consult a competent attorney when you are involved with legal issues.

Climategate Obstruction Challenged in Court 

Here in DC today it is terribly cold for early April.  The problem for the “climate change” crowd is that a plethora of cold days such as this have added to one long pause in global warming.  In other words, there hasn’t been any “global warming” for years.

This inconvenient truth is at the heart of new Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation against the U.S. Department of Commerce to get all records of communications between a pair of federal scientists who heavily influenced the Obama administration’s climate change policy and its backing of the Obama-pushed global warming alarmist agenda under the so-called Paris Agreement (Judicial Watch v. Department of Commerce (No. 1:17-cv-00541)).

We filed the lawsuit after the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), a component of the Department of Commerce, failed to respond to our February 6 FOIA request seeking:

All records of communications between NOAA scientist Thomas Karl and Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy John Holdren.

The FOIA request covers the timeframe of January 20, 2009 to January 20, 2017.

Karl, who until last year was director of the NOAA section that produces climate data, the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), was the lead author of a landmark paper that was reported to have heavily influenced the Paris Agreement.

Holdren is a former director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, director of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, and long-time proponent of strong measures to curb emissions.

According to The Daily Mail, a whistleblower accused Thomas Karl of bypassing normal procedures to produce a scientific paper promoting climate alarmism:

A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.

The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. …

But the whistleblower, Dr. John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.

It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr. Bates devised.

His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact’ of what became known as the Pausebuster paper.

[ … ]

In an exclusive interview, Dr. Bates accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, who was until last year director of the NOAA section that produces climate data – the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) – of ‘insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximized warming and minimized documentation … in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy’.

This lawsuit could result in the release of emails that will help Americans understand how Obama administration officials may have mishandled scientific data to advance the political agenda of global warming alarmism.

Separately, we are suing for records of communications from NOAA officials regarding methodology for collecting and interpreting data used in climate models to justify the controversial findings in the “Pausebuster” study. The data documents had also been withheld from Congress. (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Commerce (No 1:15-cv-02088)).

We previously investigated alleged data manipulation by global warming advocates in the Obama administration. In 2010, we obtained internal documents from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) related to a controversy that erupted in 2007 when Canadian blogger Stephen McIntyre exposed an error in NASA’s handling of raw temperature data from 2000-2006 that exaggerated the reported rise in temperature readings in the United States. According to multiple press reports, when NASA corrected the error, the new data apparently caused a reshuffling of NASA’s rankings for the hottest years on record in the United States, with 1934 replacing 1998 at the top of the list.

Forget about “fake news,” with the leftists that have been running our government for years – we have to worry about the potential of taxpayer-funded “fake science.”

Leading Scientists Determine Sun Plays Major Role in Climate

By  on 31. March 2017:

Climate scientists at Switzerland’s renowned ETH Zurich and the University of Bern have long warned of the risks of man-made global warming.

But in a brand new study their results now appear to have compelled them to postpone the expected global warming – by a few decades!

They now claim that a weaker sun (now expected over the coming decades) could reduce temperatures by half a degree Celsius.

Moreover the scientists clearly concede that the earth’s climate system is nowhere near as well understood as some scientists would like to have us believe and that the sun indeed plays a major role after all – enough so to override and postpone the effects of the often hyped greenhouse gases.

This will be hugely disappointing news for the catastrophe-hopers and cheerleaders, who hold front row tickets to the announced climate catastrophe, which according to some should be happening already.

The Swiss scientists say that sun’s impact on climate change has now been quantified “for first time” (see postscript below).

The Swiss scientists say that their model calculations show a plausible way that fluctuations in solar activity could have a tangible impact on the climate. The Swiss National Science Foundation-funded studies now expect human-induced global warming to tail off slightly over the next few decades. A weaker sun could reduce temperatures by half a degree.

The sun a factor after all

There is human-induced climate change, and there are natural climate fluctuations, the scientists acknowledge, and say one important factor in the unchanging rise and fall of the Earth’s temperature and its different cycles is the sun. As its activity varies, so does the intensity of the sunlight that reaches the earth’s surface. Previously IPCC reports assumed that recent solar activity was insignificant for climate change, and that the same would apply to activity in the near future.

“Significant effect”

However, researchers from the Physical Meteorological Observatory Davos (PMOD), the Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (EAWAG), ETH Zurich and the University of Bern are now qualifying this assumption. Their elaborate model calculations now provide a robust estimate of the contribution that the sun is expected to make to temperature change in the next 100 years and a significant effect is apparent.

They expect the Earth’s temperature to fall by half a degree when solar activity reaches its next minimum.

Project head Werner Schmutz, who is also Director of PMOD, says this reduction in temperature is significant and believes it could win valuable time if solar activity declines and slows the pace of global warming a little.

Strong fluctuations could explain past climate

At the end of March, the researchers working on the project will meet in Davos for a conference to discuss the final results. The project brought together various research institutions’ capabilities in terms of climate effect modelling. PMOD calculated what is known as “radiative forcing” taking account of particle as well as electromagnetic radiation, ETH Zurich worked out its further effects in the Earth’s atmosphere and the University of Bern investigated the interactions between the atmosphere and oceans.

Read more…

RELATED ARTICLE: The Flimsy Statistical Models Obama Administration Used to Justify Environmental Agenda

CULTURE WATCH: Looking Through the Black Hole in the Big Bang

And now for something completely different — yes, that’s an obscure reference to the random craziness of Monty Python — we jump from the political and social deceptions of today to something that in the big scheme of things swamps them all. But still regarding seeking truth.

Origins.

Where did we come from and how? It’s an age-old, universal query. Everyone has wondered about this. Many have sought for the answer

Of course, we have the Big Bang Theory as the working idea for the origins of the universe. We’ll place aside for a moment the something-from-nothing conundrum predating the Big Bang, and consider this working theory that is largely accepted in scientific circles and in the broader culture.

There is a huge, nagging massive black hole in the theory that is essentially philosophic, and as such cannot by definition be solved through science. The only question is whether it is fatal to the theory. You decide.

The theory of the Big Bang

Here’s a brief layman’s rundown on the Big Bang Theory.

During the first second or so of the universe, protons, neutrons, and electrons — the building blocks of atoms — were formed. Photons collided, turned their energy into mass, and the four forces split into their separate identities. The temperature of the universe cooled during this second from 100 million trillion trillion degrees to about 10 billion degrees.

Things continued to cool and drift apart. At about 300,000 years after the initial second of the big bang, the universe cooled to 3,000 degrees. This allowed the formation of neutral atoms. About one billion years later, stars and galaxies began to form. Since then, the universe continued to grow larger and cooler and created the right conditions for life, as the theory goes.

Professor Stephen Hawking, one of the top physicists in the world, sums it up this way:

“The Big Bang theory describes how the universe was created from the Big Bang singularity, where all matter and space is contained in a single point of infinite density. At the moment of creation of the universe — the Big Bang — all matter, space and time came into existence, before that time did not exist. Our universe could not exist without time, and time could not exist without the universe, they are different components of the one entity.”

So it all begins with the singularity — a word now ubiquitous in science fiction shows.

It’s widely accepted and taught as accepted in schools everywhere. Should it be?

Supermassive theory black hole

But this is the question. It’s just so obvious, yet everyone stares blankly at me when I ask it.

Where exactly was the singularity?

Remember, Professor Hawking said, “…the universe was created from the Big Bang singularity, where all matter and space is contained in a single point of infinite density.”

All matter. That means everything, the entirety of the universe, all of physical reality. A single point. There was nothing except the singularity. So, where was it? Where was it located? It in itself was physical matter. All of physical matter, according to the theory. So it had to be located somewhere. But if it contained all of material existence within it, where could that have possibly been?

It is a conundrum. Perhaps scientifically, it’s a paradox.

Further, all of time is theorized to be contained in the singularity. Hawking: “At the moment of creation of the universe — the Big Bang — all matter, space and time came into existence, before that time did not exist.”

We can use the math within the general theory of relativity to work backwards from the expanding universe to come up with the beginning of the universe at 13.8 billion years. The time forward is easy at least to understand. But in addition to where was the singularity located comes the question: How long had it been there? For no time? For all of time?

Or did it exist outside of time? This actually seems to fit best, if time was contained within the singularity and there was no time before it.

Perhaps the laws of physics break down for a reason

The question of what was before the Big Bang of course has been a ponderment since the theory was first proposed nearly 100 years ago. We always run into this, “But where did that come from?”

It would appear that science definitionally cannot determine that, if indeed time and space were contained within the Big Bang. Remember, the requirement for science — and it absolutely must do this to be considered science — is to explain what we can observe, measure it, predict accurately with it and do this consistently in every case.

“Before” and “outside” the singularity of the Big Bang would seem to be beyond the pale of science. Physicists around the world can see this.

“The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there,” said Ahmed Farag Ali, of Egypt’s respected Benha University and the Zewail City of Science and Technology.

Perhaps the laws of physics “break down” there because they were not in place there. If the laws flow from the existence of the physical, and there was no physical, then there were no laws. And without any such laws, science has nothing to work with.

A paradox solution

There is one conceptual “beginning” that does work, and must be the answer in the most general sense. The only true beginning must be from something which could not even philosophically, theoretically have had a beginning — something which by definition would have no beginning, could have no beginning. That definition would inevitably have to be: something which always existed.

The claim by atheists and others for many years was that the universe always existed. Albert Einstein held to that thought for the self-admitted reason that he wanted to. But science rescued us from that apparent error by discovering how the universe is seemingly expanding outward in all directions. Extrapolating backwards gives us the Big Bang Theory and an approximate timeline, but also eliminates the idea that the universe always existed.

If it always existed, then it could not have a beginning, and that would be the only way to not go further back to find a “beginning.” As long as there is a Big Bang, there is a definite beginning, meaning something preceded it, making it not the ultimate beginning.

If the solution is something that could not have a beginning, then that alone must be the beginning — inasmuch as the word “beginning” has much meaning in this context. Such backwards-eternalness benefits from being a logical point from which time and space would come.

Because time and space could not truly come from nothing — hence the singularity is posited — but they could theoretically come from something which always has been, and itself required no beginning, there is a pathway to solving this paradox.

Maybe not ironically, the Judeo-Christian Bible defines God in exactly this way,

“Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever you had formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God.” (Psalm 90:2).

Worth pondering.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act.

Real vs Fake Health Care Reform, and How to Tell the Difference by Jeffrey A. Tucker

You want to know why the “freedom caucus” has balked at passing the Trump-backed Ryancare health care proposal?

Because the package does not address the core problem of the existing system. They are leaning – correctly – on a brilliant insight from F.A. Hayek.

Let’s think this through.

What was the most fundamental problem with Obamacare? It attempted to set up an artificial market that lacked the most salient feature of markets: genuine competition. Real competition. I don’t mean teams struggling for control. I mean an institutional setting in which producers can innovate. They face free entry and exit. Their well-being depends on serving the consumer.Obamacare has flopped because it disabled what remained of the competitive system with defined benefits packages, mandates that everyone be covered, requirements that everyone must purchase, and geographic limits on service provision. All these together took health care out of the realm of markets and made it a form of central planning.

And so: Obamacare resulted in soaring premiums, soaring deductibles, shoddy access, and ever-increasing bureaucracy. It became untenable. Objecting to it doesn’t have to be a matter of ideology. The contraption just didn’t work.

The core insight of the “freedom caucus” comes from Hayek and his fascinating piece “The Meaning of Competition”:

It is only through competition that we can assume that these possible savings of cost will be achieved. Even if in each instance prices were only just low enough to keep out producers which do not enjoy these or other equivalent advantages, so that each commodity were produced as cheaply as possible, though many may be sold at prices considerably above costs, this would probably be a result which could not be achieved by any other method than that of letting competition operate …

Yet the current tendency in discussion is to be intolerant about the imperfections and to be silent about the prevention of competition. We can probably still learn more about the real significance of competition by studying the results which regularly occur where competition is deliberately suppressed than by concentrating on the shortcomings of actual competition compared with an ideal which is irrelevant for the given facts.

I say advisedly “where competition is deliberately suppressed” and not merely “where it is absent,” because its main effects are usually operating, even if more slowly, so long as it is not outright suppressed with the assistance or the tolerance of the state.

The evils which experience has shown to be the regular consequence of a suppression of competition are on a different plane from those which the imperfections of competition may cause. Much more serious than the fact that prices may not correspond to marginal cost is the fact that, with an entrenched monopoly, costs are likely to be much higher than is necessary …

Competition is essentially a process of the formation of opinion: by spreading information, it creates that unity and coherence of the economic system which we presuppose when we think of it as one market. It creates the views people have about what is best and cheapest, and it is because of it that people know at least as much about possibilities and opportunities as they in fact do. It is thus a process which involves a continuous change in the data and whose significance must therefore be completely missed by any theory which treats these data as constant.

Let me paraphrase and apply: no, there will not be a perfect world. Total freedom is not a political option right now. So what’s the priority for any reform? The most crucial institutions in any society are the signaling systems of prices that reflect existing knowledge and possibilities.

When those are malfunctioning, nothing else works. Costs go up, quality goes down, innovation stops, and the sector starts to atrophy.

Competition Restoration Means Health Care Restoration

The first priority is that competition must be restored through some measure of deregulation. The mandates must go. The pre-set benefits packages must die. Insurers must gain control over their business affairs and customers have to be able to shop and choose.

We must regain flexibility to inspire innovation and achieve profitability. This must happen or else premiums will keep going up. This is a requirement. Obamacare failed because it disabled the market. Any reform must restore that market. This is more important than any other feature of reform.Trumpcare or Ryancare or whatever you want to call it does not do that. It replaces a mandate to buy with a tax incentive to buy. Otherwise it leaves the problem of the absence of genuine competition in place. True, the alternative doesn’t do anything about the transfer of payments, but, if you follow Hayek, you know that these are less important to eliminate than are the barriers to competition.

The restoration of competition will discover for us things we do not know about service provision: treatments, plans, new institutional arrangements, new forms of insurance, new methods for serving the public. Competition will grow the market and make profitability the test of success or failure.

If that does not happen, premiums will keep increasing, quality will go down, access will continue to shrink, and public anger will grow as a result.

Now is the time. Again, it is not about ideology. It is about a system of health care insurance that actually works to serve the common good.

Jeffrey A. Tucker

Jeffrey A. Tucker

Jeffrey Tucker is Director of Content for the Foundation for Economic Education. He is also Chief Liberty Officer and founder of Liberty.me, Distinguished Honorary Member of Mises Brazil, research fellow at the Acton Institute, policy adviser of the Heartland Institute, founder of the CryptoCurrency Conference, member of the editorial board of the Molinari Review, an advisor to the blockchain application builder Factom, and author of five books. He has written 150 introductions to books and many thousands of articles appearing in the scholarly and popular press.

RELATED ARTICLE: Is Trump Sabotaging Obamacare? – POLITICO Magazine

RELATED VIDEO: Senator Rand Paul Doesn’t Want the GOP to Fail at Obamacare Replacement Plan.

EDITORS NOTE: Learn real skills from successful entrepreneurs at FEEcon: June 15-17 (Register by May 15).

The Importance of Proper Sleeping Positions: What You Need to Know

Do you find yourself waking up with unbearable aches and pains? Does your stiff neck or sore back prevent you from feeling rejuvenated and truly rested?

For most of us, sleeping positions aren’t something we give a second thought to since they’re habits that we’ve formed early on in life. While we can’t picture ourselves sleeping in any other ways, studies show that the way we sleep can have a significant impact on our general health.

Why is it important to mind how we sleep?

Assuming each of us spends an average of eight hours of sleep a day, then we dedicate one-third of our lives to sleeping. That is a significant amount of time, and if we spend it all on a single position that isn’t healthful can be detrimental to our well-being.

Awkward sleeping positions can stress our neck and spine, instead of providing our body its needed support. Unideal positions can also put pressure on other parts of our body and cause discomfort and adverse effects in the long run.

Through the years, people have linked poor sleeping positions with neck and back pain, muscle cramps, fatigue, impaired circulation, headaches, sleep apnea, digestion problems, premature wrinkles, and heartburn.

If you or anyone you know is suffering from these health problems, then it might be time to reassess the way you sleep at night, so you can enact the changes you need to get better.

woman sleepingAssessing the best positions for sleeping

When experts determine a person’s best position for sleep, they will consider the support the body receives from the kind of mattresses an individual uses in general. They will also identify if any point in the body experiences excess pressure and if the neck and spine are in proper alignment or not.

Different sleep positions

Supine Position

Many people would agree that sleeping on one’s back is the most optimal position for sleeping. That’s because the head all the way to the spine are in a neutral position, which will lessen pressure on the other areas of the body.

Sleeping in a supine position will help prevent neck and back pain, and reduce acid reflux. It will also minimize chances of having premature wrinkles as well as maintain a person’s breast health. However, this position will likely promote the snoring of an individual.

Prone Position

Sleeping on one’s stomach can help ease the intensity of a person’s snoring. However, it is not the best position to sleep in should you want to take care of your overall health.

When you sleep in a prone position, it is unlikely for you to keep your spine and neck properly aligned. Without the proper support, it is possible for you to have back and neck problems. Also, sleeping on your stomach will put unnecessary pressure on some of your muscles and joints, and will likely disrupt your breathing.

baby sleeping with toy bearOn Your Side / Fetal Position

Lying on your side is the most common alternative to the supine position. And by far, most people prefer sleeping on their sides than any other position.

Unlike sleeping on one’s back, side sleeping can help keep a person’s airways open. And so, to an extent, it prevents snoring. However, contracting your body inward will put unnecessary pressure on your diaphragm. And that, in turn, can obstruct your breathing.

Also, side sleeping does not promote the proper alignment of your body’s neck and spine. As a result, it can lead to severe shoulder pain and stiff neck.

So, while side sleeping can reduce snoring and acid reflux, it can also cause shoulder and neck pain, complications in breathing, distortion of breasts, and premature wrinkles, particularly on the side where there is extra pressure.

To avoid the adverse effects one can associate with the fetal position it is best to stretch your body by keeping your legs and neck aligned and relatively straight, instead of pulling them inwards.

Takeaway

If you feel tired or you wake up with your body aching, it might be time to try out a new sleep position. Even small changes like untucking your legs and keeping them aligned with your neck as you sleep on your side can have significant effects on your sleep and health.

And aside from the sleeping position you choose, comfort will also enhance the quality of your sleep. That is why it is also important to have a bed that’s cozy enough to help you have a good night’s sleep.

Energy & Environmental Newsletter: March 20, 2017

The Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions (AWED) is an informal coalition of individuals and organizations interested in improving national, state, and local energy and environmental policies. Our premise is that technical matters like these should be addressed by using Real Science (please consult WiseEnergy.org for more information).

A key element of AWED’s efforts is public education. Towards that end, every three weeks we put together a newsletter to balance what is found in the mainstream media about energy and the environment. We appreciate MasterResource for their assistance in publishing this information.

Some of the more important articles in this issue are:

Wind Energy is an Attack on Rural America

As Wind Grows, So Does Its Opposition

Five Key Reasons to Pull the Plug on Wind Subsidies

Proposed US Carbon Tax — A Recipe for Disaster

The War on Affordable Electricity

Science Deniers in the Wind Industry

Short video: Poison Wind

How Would Oklahoma’s Anti-Wind Tax Affect The State’s Industry?

Europe’s Lessons Teach Us — Don’t Go Green!

RGGI Works Well — It Just Doesn’t Reduce Much Carbon

How Leonardo DiCaprio Can Persuade Me on Climate Change

A Handy Primer for Deluded Warmists

Climate-Change Models are Flawed Because Climate Science is so Incomplete

Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the atmosphere

G-20 Poised to Signal Retreat From Climate-Change Funding Pledge

Getting to the Bottom of a Climate Crusade

Solar Panels Increased Emissions of a Gas 17,200 Times More Potent Than CO2

President Trump’s Proposed OMB Budget

Greed Energy Economics:

Five Key Reasons to Pull the Plug on Wind Subsidies

How Would Oklahoma’s Anti-Wind Tax Affect The State’s Industry?

The War on Affordable Electricity

Proposed US Carbon Tax — A Recipe for Disaster

‘Conservative’ Carbon Tax Prescribes Liberal Dose of Nonsense

Massachusetts’ Promotion of Turbines Risks $18 Billion in Tourism Income

Wind Turbines Kick Seniors to the Curb in Canada

Amazon Wins NC Offshore Lease Bid, for $9 Million

UK Budget 2017: Solar industry facing 800% tax increase

NY PSC Wants Utilities to Bury Costs of Renewable Energy

Turbine Health Matters:

Once Turbines Arrive, Say Goodbye to Peace and Quiet

Science Deniers in the Wind Industry

Mass DEP After Ten Years Of Wind Turbine Testimony Again Takes No Action

Vermont’s PSB proposes new turbine setback and noise rules

Wind Turbines and Aviation Safety

Renewable Energy Destroying Ecosystems:

Short video: Poison Wind

Environmentalists Question Wind Project off Fire Island (NY)

Miscellaneous Energy News:

Wind Energy is an Attack on Rural America

Europe’s Lessons Teach Us — Don’t Go Green!

RGGI Works Well — It Just Doesn’t Reduce Much Carbon

As wind grows, so does its opposition

Globally, clean energy has been on the decline for the last 20 years

Five Ways Trump Can Improve Environmental Policy

How the EPA Could Gut Climate Change Regulations

OPEC is losing the global oil game

NC County Eyes Stiffer Solar Rules

Proposed Legislation Would Freeze NC’s Energy Mandate

GOP lawmaker confronts Gov Kasich on Ohio’s green-energy mandates

Renewable energy is defective solution in search of a problem, money, and power

South Australia – A Renewable State?

Is the Lappeenranta renewable energy model realistic?

Wind is a financial and political boondoggle

Elaborate Wind Turbulence Study Set to Improve Modeling

Weather service concerned that wind project could interfere with forecasts

Falmouth Wind Turbine Lawsuits and RICO statute

Oklahoma chamber wants state military commission involved in wind project siting

Little Reactors a Big Energy Boon

Manmade Global Warming Articles:

How Leonardo DiCaprio Can Persuade Me on Climate Change

A Handy Primer for Deluded Warmists

Solar Panels Increased Emissions Of A Gas 17,200 Times More Potent Than CO2

Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the atmosphere

Getting to the Bottom of a Climate Crusade

A New SLR Analysis for the US East Coast

Useless’ Climate modeling is the hot new thing at a green bank

Yale Climate Opinion Maps (2016)

German Minister Announces the End of Unilateral Climate Targets

Trump Reported to Cut US UN Funding in half

Trump to Drop Climate Change From Environmental Reviews, Source Says

Trump Orders EPA to Zero Out Global Warming Programs

To Protect Climate Money, Obama Stashed It Where It’s Hard to Find

EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017

Bills to fix EPA “science” introduced in the House

Those “devastating” EPA reductions

Driving policies through fraud and fear-mongering

A Conservative Children’s Book: Carbon Comes Out of the Closet

Financial Stability Board Climate Deceit

Hundreds Of Scientists Urge Trump To Pull Out Of A 25-Year-Old UN Environmental Treaty

Discussion of “Hottest Year on Record” for Australia

Debunking the Climate Scam

The Natives Are Getting RETless

Obama Hid Over $77 BILLION in Climate Change Funds

President Trump’s Proposed OMB Budget

See Prior AWED Newsletters