JoNova
A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).
Jo appreciates your support to help her keep doing what she does. This blog is funded by donations. Thanks!
Follow Jo's Tweets To report "lost" comments or defamatory and offensive remarks, email the moderators at: support.jonova AT proton.me
Statistics
Carried forward from yesterday: “We should not expect from them deep understanding of how we got here, still less any meaningful programme capable of getting beyond populist posturing. Their worldview remains deeply entrenched, particularly in the institutions tasked with doing society’s thinking. Nonetheless, if their panic attacks will no longer suck up all the political oxygen, it may at least create a little more breathing space for others to do the hard work of democratic renewal.”
https://thenorthernstar.online/2024/11/18/is-trump-2-the-end-of-neoliberal-order-breakdown-syndrome/
00
Don’t They Teach Any Chemistry In Medical Schools?
By Dr John Happs
It was both surprising and alarming to learn that a group called “Doctors for the Environment, Australia” were actually calling for members of the public to contact their local Member of Parliament and deliver the message:
“To protect the health of the Australian people I call on you as my elected representative to ban all new coal, oil and gas projects.”
This silly appeal is also promoted by some members of the American Medical Association who foolishly claim:
“Extreme heat, powerful storms and floods, year-round wildfires, droughts, and other climate-related events are caused by “fossil fuel combustion, which is said to be the “primary driver of climate-change.”
The AMA argues that we should be:
“transitioning away from hydrocarbon fuels, coal, oil, and natural gas, and toward renewable energy and energy efficiency.”
Now one might think that medicine would be driven by objective scientific reasoning and that our medical schools would accept only the best and brightest of student applicants, yet the message these groups of medical practitioners want us to spread, exposes their absolute ignorance of the chemistry of hydrocarbon resources and our total dependence on them.
“Doctors for the Environment, Australia” appear to have no idea about how coal, gas and oil have lifted millions out of poverty and enabled us to achieve the high standard of living we have today, along with all the tools and medications that the medical industry relies upon. In fact, there is precious little in the medical world that isn’t dependent on the coal, oil and gas deposits that “Doctors for the Environment, Australia” want to ban.
Continue reading: https://papundits.wordpress.com/2024/10/18/dont-they-teach-any-chemistry-in-medical-schools/
https://saltbushclub.com/2024/11/24/dont-they-teach-any-chemistry-in-medical-schools/
10
No, of course not! And in Australia even anatomy was stopped twenty years ago. You don’t need it for a medical degree.
So they are left with memories of school level chemistry and that quickly fades. Technology and laboratories and consultants are reducing GPs to referral centres.
20
The other problem I have found with many is that they believe everything they are told.
But I slowly realised that in their lives, from school to GP, that has been their entire education. Skepticism has no place.
And they cannot imagine why anyone would lie to them. It doesn’t happen in their daily lives. Which makes them mugs in business too. You have a class of people who are trained to believe and not question the voice of authority. NASA. NOAA. And pharmaceutical companies.
20
I do not recal learning much about “coal chemistry” in any school classes. The coal formation period (Carboniferous) was/is discussed in various introductory Earth science classes. Actual chemistry not so much.
I do wonder about these medical types jumping into the mess of net-zero. It suggests there are many topics about which they are clueless other than organic chemistry.
20
They do not understand what they wrote.
COP 29 diplomacy delivers perfectly vague promises a decade away
By David Wojick
https://www.cfact.org/2024/11/25/cop-29-diplomacy-delivers-perfectly-vague-promises-a-decade-away/
Key excerpts:
“In Cop 29’s “Finance agreement” diplomacy is truly the art of agreeing to nothing. There is no agreement of substance here because there is no substance to this agreement. Each side gets its number someday and that is all there is to it.
Let’s look at the actual text to see the nothing. But first recall what was supposed to happen. The Paris Agreement committed the developed country members to providing $100 billion a year to the developing countries through 2025. COP 29 was simply supposed to revise that annual payment up beginning in 2026. That did not happen, not even close.
The fiasco started when the developing countries demanded impossibly huge sums centered on $1.3 trillion. That set in motion a series of side steps leading to the present agreement which is very different from the intended goal. To begin with the $1.3 trillion annual payment is there but it is “by 2035” so ten years from now not in 2026. I can see delaying it until a few years after Trump leaves office but these folks are wedded to their five year plans.
Moreover this money need not come from the developed countries and certainly not from their governments. First it is to come “from all public and private sources.” Second the eligible sources have been expanded to include all the developing countries as well as the developed ones.
These two provisions have fundamentally changed the concept of climate finance. It used to just include mostly government money going from developed to developing countries. Now it sounds like any climate related investment or contribution that winds up in a developing country counts.”
“Then there is the other big number, the $300 billion a year. This is widely assumed to replace the $100 billion a year mandated by the Paris Agreement through 2025. For example CBS has a headline that yells “deal reached at UN’s COP29 climate talks for $300 billion a year (up from $100 billion).”
This is incorrect as here too the new agreement says the goal is “by 2035.” Nor is all (or any) of this distant sum necessarily coming from developed countries as the yearly $100 billion had to. The new agreement just says “with developed country Parties taking the lead.” (Parties means to the Paris Agreement.)
“Taking the lead” is an extremely vague concept. It might mean paying over half say $151 billion. Or just being the biggest donor at say $20 billion. Or even just running a bunch of promotions to get private investors to invest, which might only millions.
The overall fiasco becomes clear when we ask what the finance requirement or goal is for 2026? There is none, nor for any other year ahead until 2035. Nor is anyone responsible for meeting those far distant goals.”
Lots more in the article. Please share it.
10
Well since the actions are a decade out and the world will end before then we need have no more COP’s
00