Zajímavá úvaha...

OIL AND GAS ARE NOT "FOSSIL FUELS" THEY ARE A RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCE CREATED BY A GEOTHERMAL REACTION BETWEEN THE SOLID & LIQUID MANTLE:

'Abiogenic Deep Origin of Hydrocarbons and Oil and Gas Deposits Formation'

"The theory of the abiogenic deep origin of hydrocarbons recognizes that the petroleum is a primordial material of deep origin [Kutcherov, Krayushkin 2010]. This theory explains that hydrocarbon compounds generate in the asthenosphere of the Earth & migrate through the deep faults into the crust of the Earth. There they form oil & gas deposits in any kind of rock in any kind of the structural position (Fig. 1). Thus the accumulation of oil & gas is considered as a part of the natural process of the Earth’s outgrassing, responsible for creation of its hydrosphere, atmosphere & biosphere. Until recently the obstacle to accept the theory of the abyssal abiogenic origin of hydrocarbons was the lack of the reliable & reproducible experimental results confirming the possibility of the synthesis of complex hydrocarbon systems under the conditions of the asthenosphere of planet earth."

https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/41889

Legal threat to Covid Inquiry from children’s rights group over failure to address harms of lockdown
https://web.archive.org/web/20231220010012/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/12/17/covid-inquiry-legal-threat-children-rights-lockdown/

UsForThem campaigners warn of ‘predetermined view of both the pandemic and of the desirability and effectiveness of the UK’s response’

Blathnaid Corless
17 December 2023 • 8:00am
Molly Kingsley
Molly Kingsley, founder of children’s rights campaign group UsForThem CREDIT: David Rose for the Telegraph
The Covid Inquiry is being threatened with legal action over fears it is biased in favour of lockdowns and has a “predetermined view” of the UK’s pandemic response.

A children’s rights campaign group has written to the inquiry to demand it alters its scope to ensure harms caused by lockdown are properly examined, witnesses are treated fairly, and consideration is given to state censorship by the Government’s disinformation unit.

The letter, sent to inquiry chairman Baroness Hallett this week by UsForThem, states that the group may bring a judicial review against any final findings if the course of the inquiry is not corrected.

“UsForThem emphatically supports the inquiry’s stated objective to learn lessons that will inform future pandemic responses in the UK,” the letter reads.

‘Serious concerns over inquiry’s current approach’
“But it also now bears serious concerns that the inquiry’s current approach is not only failing adequately to identify those lessons, but risks entirely undermining the validity of its future findings by perpetuating the impression that it holds a predetermined view of both the nature of the pandemic and of the desirability and effectiveness of the UK’s particular response.”

It adds: “If the course of the inquiry is not corrected then we reserve the rights of UsForThem in due course to challenge any final outcome of the inquiry on the basis of any or all of the issues raised in this letter.”

Among the concerns set out in the letter, the campaigners say the inquiry appears to be “failing to consider whether there was any alternative to the lockdowns that were imposed in this country”.

Baroness Hallett, chairman of the Covid Inquiry
Baroness Hallett, chairman of the Covid Inquiry CREDIT: PIRANHA PHOTOGRAPHY/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock
The inquiry’s lawyers, they claim, have made numerous comments to witnesses during recent hearings exemplifying this point.

They gave an example of comments made by Hugo Keith KC about lockdown during his questioning of Michael Gove, when he remarked: “There was no real argument as to whether, for good and obvious public health reasons, these measures had to be contemplated. They were matters of life and death.

“So there wasn’t really a thesis and an antithesis position here, Mr Gove. All the public health advice on a public health crisis were pointing in one direction.”

UsForThem also say there has been an “apparent lack of curiosity or desire to follow up” by counsel when expert witnesses proffer views that challenge lockdowns.

Evidence given by Prof Mark Woolhouse, a senior epidemiologist who advised the Government during the pandemic, that lockdown was a “failure of public health policy”, has not been put to other witnesses, they claim.

‘One might expect counterviews to be put to other witnesses’
“One might have expected these important counterviews contradicting the notion that lockdown was a public health inevitability to be put to other witnesses, but it is notable that they have not been mentioned again,” they say in their correspondence to the inquiry.

The letter also includes a demand for the inquiry to examine the negative effects of censorship on Covid decision-making, specifically the Government’s Counter-Disinformation Unit.

The Telegraph previously revealed that the secretive unit worked with social media companies in an attempt to curtail discussion of controversial lockdown policies during the pandemic.

UsForThem argues it is essential for the inquiry to “consider the existence of evidence which was not visible to, or had been inappropriately withheld from or excluded by, decision-makers and their advisers”.

The group also argues that videos projected at the inquiry at the start of each module, in which victims including bereaved families and long Covid sufferers share their stories, are “highly prejudicial to the perceived objectivity of the inquiry”.

UsForThem is a campaign group for children that was set up in May 2020 and fought to keep schools open during the pandemic.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak giving evidence at the inquiry CREDIT: PA
It previously successfully campaigned for the inquiry to amend its terms of reference to address the plight of young people.

Molly Kingsley, the group’s founder, told The Telegraph: “Apparent pre-determinations during its hearings, and its persistent failure to address the central question - were the immense, certain harms of lockdowns and interventions proportionate to the actual and perceived benefits of those policies - are compromising this inquiry.

“Worse than just a huge waste of money, on its current trajectory the inquiry risks setting us up to repeat catastrophic errors. It must either course-correct, or be abandoned.”

Separate allegations of pro-lockdown bias have been made in recent months against the Covid Inquiry, which last week concluded its second phase of hearings examining government decision-making during the pandemic.

Prof Carl Heneghan and Dr Tom Jefferson, both Oxford academics, recently wrote to Baroness Hallett accusing her of favouring scientists who backed lockdown.

A spokesman for the inquiry said: “We are in regular contact with UsforThem and they have received information from us as recently as last week about looking into the impact of the pandemic on children.

‘The inquiry will be considering impact of lockdowns’
“We are surprised they are asking the same questions again. As we have only just received this letter, it would not be appropriate for us to respond to it via the media.

“The UK Covid-19 Inquiry rejects any suggestion that it has pre-determined its findings.

“The inquiry is entirely independent and Baroness Hallett has made clear that she will not reach any conclusion until she has considered all of the evidence.

“The inquiry will be considering important issues such as the impact of lockdowns and the impact of the pandemic on children and young people, the care sector, as well as business and procurement in due course. Our modular approach is clearly set out on our website.”

Covid disinformation unit made 'hourly contact' with tech firms to flag dissent, says Sarah Connolly
https://web.archive.org/web/20230610104249/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/09/covid-disinformation-unit-hourly-tech-lockdown-dissent/

Sarah Connolly can today be revealed as head of the secretive government unit that flagged critics of lockdown and pandemic policy

By
Investigations team
9 June 2023 • 9:00pm
Phone with censorship marks
A secretive government Covid unit accused of seeking to suppress free speech during the pandemic was in “hourly” contact with social media firms, the official in charge of the operation has disclosed.

The civil servant – who can today be named as Sarah Connolly – said that one of the Counter Disinformation Unit’s (CDU’s) main functions was “passing information over” to companies such as Facebook and Twitter to “encourage… the swift takedown” of posts.

The Telegraph revealed earlier this month that the CDU worked with social media companies in an attempt to curtail discussion of controversial lockdown policies during the pandemic.

Last night David Davis, the former Conservative Cabinet minister whose comments were logged by the unit, called for the CDU to be shut down and for a parliamentary committee to investigate it.

He said the “most paranoid wing of Government is interfering in the democratic process”, and a parliamentary inquiry with the “biggest combination of power, access and speed” was required.

Separately, the BBC – who attended government meetings at which so-called misinformation was discussed – was accused of acting as “the broadcast arm of the Government” during the pandemic, as journalists described being mocked if they tried to give a voice to lockdown sceptics.

Head of CDU revealed
The identity of the head of the CDU was a mystery, but it can now be disclosed that Ms Connolly, a career civil servant, led it throughout the pandemic and remains in charge.

She previously worked on anti-terror policies for the Home Office, but had already joined the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) when it started monitoring Covid disinformation under Oliver Dowden’s leadership.

It is unclear if other, more senior ministers were involved in the CDU. There is growing speculation that the unit may have links to the intelligence services, but the Government has repeatedly refused to give certain details about it for “national security” reasons.

In remarks to MPs, unearthed by the Telegraph, Ms Connolly laid bare the extent of the Government’s influence over social media.

Ms Connolly told MPs that the CDU was in contact with “almost all” social media platforms, and that discussions were “daily, sometimes hourly”.

When asked about the CDU’s process for having posts removed, Ms Connolly said: “If somebody from the cell says: ‘We are worried about this,’ that goes immediately to the top of the pile. Whoever it is in whatever company.”

The Government confirmed last night that social media firms had taken action on more than 90 per cent of the posts referred to them by the CDU during the pandemic, often by deleting them or using algorithms to ensure they were not seen as widely.

Ms Connolly described the CDU as a “cell” within Government, using the same systems as those in place to stop terrorist content spreading online.

She said one of its “big” functions was “talking to social media platforms and passing information over. It gets information back from them, and encourages that swift takedown – the swift dealing with the platforms. The cell has daily interactions with almost all the platforms”.

She is also named on documents obtained by this newspaper as the chair of the Counter-Disinformation Policy Forum – a group that operated for six months during the pandemic, which included a member of BBC staff, alongside tech companies, academics and lobby groups.

Ms Connolly told MPs that the forum was designed to take the “sometimes hourly” contact of the CDU with tech companies and “raise it to the next level”.

‘Climate of fear’ over anti-Government reporting at BBC
Current and former BBC staff have told the Telegraph that, during the pandemic, a “climate of fear” existed within the corporation among those who argued that its reporting lacked balance, saying they were branded “dissenters”.

Three journalists who gave evidence to a parliamentary group in private last year told the Telegraph they were ignored when they raised their concerns about impartiality with senior managers.

One senior BBC editor tried to organise, via a secret WhatsApp group, a “pushback” to stop its journalists backing Government policy, but they were too fearful of losing their jobs to join the proposed rebellion.

Today’s revelations raise questions about Ms Connolly’s influence, as both chair of the policy forum and leader of the CDU inside Government.

Her comments – made just as the vaccine rollout was beginning – also call into question what criteria the CDU use to make its judgments.

Her testimony suggests that the CDU takes a broad view of what qualifies as disinformation.

Addressing MPs, she said that the most concerning types of anti-vaccine material included discussions about side-effects and the speed with which it was produced.

“‘The vaccine was done too quickly’, ‘it is not safe’, those kind of narratives,” she said.

While the vaccines were safe for most people, coroners have ruled that a small number of people died from rare reactions to the AstraZeneca jab.

Academics have also expressed concerns about the speed of some vaccine trials.

Connolly took control like a ‘puppeteer’
Last night, sources said the CDU had been allowed to expand its reach under Ms Connolly, who took on the role of director of security and online harms in 2017.

One blamed a revolving door of culture secretaries, and said a rapid succession of ministers with little experience of the sector or ambition to stay in the DCMS had allowed Ms Connolly to take control like a “puppeteer”.

The CDU moved from the DCMS to become the responsibility of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology earlier this year, but the source said her control of the unit appeared unlikely to change because there was a lack of oversight from No 10.

“This is an abject failure of the centre [of Government],” they said.

Last night, government sources praised Ms Connolly’s work ethic and professionalism. “As a hard-working civil servant, she’s an impartial adviser – not a puppeteer,” one said.

Social media posts monitored by the CDU and the Cabinet Office’s now-defunct Rapid Response Unit include comments by respected scientists such as Dr Alexandre de Figueiredo from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, who argued against the mass vaccination of children against Covid-19. The units also flagged discussions questioning lockdown and vaccine passports.

Government tight-lipped about disinformation unit
The Government has repeatedly refused to give details about the CDU’s budget or the number of staff it employs, but it is known that during the pandemic it used an external AI firm to trawl through posts.

A Government spokesman said: “As we have repeatedly made clear, the primary purpose of the unit was to track narratives, not individuals. It does not have, and has never had, the power to remove online content – on occasions where it encountered content considered to be in breach of social media platforms’ own terms of service, it was referred to them for consideration.

“When referrals were made during Covid, over 90 per cent of them were ultimately found to be in breach of terms of service. It is important to remember that this engagement with social media platforms was undertaken at the height of an unprecedented pandemic when the government’s overriding concern was to protect public health.”

Twitter could not be reached for comment, although it is understood that it did not act on CDU referrals at the same rate as other social media firms.

Facebook owner Meta has previously said it does not “allow false claims about the vaccines or vaccination programmes which public health experts have advised us could lead to Covid-19 vaccine rejection. This includes false claims about the safety, efficacy, ingredients, development, existence or conspiracies related to the vaccine or vaccination programme”.

The BBC said that it rejected the characterisation of its Covid coverage and said it featured a range of voices. The broadcaster said it attended the Counter Disinformation Policy Forum in an observer-only capacity.
A spokesman for the broadcaster said: “We totally reject this characterisation of our Covid coverage; we featured a range of voices during the pandemic, including those sceptical of lockdowns, in line with our duty of due impartiality.

“We do not recognise this description of our working environment. Like other news organisations the stories we cover are the subject of robust editorial discussion and debate.

“As we’ve already made clear, the BBC attended the Counter Disinformation Policy Forum in an observer-only capacity. The person who attended was not a BBC News executive and played absolutely no role in editorial decision making.”

2024 DARPA & DoD budgeted project highlights
Thread by @eleevn on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1742406638513127495.html


...

- multiple inferences of impending supply-chain collapse & bioengineered microbial nutrient solutions
- multiple projects related to operating in extreme cold, electromagnetically unpredictable, austere & GPS-compromised environments
...

a je to tu

Now scientists say BREATHING is bad for the environment: Gases we exhale contribute to 0.1% of the UK's greenhouse gas emissions | Daily Mail Online
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-12859057/Now-scientists-say-BREATHING-bad-environment-Gases-exhale-contribute-0-1-UKs-greenhouse-gas-emissions.html

Whether it's eating less meat or cycling instead of driving, humans can do many things to help prevent climate change.

Unfortunately, breathing less isn't one of them.

That might be a problem, as a new study claims the gases in air exhaled from human lungs is fueling global warming.

Methane and nitrous oxide in the air we exhale makes up to 0.1 per cent of the UK's greenhouse gas emissions, scientists say.

And that's not even accounting for the gas we release from burps and farts, or emissions that come from our skin without us noticing.


Whether it's eating less meat or cycling instead of driving, humans can do many things to help prevent climate change. Unfortunately, breathing less isn't one of them (stock image)

Composition of exhaled human breath
- Nitrogen (N) - 78%

- Oxygen (O2)* - 17%

- Carbon dioxide (CO2) - 4%

- Other gases including methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) – 1%

*Exhaled human breath contains oxygen, but just less oxygen than the air we inhaled

The new study was led by Dr Nicholas Cowan, an atmospheric physicist at the UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology in Edinburgh.

'Exhaled human breath can contain small, elevated concentrations of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), both of which contribute to global warming,' Dr Cowan and colleagues say.

'We would urge caution in the assumption that emissions from humans are negligible.'

As most of us remember from science classes at school, humans breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide.

When we inhale, air enters the lungs, and oxygen from that air moves to the blood, while carbon dioxide (CO2), a waste gas, moves from the blood to the lungs and is breathed out.

With plants, it is the other way round; plants use CO2 to create oxygen as a by-product (the process known as photosynthesis).

Every person breathes out CO2 when they exhale, but in their new study, the researchers focused on methane and nitrous oxide.

These two are both powerful greenhouse gases, but because they're breathed out in much smaller quantities, their contribution to global warming may have been overlooked.


When we inhale, air enters the lungs, and oxygen from that air moves to the blood, while CO2, a waste gas, moves from the blood to the lungs and is breathed out

What's more, plants essentially soak up all the CO2 that's emitted in human breath, so 'CO2 contribution in human breath to climate change is essentially zero,' Dr Cowan told MailOnline.

The same cannot be said for methane and nitrous oxide, as plants don't use these gases in photosynthesis.

For the study, the researchers investigated emissions of methane and nitrous oxide in human breath from 104 adult volunteers from the UK population.

Participants were required to take in a deep breath and hold it for five seconds, then exhale into a sealable plastic bag.

A total of 328 breath samples were collected and every participant had details recorded such as age, sex and dietary preference.

After analysing the samples, researchers found nitrous oxide was emitted by every participant, but methane was found in the breath of only 31 per cent of participants.

Researchers say those who do not exhale methane in their breath are still likely to 'release the gas in flatus' – in other words, by farting.

Interestingly, people with methane in their exhaled breath were more likely to be female and above the age of 30, but researchers aren't sure why.

Concentrations of the two gases in the overall samples let the researchers estimate the proportion of the UK's emissions are from our breath – 0.05 per cent for methane and 0.1 per cent for nitrous oxide.

Dr Cowan stresses that each of these percentages relate specifically to these respective gases, not all of the UK's greenhouse gas emissions as a whole.

Researchers didn't manage to find any link between gases in the breath and diets – although meat eaters are known to fuel the climate crisis in other ways.

The experts stress that their study only looked at greenhouse gases in breath, and so it does not provide an overall estimate of a person's emissions footprint.

In experiments, all participants breathed out carbon dioxide (left). Nitrous oxide (right) was also emitted by every participant, but methane (centre) was found in the breath of only 31 per cent of participants

According to the authors, emissions of methane and nitrous oxide are 'generally ignored in most environmental monitoring' as they're considered negligible.

However, further study of human emissions of these gases - not just from our breath - could reveal more about 'the impacts of an ageing population and shifting diets,' the team say.

Inside the human body, methane gas is produced by microorganisms called methanogens, which colonise our digestive tract.

The methane crosses into the blood and is carried to the lungs where it can be exhaled in breath.

Meanwhile, bacteria in the gut and oral cavity turns nitrates in food and water to nitrous oxide, which also escapes in human breath.

The study has been published in the journal PLOS One.

Measurements of methane and nitrous oxide in human breath and the development of UK scale emissions | PLOS ONE
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0295157

The factors that affect human emissions of CH4 and N2O are not well understood and the impacts of an aging population and shifting diets is still relatively uncertain. Converting from high meat and protein content diets to higher fibre vegetarian options to mitigate emissions of greenhouse gases from meat production potentially results in higher production of gases in the human gut [24],