The CO₂ Boogeyman

I hope that everyone has had a good week.

I apologize for not getting my Friday AMA out to you on Friday.  My heavy work and travel schedule this week got the best of me. I felt that my draft of my AMA was unfinished, so I decided to delay publishing by a day.

I think it was worth it.  We had some great questions about CO₂ and cancer research that I hope many will find valuable.  These are very important topics that require a lot of thought… not something to be rushed just to meet a publishing deadline.

To that end, I hope you find the information and my own experiences useful.

Sincerely,

Jeff

CO₂ Emissions

Hi, Jeff,

Regarding CO₂ emissions, we can extrapolate them for humankind from statistics on population, industrial production, level of economic development, etc. But has anyone ever produced a reliable estimate of the amount of annual CO₂ emissions produced by the planet itself?

Virtually every natural process, including vulcanism, produces CO₂. If we don’t know how much the planet is producing annually, how can we know whether mankind is really the cause of rising CO₂ levels in the atmosphere?

Also, the anti-CO₂ movement has associated rising atmospheric CO₂ levels (still extremely low at about 416 parts per million) with rising average temperatures. But has this connection actually been proven and shown to be dispositive? Or is it mainly the product of computer modeling?

Thanks for shedding light on this.

– Jeff D.

Hi Jeff,

I really like your thinking.  These are the right questions to ask.  After all, most people just accept that CO₂ is “bad” and the cause of “global warming” or “climate change.”  But to your point… is it?

To put this issue into context, we need to understand the presence of CO₂ in our atmosphere.  It feels like it would be a significant percentage if we listened to all of the fearmongering from the media and certain governments around the world.

But it’s not.  CO₂ makes up about 0.04% of the Earth’s atmosphere.  That’s not a typo, and it includes all CO₂ that has come from the human population.

Even more astonishing is that man-made CO₂ makes up only about one-third of the increase in CO₂ that Earth has experienced in the last 200 years.  (NOTE:  from what I can tell, this is a very generous assumption, I believe that the actual human contribution is much lower).

This, to your point, means that the majority of the increase in CO₂ in the atmosphere is a natural occurrence, not man-made.

We never hear this from the media, do we?

The other truth that we don’t hear is that CO₂ increases follow temperature increases.  Analysis of ice cores has shown that CO₂ levels tend to lag by 600–1000 years.  So naturally, this begs the question, what is causing these small temperature changes?

This is the right question for us to be asking.

There are two primary causes for both warming and cooling.  The first is Earth’s relationship to the Sun.  Temperatures on Earth are impacted by the Sun’s solar cycles and the interaction of solar energy with Earth’s ozone layer.  This impacts the global climate, the wind flows, and whether or not the polar vortex stays close to the pole or moves south resulting in colder winters.

Also, Milankovitch cycles speak to the shape of Earth’s elliptical orbit around the Sun.  This orbit impacts the length of summers and winters.  These cycles happen over much longer periods measured in tens of thousands of years.

The second major cause of warming or cooling is related to exothermic changes in the Earth’s core.  This exothermic activity at the Earth’s core directly impacts the heating (or cooling) of Earth’s oceans.  And when the Earth’s oceans heat up by 1 degree Celsius, for example, we see an increase in surface temperatures as well.  The opposite is true when the oceans cool.

In summary, Earth’s relationship to the Sun combined with exothermic activity at Earth’s core is what really impacts change in Earth’s climate.  This is another way of saying that CO₂ contributions from human activity on Earth are not anywhere near being a major cause of climate change.

Another interesting fact is that the increases in CO₂ are actually having a positive impact on making the world more green.  CO₂ is plant food.  Increases in CO₂ result in stronger agricultural yields.

Source:  Bjorn Lomborg

Not only has there been a large and positive impact from greening in the U.S., this has been a global phenomenon.  Some research published early this year showed between 2001 and 2020 that greening acceleration occurred across 55% of the globe and browning acceleration occurred across only about 7.3% of the globe.  This is a very positive trend.

I’d like to make one point very clear.  Despite these scientific facts, I still believe that civilization should strive towards clean energy solutions, primarily nuclear fission and ultimately nuclear fusion.

If we want to climb up the Kardashev scale of energy abundance and technological advancement, we must transition to these forms of energy generation.  (Strong recommendation to read my issue of Outer Limits – Moving up the Kardashev Scale).

Changing to these forms of energy production will also reduce particulate matter (pollution) from the air and provide for a cleaner environment.  These are the right reasons for making this transition.  And even when we do make that transition, there will still be climate change!

One final point, if we take a really big step back on the geological timescale, Earth is actually in a cool period.

Source:  Dr. Patrick Moore

Both CO₂ levels and temperature are at some of the lowest levels in Earth’s history.  And in the chart above, we can clearly see that some of the warmest periods in Earth’s history occurred when CO₂ levels were at some of the lowest levels.

Sadly, CO₂ is used as the boogeyman by powerful elites to justify massive government spending programs from which a small number of people benefit financially.  It is the source of incredible amounts of grift and corruption.

Current initiatives around the world, linked to programs from the World Economic Forum are also being used to assert totalitarian control over the world’s population, again, as determined by a small number of elites.

The best action that we can take is to apply critical thinking, understand the facts, learn to identify when governments and non-governmental organizations are using misinformation to manipulate us, and push for policies that are based on scientific facts and remain objective (not political).

Thanks again for raising this critically important topic.

RBOT

If this isn’t the place to ask a question, I apologize, but Jeff could share his thoughts on a company he recommended a few years ago called Vicarious Surgical (RBOT). Thanks.

– Dr. Joseph B.

Hi Joseph,

I don’t mind the question at all.  Vicarious Surgical (RBOT) is such a promising company.  It is the next Intuitive Surgical (ISRG) which has been one of the most successful technology growth stories in history.

Intuitive Surgical has grown into a $191 billion company and continues to make great headway in robotic surgery.  And Vicarious Surgical is the next generation of robotic surgery with even greater potential, and it’s only trading at a $48 million enterprise valuation.

Why the dramatic difference in valuation?  Vicarious Surgical hasn’t yet completed its clinical trials for its surgical robotic system and, therefore, still does not have FDA approval for sales of its system.

The demand is extremely high, and Vicarious Surgical already has commercial agreements with five major healthcare providers representing more than 250 hospitals and surgical centers.  It has already established its future distribution channels for sales once it does receive FDA approvals.

Unfortunately, right now, small-capitalization stocks are largely out of favor for institutional capital due to the high-interest-rate environment.  Institutional capital, in general, doesn’t like stocks that aren’t generating free cash flow and require large amounts of research and development to bring a technology product to market.  That’s right where Vicarious is right now.

This will change dramatically as interest rates come down due to major forthcoming changes in fiscal and economic policy which will begin early next year.  Until then, this is an ugly market environment for companies like Vicarious.

Next year will be an exciting year for Vicarious as clinical trials will begin in the second half of the year and submission for FDA approval is expected to occur in the first half of 2026.  After FDA approval happens, this is going to be an incredible company to watch.

Cutting-Edge Approach to Cancer?

You don’t know me. I have been a loyal reader for many years. In a recent publication, you mentioned that you had been successfully treated for prostate cancer. Excellent news.

Unfortunately, I received my diagnosis of advanced prostate cancer today. As a cutting-edge guy, I thought that I would inquire if you knew any specialty centers that are using cutting-edge methods.

I’m not sure what I hope to find out from you. The news has shaken me and my wonderful family. Just thought I would ask.

Regardless, please keep up the wonderful job of providing us “regular folks” information about fascinating new discoveries and valuable recommendations about world-changing companies.

– William D.

Hi William,

Thanks for writing in.  I’m sorry to hear about your diagnosis, my thoughts are with you.  We’re going through it together, as I’m sure many others are as well.

I continue to work very hard to improve my overall health and specifically my immune system, but I’m not out of the woods yet.

I do have some information to share with you that I discovered recently, but I need to provide a disclaimer:  I am not a urologist or an oncologist, and I am not providing any medical advice or recommendations, I’m just going to share some peer-reviewed research that I have shared with my own doctors.

In my own journey, I found two separate ends of the spectrum.  One was focused on natural solutions to improve my health through exercise, weight loss, supplements, and dietary changes.  And the other end of the spectrum was aggressive therapies like chemotherapy and removal of the prostate.

I made all the recommended changes to my health, and the truth is that I feel fantastic.  Not only does my body feel great, incredible energy, but my mind feels sharp as a tack.  I feel better than I did when I was 25, and I’m 55 now.

But it always frustrated me that I couldn’t find anything between these two spectrums.  My natural approach to improving my health helped, but it has not eliminated the prostate cancer.  This led me to search for other alternatives.  My research led me to observational studies that centered around ivermectin, an anti-parasitic drug that won the Nobel prize.

And just a few months ago, some incredible research was published with specific recommendations around using an orthomolecular protocol centering around ivermectin for the treatment of cancer.

This has been used successfully in observational studies to treat prostate cancer already (as well as other cancers), and I am about to begin this protocol myself.

You can find the study here:  Targeting the Mitochondrial-Stem Cell Connection in Cancer Treatment:  A Hybrid Orthomolecular Protocol.

My own doctors appreciated my sharing this research with them and they are excited to see the results.  We will continue to monitor my progress with prostate MRIs and prostate biopsies so that we have a clear picture from which we can make informed decisions about my health.

My thoughts are with you, and I wish you the very best.

Honoring Our Risk Management Policy…

Hi Jeff. It’s great to have you and your team back in the saddle.

I don’t want to beat a dead horse, but I must ask why you recommended selling EDIT at less than $3. As you have stated several times, its intellectual property is probably worth several billion dollars and it actually has a drug in the pipeline that has proven successful in treating Sickle Cell disease. What more have we got to lose at only $2.50 per share?

You have also stated that it could very well be a takeover target by a large drug company, commanding a significant price above its existing quote. I would really appreciate your brief thoughts. Thank you.

– Bernie M.

Hi Bernie,

I appreciate the question, and I’d like to answer this as it pertains more broadly to risk management strategies that we use to protect our downside.

To your point, my investment thesis for Editas Medicine has not changed at all, and I’m disappointed that the stock hasn’t rebounded sooner.  The alert that we sent out to close the position in our model portfolio had nothing to do with the stock itself.

Editas’ decline is entirely the result of small caps – and more specifically, small-cap biotech stocks – continuing to be out of favor for institutional capital.

While frustrating, this biotech malaise could continue for another six months or even another year.  It feels like we’re going to turn the corner early next year, but I really want to see large amounts of institutional capital flowing back into this sector before I start recommending more biotech stocks.

In the model portfolio, we closed out the position around $2.49, but the stock continued to drop as low as $1.86.  And that’s exactly why we have a risk management policy in place… so that we can preserve the majority of our capital when things outside of our control don’t go our way.

Closing out the position and taking the tax loss near the end of the year is a smart strategy to control downside, use the loss to our advantage in taxes, and keep the option to buy back in at potentially lower prices months later.

Ultimately, each individual investor has to make their own decisions based on their personal circumstances.  Some follow the model portfolio general recommendations, others are comfortable holding and waiting for conditions to improve, and some even double down and increase their positions.

But for the purposes of our model portfolios at Brownstone Research, we take a more conservative approach by applying our risk management policy to control any downside in a position like this.  We have to take a portfolio-level approach, which means that we don’t want to have underperforming positions in the portfolio for years.

It is better to close out underperforming positions and recommend equities that represent better growth opportunities in the short to mid-term.  We can always revisit high-growth potential stocks when they have the tailwind that comes with increasing institutional interest.

I hope this is useful.

Regards,

Jeff