Category Archives: Science

A Christian Libertarian View on Environmental Protection

I’ve just finished reading “Faith Seeking Freedom – Libertarian Christian Answers to Tough Questions“. The authors are Dr. Norman Horn, Doug Stuart, Kerry Baldwin and Dick Clark.

It covers 12 different subjects, plus one chapter on “Christian misconceptions on Libertainism”.

Here, I’m just going to concentrate on chapter 12: “What about the Environment and Creation?”

Here are a few quotes from that chapter:

The natural world in the beginning [of Genesis] is described as a garden. Gardens are meant to be worked, and that work inherently means that the garden is incomplete.

Therefore, the destiny of the whole earth is not pure wildland, but cultivation by its inhabitants.

Now, that does not mean we should be utterly wasteful and foolish with those resources, but it also means we do not have the right to assume we know better than our neighbor how he can use those resources that he rightfully owns.

As we use the resources that God has seen fit to grant us, we should use them as mindful stewards of a divine blessing (Matt. 25:14-30). The righteous take care to leave something of value for future generations (Prov. 13:22)

When property boundaries are clear and unambiguous, neighbors can more readily hold each other accountable.

Too often, in a system where environmental regulation is provided through government, political decision making can lead to wasted resources. Under modern environmental regulatory regimes, polluters and other bad actors may even be able to defend their harmful actions legally by pointing to government licensure and compliance with relevant regulations.

In a free society, property owners would have a better chance at holding others accountable for the environmental damage that they cause.

It is important to point out that governments do not just fail to protect the environment; in fact, they are among the worst polluters. A 2020 report concluded that the United States military is the “largest single institutional consumer of hydrocarbons in the world”.

Private property owners have a strong incentive to conserve their privately owned resources. Unfortunately, when government owns and manages natural resources, there is an incentive for private parties to attempt to get as much as they can until the resource is exhausted.

It is rational to maximise profits, and for as long as human beings live in a fallen world with scarce resources, they will seek to do so.

We must recognize that some pollution is inevitable simply because of entropy.

The bigger concern, though, is hazardous waste. [Whoever damages] someone else with their pollutant, they are liable for those damages in form of a tort (a civil lawsuit). The polluter would have to pay restitution for those damages and resotre the property (or health) of the claimant.

Models of the future are massively uncertain, and their predictions of global climates and the need to “fix” the predicted issues are dangerous at best and unjust to billions at worst.

Encourage efforts that move land and resources into private hands rather than the state.

Jordan Peterson on Climate Change Hysteria

9-minute video.

From the video description:

Jordan Peterson Exposes the Environmental Movement’s Flaws In this riveting video, Jordan Peterson, a leading voice in contemporary intellectual thought, critically examines the modern environmental movement. Peterson dissects the motivations and implications behind the push for drastic environmental policies, revealing what he sees as a troubling anti-human agenda. Peterson questions the vague yet powerful concept of “the environment,” suggesting it has become a quasi-religious idol for climate change advocates. He points to extreme proposals like limiting personal flights, reducing private car ownership, and restricting meat consumption as evidence of an agenda that prioritizes ideology over practicality and human well-being.

Addressing the economic ramifications, Peterson argues that such policies disproportionately harm the poor by raising energy prices and restricting access to essential resources. He critiques the hypocrisy of environmentalists who oppose nuclear energy despite its potential to provide safe, clean power, and reduce carbon emissions.

Peterson also challenges the commonly touted scientific consensus on climate change, suggesting that the narrative is driven more by political and ideological interests than by solid science. He advocates for a balanced approach that emphasizes economic growth, technological advancement, and local environmental action as the true pathways to sustainability.

Highlighting the success of free markets and capitalism in lifting millions out of poverty, Peterson calls for policies that make energy affordable and accessible, thus enabling broader environmental stewardship.

Interview with Astrophysicist Hugh Ross

At Grace Church St. Louis, from 19th May 2024

Starts here.

Includes account of when he visited the Soviet Union. He says scientists there were researching “occult weapons”, because the leadership realised they were falling behind the US and were getting desperate.

He says some of the scientists there were “obviously demon-possessed”, and explained that in terms of their behaviour: Shouting at him during his talk, being very hostile, turning away, going into foetal position etc.

Atheist MIT Professor Converts to Christianity

Writes the video-maker “Daily Dose of Wisdom”:

In this video, Rosalind Picard shares the story of her journey to God. Along the way, she unpacks the critical realization that Science, as wonderful as it is, is not the only vehicle to bring us to Truth and that many aspects of human life simply fall outside the view of Science. She then explains her process of seeking answers to those huge Why questions that go beyond mere process or mechanism. I hope you enjoy!

Here is Picard’s Wikipedia-entry.

Climate The Movie

Here it is.

Alternatively, here. Under this video on we find the following text:

This film exposes the climate alarm as an invented scare without any basis in science. It shows that mainstream studies and official data do not support the claim that we are witnessing an increase in extreme weather events – hurricanes, droughts, heatwaves, wildfires and all the rest. It emphatically counters the claim that current temperatures and levels of atmospheric CO2 are unusually and worryingly high. On the contrary, it is very clearly the case, as can be seen in all mainstream studies, that, compared to the last half billion years of earth’s history, both current temperatures and CO2 levels are extremely and unusually low. We are currently in an ice age. It also shows that there is no evidence that changing levels of CO2 (it has changed many times) has ever ‘driven’ climate change in the past.
Why then, are we told, again and again, that ‘catastrophic man-made climate-change’ is an irrefutable fact? Why are we told that there is no evidence that contradicts it? Why are we told that anyone who questions ‘climate chaos’ is a ‘flat-earther’ and a ‘science-denier’?
The film explores the nature of the consensus behind climate change. It describes the origins of the climate funding bandwagon, and the rise of the trillion-dollar climate industry. It describes the hundreds of thousands of jobs that depend on the climate crisis. It explains the enormous pressure on scientists and others not to question the climate alarm: the withdrawal of funds, rejection by science journals, social ostracism.
But the climate alarm is much more than a funding and jobs bandwagon. The film explores the politics of climate. From the beginning, the climate scare was political. The culprit was free-market industrial capitalism. The solution was higher taxes and more regulation. From the start, the climate alarm appealed to, and has been adopted and promoted by, those groups who favour bigger government.
This is the unspoken political divide behind the climate alarm. The climate scare appeals especially to all those in the sprawling publicly-funded establishment. This includes the largely publicly-funded Western intelligentsia, for whom climate has become a moral cause. In these circles, to criticise or question the climate alarm has become a breach of social etiquette.
The film was shot on location in the U.S., Israel, Kenya and UK.

Update on Covid Risks vs. Vaccine Risks

Article by Eugene Kusmiak.


The Covid vaccines came out more than 3 years ago, and almost no one still believes the ridiculous story they told us then that the vaccines prevent Covid infection and transmission. But most people do believe that the vaccines lessen the severity of the disease, reducing their risk of hospitalization and death from Covid. And they are probably right about that. But no matter how effective the vaccines may be, if my regressions are correct, the lives they save are still outnumbered by the deaths they cause, so the net effect of getting vaccinated – less severe Covid but more severe side effects – is to increase your chance of dying. And what causes more deaths almost certainly also causes more hospitalizations, injuries, sickness, and pain. The net effect of the Covid vaccines has been to increase mortality and morbidity.

My regression analysis showing net harm from the vaccines is also fully consistent with the Pfizer and Moderna clinical trials which found that the vaccines reduced hospitalizations and deaths from Covid, but increased hospitalizations and deaths from side effects, with the net result being that the vaccinated group suffered worse health outcomes – more severe illness, hospitalizations, and deaths – than the placebo group. The pharmaceutical companies’ own clinical trials showed unequivocally “vaccinated group sick / placebo group healthy.” They summarized these terrible results for the public as “vaccinated group healthy / placebo group sick.” Then they made billions of dollars selling this junk to people who clamored to take it.

The pharma companies even published the clinical trial reports online, knowing that no one would ever read them. Or, more precisely, 99% of Americans couldn’t understand them, and the 1% who could, such as the FDA, do not believe in the principle “tell the truth and let the people decide.” Their principle is “lie to control what people do”, which is the opposite. Pharma bet, correctly, that no matter how big their lie, no one in authority would ever contradict them.

[. . .]

This doesn’t necessarily mean that the fewer vaccines in 2022 caused the fewer deaths in 2023. But it’s certainly consistent with the claim that the vaccines cause deadly short-term side effects. However, it’s not consistent with the belief that the vaccines cause deadly long-term side effects. In fact, the return to normal mortality levels in 2023 is pretty strong evidence that the Covid vaccines don’t increase fatalities long-term.

There are two models of harmful side effects that a medical treatment could cause:

  1. It could be like a poison. The day you ingest a poison is the day it’s most likely to kill you. Every day after that, your body flushes some of it out of your system, and the danger diminishes. After a week or a month or a year, depending on the poison, it’s all gone from your system so it can no longer hurt you.
  2. It could be like a carcinogen. The day you ingest a cancer-causing chemical, it produces no immediate harm. But every day after that, the carcinogen causes mutations in some of your cells, potentially turning them cancerous. Many years later, those damaged cells may develop into a cancer that kills you.

So far, I think most evidence shows the Covid vaccine to be a poison, not a carcinogen. Eventually your body degrades and destroys the lipid nanoparticles and the mRNA they contain and the Spike proteins they produce. After that, they’re gone. This doesn’t prove that the vaccine can’t also be a cancer-causing agent in addition to being a poison. But most things are one or the other, not both, and the Covid vaccine looks very much like a poison, not a carcinogen. Its dangers appear to decrease over time, not increase. The fact is, billions of people took the Covid vaccine worldwide in 2021. Then those vaccinated people died in unprecedented numbers in 2022, but had normal death numbers in 2023. This matches the profile of a poison. If the Covid vaccine behaved like a carcinogen, there would have been no adverse health effects the day, week, month, or year after the shot. Excess mortality would have been low in 2022 but rising in 2023. Instead, it was high in 2022 but falling in 2023. That’s the behavior of a short-acting poison, not a long-acting carcinogen.

Two years ago, the media (or at least the non-corporate media) was full of stories about the seemingly apocalyptic level of excess mortality around the world. Death rates were at record highs in almost every country on earth. People disagreed about what caused it, but there was no denying that it was happening. Anti-vaxxers noticed that the highest death rates happened in the countries which had vaccinated the most people. Pro-vaxxers ignored this fact and said the deaths just showed how dangerous Covid was so how necessary the vaccines were.

But last year (and so far this year) those scare stories have disappeared from the news. Excess mortality has fallen to near zero globally. Death rates have returned to normal almost everywhere, including in the United States. Whether this is because Covid is gone or because people stopped taking the deadly vaccines is hard to say, although I’m sure both anti-vaxxers and pro-vaxxers are certain that it just proves how right they were all along.

So, the apocalypse never happened, and probably never will. People have been predicting a religious apocalypse for 2000 years. Now, in our secular age, people seem to want to believe in a technological apocalypse. I, for one, am sick of apocalyptic predictions. 2000 years of false alarms is enough. The world is not coming to an end – not from Covid, and not from the Covid vaccines.

Microplastics, Global Greening, & the Dangers of Radical Alarmism

Jordan Peterson interviews Patrick Moore (ex-Greenpeace)

Video here.

Contains graph showing (at 1:34:36) the declining CO2 content in the atmosphere over the past 160 million years. In that time, it went in a pretty straight line down from 2,500 ppm to now about 3-400 ppm. We are now close to the point where plants will die (at CO2 below 150 ppm). If nothing changes, this will happen in about 5 million years.

Here is Moore’s book (from 2021) Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom.