Time: Covid Economic Contraction “just in time” to Delay the Climate Crisis

Hunger Protest 1947 Germany
Hunger Protest 1947 Postwar Germany. By Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-B0527-0001-753 / CC-BY-SA 3.0, CC BY-SA 3.0 de, Link

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

According to Time Magazine, we are currently in a climate crisis because “As the world came out of the Great Depression and World War II, the U.S. launched a rapid bid to remake the global economy–running on fossil fuels.”

2020 Is Our Last, Best Chance to Save the Planet

BY JUSTIN WORLAND  JULY 9, 2020 6:42 AM EDT

In early April, as COVID-19 spread across the U.S. and doctors urgently warned that New York City might soon run out of ventilators and hospital beds, President Donald Trump gathered CEOs from some of the country’s biggest oil and gas companies for a closed-door meeting in the White House Cabinet Room. The industry faced its biggest disruption in decades, and Trump wanted to help the companies secure their place at the center of the 21st century American economy.

We find ourselves on the brink of climate catastrophe in large part because of the decisions made during a past crisis. As the world came out of the Great Depression and World War II, the U.S. launched a rapid bid to remake the global economy–running on fossil fuels. In the first postwar years, Americans moved to suburbs and began driving gas-guzzling cars to work, while the federal government built a highway system to connect the country for those vehicles. The single biggest line item in the Marshall Plan, the U.S. government program that funded the European recovery, went to support oil, which ensured that the continent’s economy would also run on that fossil fuel. Meanwhile, plastic, an oil derivative, became the go-to building block for consumer goods after the U.S. had developed production capacity for use in World War II.

The underlying philosophy of economic development in this time period was a focus on gross national product, a term developed by U.S. government economists during the Depression, which included consumption as a proxy for prosperity: the more we consume, the better off we are, according to this model, which, in the postwar era, the U.S. assiduously spread abroad. The promise of endless growth also required an endless supply of oil to power factories, automobiles and jet planes. In 1945, President Franklin D. Roosevelt sealed a deal with Ibn Saud, the first King of Saudi Arabia, trading security for access to the country’s vast oil reserves. Every U.S. President since, implicitly or explicitly, has continued that exchange.

The coronavirus pandemic is the most significant disruption yet to the postwar fossil-fuel order. The global economy is expected to contract more than 5% this year, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). This is a challenge so big that it has also created a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to change direction.

This moment comes just in time. In 2018, a landmark report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.N.’s climate-science body, warned that allowing the planet to warm any more than 2°C above preindustrial levels would drive hundreds of millions of people into poverty, destroy coral reefs and leave some countries unable to adapt. A 2019 analysis in the journal Nature identified nine tipping points–from the collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet to the thawing of Arctic permafrost–that the planet appears close to reaching, any one of which might very well be triggered if warming exceeds 1.5°C. “Going beyond 2°C is a very critical step,” says Johan Rockstrom, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, “not only in terms of economic and human impact but also in terms of the stability of the earth.”

Read more: https://time.com/5864692/climate-change-defining-moment/

Anyone who thinks the Marshall Plan was a mistake never talked to anyone who lived through that time, has no idea of the chaos and food shortages Europeans endured.

Someone I was very close to was evacuated as a teenager to Australia from a refugee camp in post war Germany. But he wasn’t German, he was Eastern European.

Stalin blocked US aid from reaching postwar Eastern Europe because he was worried US aid might dilute Soviet authority in his new empire, so thousands of children like my friend became displaced. They left their homes in Eastern Europe, walking hundreds of miles in a desperate search for food their surviving parents if any could no longer provide. Those who made it mostly ended up in US run refugee camps in Western Europe.

Even with US help there was not enough food to take care of everyone. My friend spoke of two food rich countries, Argentina and Australia, who offered to take care of children Europe could no longer afford to support. My friend loved Australia and the USA his entire life, because of what they did for him. He survived long enough to be evacuated only because of the generosity of the USA.

The alternative to post WW2 US aid and the Marshall Plan would likely have been a humanitarian disaster. In the faltering postwar economy many thousands more starving children could have perished from hunger.

When the iron curtain fell and Eastern Europe was liberated, if you have ever wondered why Eastern Europeans are so friendly towards the USA, its not just because the USA helped engineer their freedom. Some of them remember the USA once saved their children, even if many others have forgotten.

75 thoughts on “Time: Covid Economic Contraction “just in time” to Delay the Climate Crisis

  1. “We want coal, we want bread”, says it all about the hard times after WWII. It also says something about the fabricated non-existent ‘Climate Crisis’. To see the hard times, you had just to be there; to see the ‘Climate Crisis’ you need special glasses.

    • Sorry to nit pick, but the sign says “We want *cabbage* We want bread”.
      Kohle as in cole slaw = cabbage salad.

      • And yet again…another excuse to push the goal posts even farther out in their non-verifiable, non-reproducible non-science

      • Very amusing Mumbles.

        n.f. Kohle : coal
        n.m. Kohl : cabbage. ( aka Kraut ).

        On the other hand they could have been supporters of Merkel’s predecessor Bundeskanzler Kohl, Bukako for short.

        • Big difference. I didn’t know if it was worth the effort but with this web site someone would step up. Thanks for doing it.

    • Tesdorf, I am not sure what McGuirck is saying. Maybe he is thinking of “Kohl” which surely is a vegetable and something most children don’t fancy.

      Mostly I can only get two meanings out of “Kohle”: coal or money.
      But I do believe it means “coal” as you suggest, because the meaning “money” is a bit of low pan slang, like “bucks”.

      I have said it before, and I will say it again: Google translate is great and doing a pristine job, but is based on letter and scripts. Taking separate phrases unknown to Google is often error prone.

      • 1947 was a long freezing winter in Europe. Germans were starving and freezing. Bread was rationed for the first time in Britain because wheat from across the Atlantic was dedicated to keep (some of) them alive, and coal was in short supply even in my South Yorkshire mining village.

        • And the British and Americans flew (yes, FLEW) food and coal into Berlin when the Russians shut down the access roads and rail to the isolated Western island in a Communist sea. Look up the “Berlin Airlift”.

    • This is a Time rant against modern living standards, made by those who have never had to do without.
      Without abundant, affordable fossil energy in the 1950s, none of this would have been possible. Whale oil and firewood would not have sufficed. These Time people would be the first to complain if they had to do without these conveniences. There is no fool like one who does not know that he does not know (old Chinese proverb).

  2. “When the iron curtain fell and Eastern Europe was liberated…”

    It is rather ironic that mainly Britain and the Commonwealth declared war on Germany when they invaded Poland, but at the end of the war, Poland was stolen by the USSR. And the world let that happen.

    We should have finished the job once and for all in 1945, and took out Stalin and the Soviets. Churchill had a plan, called Operation Unthinkable, but it would have required the USA to do the heavy lifting. And everyone was war weary by that point, and Russia was supposedly our ally. That was one of the massive mistakes of history, just like if we don’t remove the Chinese CPC/Comrade Xi and feed him to the fishes. It’s time to play hardball with these totalitarian regimes, which is why the only hope for the free world is the reelection of President Trump.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable#:~:text=Operation%20Unthinkable%20was%20the%20name,World%20War%20II%20in%20Europe.

    • The USSR was tipped off by Soviet British spies.

      Unthinkable would have been high risk. Not only would it have required more sacrifices and drain on allied economies, it would have required allies to work with a rearmed Wehrmacht, to join their recent enemies and start shooting at people they thought were their friends.

      Even if this somehow worked out, given the colossal Soviet mobilisation, and the fact they were tipped off, the only way to achieve a rapid victory would have been to use a handful of nuclear bombs available at the end of 1945 to blast a hole through Soviet defences, to terrify the Soviets into surrender.

      One or two bombs might not have been enough to break the Soviet defence. Soviets had at least one spy in the Manhattan Project, and several British spies, so unlike the Japanese the Soviets would have known exactly what nuclear capability the allies had available. Soviet air defences would have made it difficult to penetrate Soviet airspace, to attack high value targets behind the lines.

      And in the wake of what many would have considered a major allied war crime, the Soviets would have received a lot more help in completing their version of the bomb project, maybe even help sabotaging Western bomb production.

      • Maybe Operation Pike would have been more successful, very early on in the war. Problem was, precision bombing had yet to be developed. And perhaps would have caused an alliance with Hitler and Stalin against the Allies. But the lesson should be which we need to reenact today is… take out these thugs before they become a problem like the Red China Virus CPC. Now it has to be WW3, or learn Mandarin. But the sooner the better, since the lesson is never to allow these monsters to take the offensive.

        Operation Pike was the code-name for a strategic bombing plan, overseen by Air Commodore John Slessor, against the Soviet Union by the Anglo-French alliance. British military planning against the Soviet Union occurred during the first two years of the Second World War, when, despite Soviet neutrality, the British and French came to the conclusion that the Nazi–Soviet pact made Moscow an accomplice of Hitler. The plan was designed to destroy the Soviet oil industry, to cause the collapse of the Soviet economy and deprive Nazi Germany of Soviet resources.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Pike

        • Hey, Earthling2. I think I’ve seen you somewhere. Yes, you are that General sitting aside the falling bomb at the end of Dr Strange love!

          • Well thank you! That would have been General Jack Ripper, and I will take that as a compliment. One of my favourite movies of all time. President Trump might also be considered the same, cause the dictators of the world think that he is crazier than them, and they are scared crapless of DJT winning the election since they probably won’t be dictators in 4 more years if he is. It’s time to ‘mow the lawn’ as the Israelis would say.

      • Yes and no, Eric.

        The problem with starting a war with Stalin is that for most people in the Allied camp is would be a massive WTF?! moment. Germany had been successfully painted as (not that it was that hard in context) “bad”, and hence defeating Germany was socially and morally acceptable. Japan had launched surprise attacks on both the US, the Commonwealth, giving both nations the Moral High Ground in the war – they started it.

        (also, remember kids, the Moral High Ground is a great place to deploy your artillery.)

        Starting a war with the Soviets on the other hand? Yeah, that would have gone down well.

        From a force comparison on the other hand the Soviets would have been in trouble. Remember the Soviets had been fighting tooth and nail since 1941. They were burnt. Britain was also burnt, being forced in late 44 and 45 to merge units to compensate for the lack of replacements. The US on the other hand was a massive place that while having being fighting hard still had manpower depths. However getting back to the first point, being able to draw on that manpower politically would be extremely difficult in an aggressive WTF?! war against the Russians.

        Also remember that the Soviets were the one’s who fought the bloody Battle of Berlin, where as the Western Allies, once they crossed the Rhine, had a relatively easier 45. Real strength would be a lot closer to paper strengths than the Soviet units. The discussions I have read on the topic believe the West significantly outnumbered the East at VE day.

        (interestingly the amount of operational tanks the Soviets had at VE day is actually less than the total tanks provided to them by Lend Lease.)

        Allied air power was significantly more advanced in numbers and abilities compared to the Soviets. Ask the Germans, who had been bombed by both. Allied air power was considered such a threat that 70% of German single seat fighters were devoted to home defence. Despite the strength of German air defence the Allies were readily about to penetrate German air space. Soviet air defence was not remotely at the same level for the simple reason that the Germans never had the ability to launch air offenses on the scale of the US daylight and British night attacks. In any Come As You Are West v East 45 war the Allies would be flying and bombing where they wanted and part of that wanted would be the logistics tail the Soviets had dragging over Poland.

        So from a pure military point of view the powerful Allies would have probably been able to defeat the exhausted Soviets. From a political point of view declaring war on Stalin would have been political suicide. For the West to fight the East successfully the Soviets would have had to attacked first.

        • You might find this book interesting, “Beyond The Call” by Lee Trimble. It is the story of the author’s father, and his experiences in late 1944 and early 1945. A member of “The Lucky Bastards Club” who had completed his required number of combat missions in the Eighth Air Force was offered a “non-combat” job recovering downed US aircraft in Soviet-held eastern Europe (casualties of “shuttle missions), rather than being rotated home, and then re-assigned to the PTO.

          His story got more interesting, as he discovered he was going to be working for the OSS, and his real job was to repatriate Allied POWs who had been “liberated”, then abandoned by the Soviets.

          A fascinating read- there is a better review on Amazon- and it showed how the Russkies really were as allies. Captain Trimble came away from that war with deep hatred of the Soviets.

    • There is a very famous picture of the three leaders at the end of WW2. All three sitting on chairs, Churchill sitting on the smallest. That was staged to show how little Britain meant to the other leaders.

    • The Allies had little desire to start a new war. Much of Europe was rubble and the United Kingdom was exhausted economically, financially and emotionally.

  3. Use the American nuclear monopoly to take out the heroic Red Army and make Eastern Europe safe for General Motors.
    Yeah, good idea

    • By late 1945 Britain would have been well aware of what happened during the Holodomor Genocide and other Soviet atrocities. I understand the temptation to try to end that evil once and for all, even if it wasn’t practical to act on that temptation.

    • Ever notice how socialists always assume that economics is the only motivation for those who oppose them.
      Did WWII make Europe safe for General Motors?
      If not, why do you insist on acting like an idiot?

      • The Marxists are even infiltrating here. “The heroic Red Army”. LOL They were as bad or worse than the Nazi’s, for a lot longer period of time. They ‘cancelled’ more people than the Nazi’s, second only to the Red China and their recent nightmare under Mao, and now under Comrade Xi who just allowed and promoted a global pandemic to spread around the world, as has been documented by everyone, except our lame stream Marxist media.

        • It was the “Raping Red Army.” I personally knew of several young German women (now deceased) who fled westward near the end of WWII toward the allied front rather than stay and risk the notorious Russian soldiers “sewing their seed” among the village women.

  4. “In 2018, a landmark report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.N.’s climate-science body, warned that allowing the planet to warm any more than 2°C above preindustrial levels would drive hundreds of millions of people into poverty, destroy coral reefs and leave some countries unable to adapt. A 2019 analysis in the journal Nature identified nine tipping points–from the collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet to the thawing of Arctic permafrost–that the planet appears close to reaching, any one of which might very well be triggered if warming exceeds 1.5°C. “Going beyond 2°C is a very critical step,” says Johan Rockstrom, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, “not only in terms of economic and human impact but also in terms of the stability of the earth”

    Time Magazine has lost the script. (1) The IPCC did not say in 2018 that “allowing the planet to warm any more than 2°C above pre-industrial levels would drive hundreds of millions of people into poverty”. It said in the 2018 special report that warming since pre-industrial of 1.5C would result in irreversible and catastrophic climate change that would then get out of our control. Please see:

    https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/07/11/warming-1-5c-above-pre-industrial/

    And (2) as for the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, their scientific credentials and their ability to carry out objective scientific inquiry in this field has no credibility . Please see
    https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/05/22/potsdam-institute-of-climate/

    https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/05/22/potsdam-institute-of-climate/

    • “It said in the 2018 special report that warming since pre-industrial of 1.5C would result in irreversible and catastrophic climate change that would then get out of our control.”

      When has climate ever been under our control?

      • In one sense, since the widespread sales of HVAC technology for buildings and automobiles , circa 1960. 🙂

  5. No-one seems bothered about the lamentably infantile piece of churnalism from Time, that started this post.
    It is so replete with lies, exaggerations and ludicrous guesses that it is hard to know where to start, other than be astonished that a once leading news magazine should publish something from an apparently ill informed 12 year old.
    Just as a trivial example plucked from “Justin’s” first sentence, he frets about an alleged shortage ov ventilators, seemingly unaware of the proven outcomes of intubation in ChiCom-19 acute cases.

    So far as the comments are concerned, concentrating on historical ‘what-ifs’ around 1945-6, these are perhaps not without merit, but what about the deeds and misdeeds of 1918-19 that led directly to WWII?

    It is quite clear that the Versailles ‘peace’ treaties, leaving millions on the wrong side of new borders and the lack of effective support for those fighting the Bolsheviks in Russia were major policy failures which led to unprecedented deaths and misery, even before Hitler and Stalin got in power.

    • Somehow it’s always different “this time” to Marxists. They revise history or at least give their “answers’ on how to make things different.

      What would have happened if Marx had never been born? Would American universities and news organizations still be promoting Marxist ideals at this time, or should I say Time? Would history or English majors still lecture us about energy and medical care?

      • Without Karl Marx academia would be plagued by Engelism. Socialism/ Communism has its roots in early 19th Century thought. Marx and his pal Frederic were just ridin’ the wave. Perhaps there is something inherent in human nature that makes vulnerable to such wishful thinking that humans are so malleable that we can be moulded into New Soviet Man with enough force. *Sigh*

      • What would have happened if Marx had never been born?

        Marx wasn’t an original thinker when it comes to social policy. I mentioned this several hours ago in a comment to Mumbles below, but I guess the links or something are causing an issue for posting.

        See Plato’s Republic, chapter 4, ca 375 B.C. for an early argument to communism. Gov. William Bradford said this regarding the implementation of Plato’s social policy:

        “Yet, this Platonic experiment was plagued by inefficiency and Governor William Bradford opted to restore private property rights. ‘The experience that was had in this common course and condition . . . amongst godly and sober men,’ Bradford explained, ‘may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato’s and other ancients applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God.'”

        https://tinyurl.com/yaj7t4ut

    • Yes. The Time’s piece isn’t journalism, it is blatant revisionist history writing. It is amazing how far previously respected print media have fallen.

    • “It is quite clear that the Versailles ‘peace’ treaties, leaving millions on the wrong side of new borders and the lack of effective support for those fighting the Bolsheviks in Russia were major policy failures which led to unprecedented deaths and misery, even before Hitler and Stalin got in power.”

      A bug? Or a feature?

      The people who make money out of wars oversaw the Versailles Treaty.

      Let that sink in.

    • “underlying philosophy of economic development in this time period was a focus on gross national product, a term developed by U.S. government economists during the Depression, which included consumption as a proxy for prosperity: the more we consume, the better off we are”

      Oh that’s funny, a classic glimpse at the inner confusion of a left***. GDP is a proxy of production but people that have never produced a tangible product in their life would not understand this, they think all the useful products that make their lives extremely cushy just fall from the sky from manifestation.

    • Mr. Brumby: I noticed the infants at Time, and think comments went elsewhere because this condition has been chronic there since Reagan. It’s hardly worth the effort to type out an analysis.
      Oh, okay, I’ll kick ’em, they are not just down, the folks at Time have lost influence to the point that it’s too small to be measured (a sciency phrase I learned here!). Time’s take on the 20th century is, U.S. said “jump” and World said “how high?” If only! The folks at Time Inc. think that people in America bought cars, built roads, and burn gas, not because it was better than what came before (horses, trains), but because Exxon wanted to make money! We then forced it down the throats of people around the world, all of ’em too stupid to understand that living in squalor was better for them. Couldn’t be more bassackward; that’s Time for the last forty years.

  6. Justin Worland has a History degree from Harvard, was a political intern, and writes for Time Magazine. His ideas on either Chicom Virus or Fossil Fuel Economy is based on nothing more than smoking dope with like-minded friends. Stay sane (don’t read/listen to fearmongers) and safe.

    • Lefties are obsessed with GDP, thinking that the capitalist “system” needs it to rise.

      No, our debt-based monetary systems need GDP to increase, otherwise the money supply might collapse. This is why central bankers warn about deflation – they’re not talk talking about prices dropping, but people taking out fewer loans than are being repaid, which leads to less and less money in the system.

      • Inflation is calculated out of GDP. The money supply increases to match the growth in GDP, not the other way around. Deflation is bad because people will delay purchases in the hopes that what they want to buy will be cheaper tomorrow.

        • “The money supply increases to match the growth in GDP, not the other way around.”

          Does it maybe seem that all these “stimulus” programs that are creating massive debt in order to appease some voters doesn’t work the same way as the theory you propose?

  7. The take from this Ladybird Guide to CC is probably that the models were right all along, just that this convenient crisis will delay The End of the World beyond the original date specified.

    That the other side of the Iron Curtain pursued non-materialistic goals post ’45 and it worked out so well for them seems to have been another fact not mentioned.

    Do they really get paid for typing such garbage?

  8. I hereby nominate Time Magazine for the 2020 Goebbel Prize, for publishing this humongous pile of horse manure churned out by Justin Worland.

  9. Yes. The Time’s piece isn’t journalism, it is blatant revisionist history writing. It is amazing how far previously respected print media have fallen.

  10. “……the U.S. launched a rapid bid to remake the global economy–running on fossil fuels…..”. What a steaming pile of crap ! Consumer demand for travel in a mostly-free market world created the fossil fuel boom…no US bidding was involved.
    Economically, the US became fiscally wealthy because the US delayed entry into WW2 by 2 years, during which time most of the English speaking world had indebted their economies to the US by purchasing war materials, so much so, that it took 30 years to pay off the debts, and a manipulated round of a inflation foisted on their citizens by the G7 in the 1970’s to finally pay it off with 30 cent dollars.
    Economic history and Military history not quite in convergence….maybe the US entered WW2 so that industries could collect the debts owed by the rest of the Allied powers…..but that would not be popular for the Times to publish.

    • “but that would not be popular for the Times to publish.”

      Again, it’s Time Magazine, not the Times. That’s something different.

    • The US convinced Japan to attack us and Hitler to declare war on us so that industries could collect on debts?
      Really?

      The inflation of the 70’s was “manipulated” in order for governments to pay off debts?
      Really?

      The US became wealthy after the war because we had the only major economy that hadn’t been bombed back to the stone age.

  11. The leftist rant about “war for oil” chanted repeatedly so recently when Desert Shield liberated Kuwait from Saddam Hussein, was a very handy narrative that now seems to be being dusted off and applied to the Marshall Plan. How much CO2 was emitted during the Berlin airlift? Did Europe suffer from this, due to heat “trapped” by all that CO2? Or did those airplane flights save Berlin, at least in some small part, by denying the murderous Stalin complete control over the city? I vote for the latter. It already took far too long for the Berlin Wall to be torn down by Germans. What might the post-war Germany have been like if all of Berlin had been subjected to the full-throated Communist regime for all that time? I shudder to think of it.

    Reminds me of a great Pink Floyd lyric: “on the day the wall came down, the ship of fools had finally run aground…”

  12. “Time”? What’s that? There once was a reputable news magazine by that name, but they ceased to be a functioning source of news several decades ago.

  13. That Time article has Chinese Communist Party propaganda written all over it.

    As I’ve written here before, it was the rise of China as an industrial superpower, and thus a CO2-emissions super-emitter, after it’s WTO entry in 2002 that was the Black Swan the Marxist-Climate Scammers never saw coming until it had happened.

  14. This is exactly why I haven’t cracked an issue of TIME since I was a child, and get my news and analysis from places like WUWT, The Federalist, The New Criterion, and Quillette. I didn’t bother with any form of “news“ at all for decades – then the rise of Stalinism v.2.0 began and I figured I’d better start getting informed.

  15. Martin,who reads Time Magazine ?
    They could not retain my custom even when they offered “free subscription”.
    They got Woke combined with serious Trump Derangement Syndrome,which made their product unreadable.
    And the glossy pages are useless for starting my wood stove.
    Churnalism gives them great credit,Urnalism is the best they can do.
    Putting the “press” in Presstitute.

    Funny thing a creative liar slips just enough truth in around their BS so as to fool their victims,these hapless pretenders would not know truth if it bit them.
    Or else are pathologically allergic to truth in any form.
    Who has Time for Time?
    Their lies are poorly crafted,better propaganda is too be had on twitter feeds,with coverage in greater depth and substance in 140 characters or less

  16. “,,,,,,the U.S. launched a rapid bid to remake the global economy–running on fossil fuels.” My dad drove a tanker truck with the Flying Red Horse on it before WWII. Got on a DC-3 to go pick it up. Of course all those warships, even in WWI, ran on hydrogen, or something like that. Maybe all the oil spilled in those wars came from biofuels.

    • Yes, very well written and informative article. Well worth the 3 minute read. Scary to think how perverted our medical establishment has become because of Big Pharma, and people like Dr. Fauci promoting their financial gain, perhaps for his own profit.

      Unfortunetely Ivermectin is a prescribed drug, and how would I get my Dr. to prescribe that? Well, it was developed for dogs for parasitic infestations, so maybe my friendly Vet could get me some for my dog. Same stuff exactly, just have to get the dosing correct. I am not a Dr. Do not take this is as medical advice. But this is also used to treat lice, so maybe just tell the good Doc I think I may have some lice crawling around on my scalp. Just need one normal dose according the article link above.

      https://www.poison.org/articles/ivermectin-your-dogs-heartworm-medicine-173

      The antibiotic Doxycycline would need to be a prescription, and maybe I could get my Dr. to prescribe that for the urinary tact infection I don’t have anymore. I assume this treatment is for after you have COVID-19 symptoms. Sometimes GP Doctors are the most brainwashed of all, relying on specialists to give them their specified training diagnosis. Maybe this is why a lot of GP’s believe in climate change, since they easily defer to ‘experts’. Just saying…Not that that is bad thing, since I sure do want my GP referring to the cardiologist or surgeon when thinking things through and coming up with a plan.

      I do have a two week course of fresh hydroxychloroquine, since had been planning a trip down the Mekong River through Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam this last winter, and then had to cancel due to the China virus. You can get this through a specialized medical travel agent that specializes in this for foreign travel to Malaria hotspots. Off the beaten path in these remote jungles in Laos, Malaria is a genuine threat. I am taking a Zinc supplement, and have noticed a big improvement to my overall health. Most people are probably a bit Zinc deficient, so might not be a bad idea to include that for general health benefits, and review everything else while you at it. Being healthy with your body having been ‘topped up’ with all the right vitamins and minerals and diet is the best defence/offence. Taking care of our own health should be a priority and something we do ourselves, in concert with our Dr./specialist and their relevant medical advice.

  17. It really makes you wonder what exactly goes on at these elite universities, it certainly isn’t any form of education I am aware of.

  18. Does anyone else notice that the natural assumption for a socialist is that anytime a large number of people do something the socialist doesn’t like, that there was some nefarious force causing the people to act that way?

    In this case, it was the government that caused people to start living in the suburbs.
    The idea that people actually wanted to move out of the cities, just doesn’t enter their minds.
    Another point is how frequently socialists object to the notion that people who consume more are better off compared to people who consume less. That’s probably because socialism is so bad at providing people with more.

  19. 2C above the depths of the Little Ice Age, would barely get the planet back to the levels enjoyed during the Medieval Warm Period, during which period there was unprecedented growth in civilizations all over the world.

    Yet the climate ninnies want us to believe that returning to those levels would engender untold death and destruction.

    • “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
      – H.L. Mencken

      …in the case of the Democrats, led to the “safety” of drastically reduced liberty and prosperity, the better to keep the peons underfoot.

  20. Isn’t it wonderful the way authoritarians can only ever think in terms of centralised control and planning ? The idea that out of the chaos of WW2 there was some kind of machination to ‘make the world dependent on fossil fuel’ is bizarre.

    • One problem with socialists is that they have been so indoctrinated with “right think”, that they find it impossible to believe that anyone can think differently. They have been indoctrinated to believe that oil is bad, so they assume that everyone else also believes that oil is bad. Not only today, but throughout history.

  21. Based on my earliest war-time memories, and the next 12 years in post-war Belgium: the boom had more to do with the enormous industrial production required to win the war. When it was over, there was such an “orgy of consumption” to get all this stuff out of the way, at least in Belgium. Thousands of used jeeps were left behind, many used in a “sport” called “Jeep-cross”. They ran until they were scrap, usually in a short time. Fuel was equally abundant and cheap, but there were virtually no cars until 1947.One uncle had a tracked personnel carrier. Three cousins had a jeep. Coal-stoves were converted to diesel. and soon clogged the chimneys with soot. And oh all the powdered eggs, evaporated milk, corned beef etc. The Americans were our champions, though it was the Brits that had liberated us. Germany was less well=off. My parents sent packages of lard and salted bacon to a catholic relief organization there. Very little evidence of a grand plan to make the rich even richer. Time for TIME to go back in time.

  22. Justin,

    You guys are on the side of stupid evil. Angry Greta is the perfect spokesperson.

    Stupid evil is when idiots force the US and other brain-dead countries, to do stupid things which will kill GDPs, ….

    Stupid evil, is stupid, on so many levels.

    It is absolutely technically and economic possible for any country to get to zero carbon emissions by 2050 or 2100. The over hyped green stuff …. ‘saturates’ in its usefulness…

    We are damaging the environment to install the over hyped green stuff and we are in many countries past the point where they is any real savings in CO2 emissions if the energy to build the green stuff and loss of grid efficiency are taking into account.

    The Left’s lying leads to super massive spending that is absolutely useless. And it is almost impossible to stop, except in China… as China has stopped all ‘environmentalism’.

    So all of the GDPs, except for China, are very sick…

    And sick GDPs has long term effects.

    Anyway, the ironic part is humans did not cause the CO2 rise and the CO2 rise did not cause the temperature rise. So, the efforts to limit human emission of CO2 was absolutely purposeless.

  23. I was talking to a friend about a French movie, Delicatessen, a while back, in front of his mother. Like my own parents , she grew up in Yugoslavia and had bad memories of after the war were brought flooding back by our discussion of the movie.

    Clapet (Jean-Claude Dreyfus) is a butcher who owns a run-down apartment building in post-apocalyptic France. The building is in constant need of a handyman, because Clapet routinely butchers them and sells them as food.

    That and other stories drum home how bad things were in Europe. Even in Germany, cats became known as roof pigs.

  24. The greens, warmists, socialists and communists are trying to destroy the western world and take us back to the era of desperation and starvation. NEVER FORGET THESE PEOPLE WANT TO KILL YOU, reject them entirety never let them get power no matter what they promise, it is all lies.

Comments are closed.