Global Warming, AIDS, and Unicorns

by Robert Arvay, Contributing Writer

They call it climate change. Think about that. They used to call it global cooling, until there was no cooling. Then they called it global warming, but then there was no warming. So now they call it, climate change. The climate has been changing since the first day on earth, so that’s the name they settled on.

​It does no good to ask about this. When those who complain about climate change are asked, why don’t you call it global warming anymore, they simply call you a “denier.” You may ask them, which way is the climate changing? Is it getting warmer or cooler? Their response is to plug their ears, and recite the mantra which says that we must stop burning fossil fuels.​We may think that those who preach about climate change are irrational. Well okay, most of them are, but not all—not the rich ones. You see, there is a lot of money to be made from all this. Billions of dollars are spent every year on so-called “green” technologies that are saving the planet from unicorns—no wait, from global warming. It’s so easy to mix up one’s mythology. People kill for that kind of money. Literally. There is also enormous power involved, which is why you never hear about climate remedies that require less government and lower taxes. It’s always more of both, never less of either.

AIDS, however, is a very serious matter. As we all know, AIDS is caused by the HIV virus—or maybe not. Many scientists, as it turns out, are asserting that AIDS is not caused by HIV, but rather, that AIDS is a set of symptoms that is caused by many different causes, not a single disease.

The website, “Rethinking AIDS” is at It is run by a small group of redneck yahoos—oh wait, wrong site. It is governed by a board of directors consisting of Ph D experts in the study of viruses and assorted other scientific disciplines, and has hundreds of members with relevant expertise.

Peter H. Duesberg, PhD is one prominent member of the board. Here is his biographical sketch from the site.

Professor of molecular and cell biology at the University of California, Berkeley. In 1968-1970 he demonstrated that influenza virus has a segmented genome. . . . He isolated the first cancer gene through his work on retroviruses in 1970, and mapped the genetic structure of these viruses. This, and his subsequent work in the same field, resulted in his election to the National Academy of Sciences in 1986. He was also the recipient of a seven-year Outstanding Investigator Grant from the National Institutes of Health from 1985-1992. He is also a member of South Africa’s Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel.

This is the resume of a world class expert, yet his expertise is being ignored by the AIDS industry. Why?

​The answer is included in the question. AIDS is much more than a disease. It is an industry. It is a political movement. It is a civil rights movement. Billions of dollars are spent every year on so-called AIDS research which is saving the planet from unicorns—no wait, from AIDS. People kill for that kind of money. Literally. Money, power and politics, not science, drive the AIDS industry, an industry which literally kills its patients.
​Joan Shenton is a British film producer who avers that AIDS treatments, not AIDS, killed off an entire generation of AIDS patients. It seems that the only people who survived were those who stopped taking the medications, medicines which in fact are chemicals that profit the pharmaceutical industries in the millions of dollars. So they make them.

​The earliest recorded victims of the AIDS epidemic were homosexual men and intravenous drug abusers. Initially, the lack of research into this disease was blamed on the fact that the victims were considered outcasts of society. That changed, however, when the gay rights movement became a powerful force in politics. This produced a number of Orwellian definitions of the disease. For, while the disease was connected to homosexuality, it was politically incorrect to say that the disease was spread by homosexual practices. That would be blaming the victim. We can’t have that. Why should anyone take responsibility for their own behavior?

​But, you might ask, didn’t AIDS break out into the general population? The definition of AIDS was continually updated to include wider demographics, and when it did, funding followed. When feminist activists complained that they were not getting enough money, the definition of AIDS was widened until it included women. The feminists got their money and stopped complaining. AIDS stopped breaking out into the general population.

​The early definition of AIDS also depended on national boundaries. Blood tests for AIDS had to be interpreted according to a World Health Organization chart, and the chart had wildly differing criteria depending on what nation conducted the test. According to the British criteria, everyone in Africa has AIDS, but according to criteria used in Africa, nobody in Britain has AIDS. Someone pointed out sarcastically that a Briton with AIDS could be immediately cured by traveling to Africa, and being tested there, because antibodies that are rare in Britain are almost universal in Africa. These antibodies are used in diagnosis of AIDS, but used differently in different countries.

​Not coincidentally, as AIDS funding was sent to Africa, AIDS skyrocketed there, not because of the disease, but because of the funding. If a patient had cancer, there was no increase in AIDS funding. If instead the same patient were diagnosed with AIDS, his nation got increased funding. Therefore, AIDS diagnoses increased, and were rewarded.

​While AIDS and Global Climate change may seem unrelated to each other, they have both been hijacked by human greed. Here is an excerpt from
[Begin excerpt] MIT Professor Richard Lindzen is a leading international expert on climate change.

“The changes that have occurred due to global warning are too small to account for,” he told WBZ-TV. “It has nothing to do with global warming, it has to do with where we live.”

Lindzen endorses sensible preparedness and environmental protection, but sees what he terms “catastrophism” in the climate change horror stories.

“Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. The opportunities for taxation, for policies, for control, for crony capitalism are just immense, you can see their eyes bulge,” he says. [End excerpt]

Indeed.​ Billions of dollars in funding can have that effect.

​Many people have noticed that the Global Climate Change movement has become similar to a religious cult, in which even the mildest and most fact-based dissension is considered heresy. The same holds true for AIDS. Other social movements have noticed this, and taken advantage. Radical feminism, gay rights, civil rights, immigrant rights, and a host of other political movements based in falsehood have trumped both science and common sense.

​Think about that.

One thought on “Global Warming, AIDS, and Unicorns

  1. That CO2 change, and therefore human activity, does not cause global warming has been demonstrated. Terrestrial radiation absorbed by CO2 is immediately thermalized, i.e. the energy absorbed by CO2 is transferred (in a process similar to thermal conduction) to other atmospheric molecules which outnumber CO2 molecules 2500 to 1. CO2 can only absorb terrestrial EMR that has wave length 14-16 microns out of the significant range 5-50 microns of terrestrial radiation. The absorption/thermalization quickly reduces the 14-16 micron radiation flux.But this leaves the question of what actually does drive average global temperature change.After some research to find out what causes climate change. . .Two primary drivers of average global temperature have been identified. A simple equation, using only them, very accurately explains the reported up and down measurements since before 1900. The coefficient of determination, R2 is greater than 0.9 (correlation coefficient = 0.95). The equation provides credible estimates back to the low temperatures of the Little Ice Age (1610). The current trend is down.R2 = 0.9049 considering only sunspots and ocean cycles.R2 = 0.9061 considering sunspots, ocean cycles and CO2 change.The tiny difference in R2, whether considering CO2 or not, corroborates that CO2 change has no significant effect on climate. All measurements, including the recent since before 2001, are within the range of historical random variation.The coefficients of determination are a measure of how accurately the calculated average global temperatures compare with measured. R^2 greater than 0.9 is very accurate.The calculations use data since before 1900 which are official, accepted as valid and are publicly available. Solar cycle duration or magnitude, considered separately, fail to correlate but their combination, expressed as the time-integral of sunspot number anomalies, gives excellent correlation. A sunspot number anomaly is the difference between the sunspot number for a year and an average sunspot number for many years. Everything not explicitly considered (such as the 0.09 K s.d. random uncertainty in reported annual measured temperature anomalies, aerosols, CO2, other non-condensing ghg, volcanoes, ice change, etc.) must find room in the unexplained 9.51%.The method, equation, data sources, history (hind cast to 1610) and predictions (through 2037) are provided and references.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s