Dr Rowen, I appreciate how you have mixed health issues along with geopolitical issues. In many ways they do go hand in hand. I would enjoy a new Substack and also fine with keeping the path we currently are on. For the sake of time and efficiency, I think it may be better to keep on just one stack. Possibly indicate in the title of the post if it pertains predominantly to health or geopolitics so that followers that prefer one or the other can decide at that point to invest the time in reading. I’m good with whatever decision you make. Thank you for your contributions to what makes up a portion of my “news”. Bobby 24!
Regarding your thoughts about a possible separate substack for discussion of current events with common sense, have you time and energy to devote to a 2nd substack? 1:20 AM Pacific time is when your latest substack email appeared to me in Sacramento. I'm retired, but you're not. Surely you must have an obligation to your colleagues in practice with you in your clinic and beyond to be well-rested and in good health. You asked, so my opinion is for you to stick to what you do best: health. Leave politics, war, conscription and other such subjects to those who specialize in those fields. You can always refer your readers to someone's post when appropriate and beneficial for us to know. Thank you for caring, and please care for your health so you'll be maximally able to help us be healthy.
What people need to understand there is NO WAR AGAINST FOSSIL FUELS. The war is against mobility. Do you think the self appointed elites that fly around in their jets, sail on their yachts, eat steak and own many mansions ALL BY THE WATER are going to sacrifice their way of life? Not a chance. It is the slaves they want to control and the only way they can truly monitor and control everything we do and say is if we are not mobile and are ushered into city centers where mental illness, franken food, crime and disease will shorten our life.
There is a HUGE problem with accepting BS as "well maybe..." CO2 has never influenced climate in the past and there is no reason to believe that it can in the future." NASA-GISS lead scientist Dr. John Christy. He is the man in charge of all the satelite climate records, the only ones that actually measure the planet, rather than localities.
Using the scientific method, CO2 fails to correlate. First of all, it is currently warming, or was during the last century, because we were emerging from The Little Ice Age, the coldest period since Jesus was born. Temps had to go up because they couldn't go down any further. But the steepest rise in CO2 occured shortly after WWII, at a time when temps were falling. Einstein, Feynman, Hawking, et al would tell you, that's a mic drop. No, CO2 cannot be blamed. And to paraphrase comedian Dennis Miller: Temps fell two degrees from an all time high to an all-time low, and have now increased by a degree and a half. All of this took over 800 years. Am I the only one that thinks this means our climate is remarkably stable?
Well said. Our CO2 levels in the atmosphere are at historic geologic lows; the plants have had to adapt to the low CO2 environment. More CO2 would result in expanding forests and plant life. The majority of the data is collected from ground-based sensors, not atmospheric readings, as they don't show much warming. If you look at the rural sites vs. sensors in the urban environments, there is no warming in the rural sensors. There are urban sensors in parking lots, airports, and many crazy places, showing the change is mainly from the effects of urban heat sinks. This is just another way they are destroying this country and the world and how they don't follow the science (look at the V-a-x.)
And a tripling of current CO2 levels, while have no effect on temperatures, would solve world hunger through a massive increase in crop yields. Although the CO2 rise wouldn't cause it, a degree or two increase would be beneficial as well.
It’s sad to see and then who has such courageous and thoughtful and innovative perspectives on healing the body produce such an incoherent disorganized illogical and contradictory set of ramblings on climate change.
Wow you do make a good point or two such as the need to maintain and restore our forests there is no scientific study that demonstrates restoring forest well necessary is sufficient to avoid the kind of climate calamity we’re already experiencing around the world which apparently neither you nor any of your readers is willing to even acknowledge.
The basic chemistry of fossil fuels and global heating was established 200 years ago and it’s true as ever today. CO2 X as a greenhouse trapping heat in the atmosphere and so the more we burn the more we cut down forests the more we build new buildings the thicker the greenhouse we erupt erect every single day above us.
I don’t know if I have the energy to question and repot your mini statements in detail so I will leave it at that for now
I did not say that replanting all the forests will fix the problem. I tried to make the point that it is a necessary first step to restore gas recycling on the planet, and something we certainly can do. The destruction of the Amazon will affect you, you can be sure. I would venture to say that you need oxygen to live.
I just found you on substack! Used to get your paper edition yrs and yrs ago and was recently wondering if you were still writing. Glad you're still in the fight for health!
I read your articles EVERY day. Great stuff. But, you must realize that the earth hasn’t been in existence for 10,000 years. Read your Bible, my friend.
I was an ozone experimenter years ago. I built my own machines. Good stuff.
Dr Rowen, I appreciate how you have mixed health issues along with geopolitical issues. In many ways they do go hand in hand. I would enjoy a new Substack and also fine with keeping the path we currently are on. For the sake of time and efficiency, I think it may be better to keep on just one stack. Possibly indicate in the title of the post if it pertains predominantly to health or geopolitics so that followers that prefer one or the other can decide at that point to invest the time in reading. I’m good with whatever decision you make. Thank you for your contributions to what makes up a portion of my “news”. Bobby 24!
Regarding your thoughts about a possible separate substack for discussion of current events with common sense, have you time and energy to devote to a 2nd substack? 1:20 AM Pacific time is when your latest substack email appeared to me in Sacramento. I'm retired, but you're not. Surely you must have an obligation to your colleagues in practice with you in your clinic and beyond to be well-rested and in good health. You asked, so my opinion is for you to stick to what you do best: health. Leave politics, war, conscription and other such subjects to those who specialize in those fields. You can always refer your readers to someone's post when appropriate and beneficial for us to know. Thank you for caring, and please care for your health so you'll be maximally able to help us be healthy.
What people need to understand there is NO WAR AGAINST FOSSIL FUELS. The war is against mobility. Do you think the self appointed elites that fly around in their jets, sail on their yachts, eat steak and own many mansions ALL BY THE WATER are going to sacrifice their way of life? Not a chance. It is the slaves they want to control and the only way they can truly monitor and control everything we do and say is if we are not mobile and are ushered into city centers where mental illness, franken food, crime and disease will shorten our life.
There is a HUGE problem with accepting BS as "well maybe..." CO2 has never influenced climate in the past and there is no reason to believe that it can in the future." NASA-GISS lead scientist Dr. John Christy. He is the man in charge of all the satelite climate records, the only ones that actually measure the planet, rather than localities.
Using the scientific method, CO2 fails to correlate. First of all, it is currently warming, or was during the last century, because we were emerging from The Little Ice Age, the coldest period since Jesus was born. Temps had to go up because they couldn't go down any further. But the steepest rise in CO2 occured shortly after WWII, at a time when temps were falling. Einstein, Feynman, Hawking, et al would tell you, that's a mic drop. No, CO2 cannot be blamed. And to paraphrase comedian Dennis Miller: Temps fell two degrees from an all time high to an all-time low, and have now increased by a degree and a half. All of this took over 800 years. Am I the only one that thinks this means our climate is remarkably stable?
Well said. Our CO2 levels in the atmosphere are at historic geologic lows; the plants have had to adapt to the low CO2 environment. More CO2 would result in expanding forests and plant life. The majority of the data is collected from ground-based sensors, not atmospheric readings, as they don't show much warming. If you look at the rural sites vs. sensors in the urban environments, there is no warming in the rural sensors. There are urban sensors in parking lots, airports, and many crazy places, showing the change is mainly from the effects of urban heat sinks. This is just another way they are destroying this country and the world and how they don't follow the science (look at the V-a-x.)
And a tripling of current CO2 levels, while have no effect on temperatures, would solve world hunger through a massive increase in crop yields. Although the CO2 rise wouldn't cause it, a degree or two increase would be beneficial as well.
It’s sad to see and then who has such courageous and thoughtful and innovative perspectives on healing the body produce such an incoherent disorganized illogical and contradictory set of ramblings on climate change.
Wow you do make a good point or two such as the need to maintain and restore our forests there is no scientific study that demonstrates restoring forest well necessary is sufficient to avoid the kind of climate calamity we’re already experiencing around the world which apparently neither you nor any of your readers is willing to even acknowledge.
The basic chemistry of fossil fuels and global heating was established 200 years ago and it’s true as ever today. CO2 X as a greenhouse trapping heat in the atmosphere and so the more we burn the more we cut down forests the more we build new buildings the thicker the greenhouse we erupt erect every single day above us.
I don’t know if I have the energy to question and repot your mini statements in detail so I will leave it at that for now
I did not say that replanting all the forests will fix the problem. I tried to make the point that it is a necessary first step to restore gas recycling on the planet, and something we certainly can do. The destruction of the Amazon will affect you, you can be sure. I would venture to say that you need oxygen to live.
Thankyou Dr. Rowen, for sharing your insightful commentary with us all. I would welcome the additional Substack discussion.
I just found you on substack! Used to get your paper edition yrs and yrs ago and was recently wondering if you were still writing. Glad you're still in the fight for health!
https://reinettesenumsfoghornexpress.substack.com/p/the-disturbing-death-of-substack?publication_id=943736&post_id=145724917&isFreemail=false&r=123xaw&triedRedirect=true This clean link is from a substacker who has written an article about substack, itself.
I read your articles EVERY day. Great stuff. But, you must realize that the earth hasn’t been in existence for 10,000 years. Read your Bible, my friend.
I was an ozone experimenter years ago. I built my own machines. Good stuff.
Ballocks