Icemageddon and Icecrete

For ten days, acres and acres of land and forest have been encased by thick ice which refused to melt; and it was not just the intense cold that accompanied it. Even when the sun shone, nothing was melting; even chunks of ice off the deck refused to melt with a flame. The pristine ice turned black, yellow, and looked like icecrete.

No animals dared to trek this glacial landscape shining in the daylight and at night like reflecting glass. It was seven days before animals dared to venture on this Icemageddon surface in search of food. 

Al Gore just celebrated twenty years since he released a Power Point presentation on global warming which garnered him a Nobel Prize. Earth had twelve years before Armageddon and ice in Antarctica would be melted. Gore’s presentation said polar bears would not have ice floes to float on while looking for food and would die off. Bears have multiplied, ice is thicker than ever, and we are still here.

The global warming alarmists tried their hardest to convince the “deniers” that global warming exists. When it failed, they morphed it into climate change industry.

Dr. Happer, Professor of Physics at Princeton, among many other real scientists who do not rely on fake science called “consensus” to make faulty predictions, testified before the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on February 25, 2009 that “over geological time, we’re really in a CO2 famine now. Almost never have CO2 levels been so low as it has been in the Holocene – 280 ppm (parts per million) – that is unheard of. Most of the time CO2 levels have been at least 1,000 ppm and it’s been quite higher than that. Earth was just fine in those times. The oceans were fine, plants grew, animals grew fine. So, it’s baffling to me that we’re so frightened of getting nowhere close to where we started.” He added that, “children should not be force-fed propaganda, masquerading as science.”  Happer said, “the increase of CO2 is not a cause for alarm and will be good for mankind. Earth in Carbon Dioxide Famine, Says Scientist - The New American

Reality did not stop global-warming alarmists to promote incredibly wasteful and expensive “carbon sequestration” and carbon “cap and trade” schemes to reduce CO2.

CO2 increase will benefit crop yields, more food for humans and animals, robust forest and vegetation growth, greater plant resistance to stress and disease, drought resistance, and reclaiming deserts and barren lands.

Green houses use extra CO2 pumped into solariums to promote faster and better plant growth. Satellite images show that CO2 is thicker around the Amazonian forests.

Is CO2 responsible for warming due to greenhouse gases? Scientists agree that “at least 90% of greenhouse warming is due to water vapor and clouds.” And the current warming period started around 1800s at the end of the Little Ice Age, “long before there was an appreciable increase in CO2.”

“There have been similar and even larger [global] warmings several times in the 10,000 years since the end of the last ice age. These earlier warmings clearly had nothing to do with the combustion of fossil fuels. [Warming can be influenced by solar flares, volcanic eruptions, and oceanic currents.] Over the past ten years there has been no global warming, and in fact a slight cooling. This is not at all what was predicted by the IPCC models."

Happer said, “The earth’s climate really is strongly affected by the greenhouse effect, although the physics is not the same as that which makes real, glassed-in greenhouses work. Without greenhouse warming, the earth would be much too cold to sustain its current abundance of life. However, at least 90% of greenhouse warming is due to water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide is a bit player. There is little argument in the scientific community that a direct effect of doubling the CO2 concentration will be a small increase of the earth’s temperature-- on the order of one degree. Additional increments of CO2 will cause relatively less direct warming because we already have so much CO2 in the atmosphere that it has blocked most of the infrared radiation that it can.” Microsoft Word - Happer Senate Testimony - SPPI Reprint update - 6-14-10

Is the push to reduce CO2 more an effort to fleece the taxpayers? Is the Green lobby’s agenda to create a crisis that only they can solve? Are solutions more destructive than the crises? Are they brainwashing students to promote their agenda? It appears so.

Massive geoengineering efforts currently in progress around the world aim to block the sun with various substances to mitigate global warming. Scientists believe that this activity is most damaging to the planet.

Controlling, reducing, and capturing CO2 produces the science that creates most funding for professorial research and promotion. But, with less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the earth will be colder, covered in more ice, and home to sparser levels of all vegetation. A reduction in food supply due to shorter growing seasons would spell disaster and potential famine.

With little regulation, the climate change industry is happy to capture carbon in pipes. On February 22, 2020, a CO2 pipeline ruptured and exploded in Satartia, MS, following heavy rains. Two hundred people were evacuated and forty-five were hospitalized; cars stopped working in the absence of oxygen, emergency vehicles could not start, and people were unconscious on the ground for a while. Heavy CO2 spewed for four hours. A pipeline rupture in Satartia, Mississippi has lessons for future CO2 projects : NPR

Large CO2 volume sucks oxygen out of the air. People and animals become disoriented, the heart malfunctions, seizures can appear, and eventual death by asphyxiation.

CO2 will disperse in open air but, in the Satartia incident, it remained for hours. To this day people have lung problems and other health related issues.

Coincidentally, a week prior, the Biden administration had announced $251 million for various projects focused on CO2 transport and storage. In 2020, 5300 miles of carbon capture pipes existed, with future projections of 65,000 miles. Billions have been invested in helping companies that collect CO2 to store it by sending it via pipelines to underground locations with the correct geology for storage. A pipeline rupture in Satartia, Mississippi has lessons for future CO2 projects : NPR

Another poisoning with massive CO2 happened in northwestern Cameroon at Lake Nyos on August 21, 1986, following a limnic eruption which released 100,000-300,000 tons of magmatic CO2. The eruption killed 1,746 people, 3,500 livestock, and injured 845 more people in an area of sixteen miles around the lake.

According to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, there have been 112 CO2 pipeline accidents on record. Ten states have had carbon dioxide pipeline accidents and Texas had the most.  Carbon dioxide pipelines: A statistical analysis of historical accidents - ScienceDirect

How many CO2 accidents must happen in the name of carbon neutrality?

U.N.’s war against climate “deniers” ramped up at the U.N. Climate Change Conference (COP30) held in Brazil in November 2025. The Declaration at this conference was a pledge to ‘fight false information’ about climate change. The only problem is that the U.N. is disseminating ‘consensus’ science. which is not real science.

NOTE: All photos were taken by Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh

 

Daylight Savings Time, Is It Good for Us?

Photo: Ileana Johnson 2015

As my body struggles each spring to cope with the Daylight Savings Time (DST), I wonder if it is beneficial to humans and what effect does it have if any on loss of productivity due to sleep deprivation, on health, and potential accidents. Who decided first that it was a good idea to turn clocks forward one hour in spring and wind them back in the fall? Did it save significant amounts of energy and thus money?

At 2 a.m. on the second Sunday in March until 2 a.m. on the first Sunday in November, all states except Arizona, Hawaii, and territories, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands observe DST. Seventy other nations around the world also follow DST.

Benjamin Franklin, then Minister to France, proposed in 1784 to reset the clocks when the sun came up and people were still sleeping, saving one million francs per year in candles.

A British builder, William Willett, proposed in 1907 to move hours of work and recreation more closely to daylight hours, cutting back on artificial light. The bill he proposed in Parliament did not pass.

To conserve fuel, Germany started DST on May 1, 1916. During the war, most of Europe also adopted DST.

In the U.S., DST was not formally adopted until March 19, 1918, establishing both standard time zones and summer DST to start on March 31, 1918. Because the idea was unpopular, Congress abolished DST after the war, overriding President Woodrow Wilson’s veto. Some states observed DST until WW II. At that time, President Franklin Roosevelt established “War Time” on February 9, 1942 which ended on the last Sunday in September 1945. The following year, many states adopted summer DST.

According to the Congressional Research Service, the Uniform Time Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-387) established federal regulation across the country because the transportation industry needed consistency in time observance. Clocks were to be set forward one hour on the last Sunday in April at 2 a.m. and set back on the last Sunday in October. An entire state could exempt itself from the law, including states that were located in split time zones, as long as the entire state would follow the same time. Arizona exempted itself in 1968 and in 1972 the act was amended to allow states split in different time zones to be exempted or be entirely included in DST. The Department of Transportation became the law’s enforcer.

The OPEC oil embargo of 1973 prompted Congress to have a trial period of year-round DST in order to conserve energy and fuel. Benefits advertised were more recreation, reduced light and heating demand, reduced crime, and reduced auto accidents. Many worried about children going to school in the dark. After the trial period, in 1975 the whole country returned to DST.

The DOT found that “modest overall benefits might be realized by a shift from the historic six-month DST (May through October) in areas of energy conservation, overall traffic safety and reduced violent crime” when the DST was proposed to be changed to March-November.

Beth Cook wrote that the DOT reported, “These benefits were minimal and difficult to distinguish from seasonal variations and fluctuations in energy prices.” (March 9, 2016, CRS, R44411, p. 2)

Cook also wrote, “Congress then asked the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) to evaluate the DOT report. In an April 1976 report to Congress, Review and Technical Evaluation of the DOT Daylight Saving Time Study, NBS found no significant energy savings or differences in traffic fatalities. It did find statistically significant evidence of increased fatalities among school-age children in the mornings during the four-month period January-April 1974 as compared with the same period (non-DST) of 1973. NBS stated that it was impossible to determine, what if any of this increase was due to DST. When this same data was compared between 1973 and 1974 for the individual months of March and April, no significant difference was found for fatalities among school-age children in the mornings.” http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44411.pdf

The Uniform Time Act of 1966 was modified in 1986 to change DST to first Sunday in April through last Sunday in October and in 2005 when Congress changed DST to second Sunday in March and ending it the first Sunday in November. Congress also asked the Department of Energy (DOE) to report on the impact of extended DST on energy consumption. DOE sent this report to Congress in 2008. (Fred Sissine, CRS RL32860, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Legislation in the 109^th Congress)

Cook enumerated some studies on energy savings, health, and safety:

-          Department of Energy (DOE) studies in 2006 and 2008 revealed that ”Total potential electricity savings benefits of DST are relatively small, 0.01 percent to 0.03 percent of total annual U.S. energy consumption.” http://www1.eere.energy.gov/ba/pba/pdfs/epact_sec_110_edst_report_to_congress_2008.pdf

-          “There is general consensus that DST does contribute to an evening reduction in peak demand for electricity, though this may be offset by an increase in the morning.” (M.B. Aries and G.R. Newsham (2008), “Effect of Daylight Saving Time on Lighting Energy Use: A Literature Review,” Energy Policy, 36(6), 1858–1866.)

 

-          “Our main finding is that, contrary to the policy’s intent, DST increases electricity demand.” A trade off was identified between “reducing demand for lighting and increasing demand for heating and cooling.” http://environment.yale.edu/kotchen/pubs/revDSTpaper.pdf

-          A. Huang and D. Levinson, studying the effects of DST on vehicle crashes in Minnesota, found in 2010 that “the short term effect of DST on crashes on the morning of the first DST is not statistically significant.” http://nexus.umn.edu/papers/daylightsavingstime.pdf

 

-          T. Lahti et al found in their 2010 study, “Our results demonstrated that transitions into and out of daylight saving time did not increase the number of traffic road accidents.” (T. Lahti et al., 2010, “Daylight Saving Time Transitions and Road Traffic Accidents,” Journal of Environmental and Public Health, 657167)

 

-          Y. Harrison found in his 2013 that “The start of daylight saving time in the spring is thought to lead to the relatively inconsequential loss of 1 hour of sleep on the night of the transition, but data suggest that increased sleep fragmentation and sleep latency present a cumulative effect of sleep loss, at least across the following week, perhaps longer. The autumn transition is often popularized as a gain of 1 hour of sleep but there is little evidence of extra sleep on that night. The cumulative effect of five consecutive days of earlier rise times following the autumn change again suggests a net loss of sleep across the week. Indirect evidence of an increase in traffic accident rates, and change in health and regulatory behaviors which may be related to sleep disruption suggest that adjustment to daylight saving time is neither immediate nor without consequence.”  http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/23477947

 

-          MR Jiddou et al in their 2013 study, “Incidence of Myocardial Infarction with Shifts to and From Daylight Savings Time,” The American Journal of Cardiology, 111(5), 631-635,  stated, “Limited evidence suggests that Daylight Saving Time (DST) shifts have a substantial influence on the risk of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Previous literature, however, lack proper identification necessary to vouch for causal interpretation. We exploit Daylight Saving Time shift using non-parametric regression discontinuity techniques to provide indisputable evidence that this abrupt disturbance does affect incidence of AMI.”

If savings in electricity are relatively small, cumulative sleep deprivation has been demonstrated which could result in productivity loss and traffic accidents, and potential health effects, why are we embracing DST? Wouldn’t following nature’s biological clock be more beneficial to our wellbeing?