NY Post Story on Hunter Biden quickly unraveling.

[Jake Winker Frogen]

And that of course would be the case through out the world, so we can still rationally compare outcomes and Germany's outcome is much better than America's.

NO. That is NOT the case throughout the world unless the CDC is now managing the health of the entire planet.
The subject is how the CDC inflated deaths in the US by attributing all deaths to the Chinese originated
covid virus if the virus was present at all. So much so that the CDC was pressured into changing that policy.

Nevertheless that policy was in place for months and the US death toll remains inflated and uncorrected
and you remain disingenuous.

All countries are using that methodology, they have an "excess death mythology" as defined as " A range of estimates for the number of excess deaths was calculated as the difference between the observed count and one of two thresholds (either the average expected count or the upper bound threshold), by week and jurisdiction. Negative values, where the observed count fell below the threshold, were set to zero."

And the method of if one did not have a prognosis of death within the year and contracted COVID it is counted across the globe as a Covid related death.

There is no world health body, or American for that matter, which believes the USA is doing well in this pandemic.

Just wishing Americans were not dropping like flies by playing semantics with the numbers is not going to save any American lives.

America is far from the worst record when it comes to covid deaths and far from the best.
I know it serves your agenda to state otherwise, however. Saying we are "dropping like flies" is disingenuous and misleading and it won't win Joe the election you so desperately want.
Nothing will including all the post election chaos and disorder the left has planned.


As things stand right now we will have a covid vaccine soon and society will begin to come out of
politicized lockdown box leftist swine has tried to keep us in.

Joe Biden and all the Karens can wear their little masks all day long, if it thrills them to do so.

Only Spain in Europe has a worse death per 100K rate right now.

As in the chart I have provided in this thread many times.

Just to be clear....

There are other countries...just not in Europe....that have worse rates.

Also, we pay our hospitals more for treating COVID, so anyone who dies, that has COVID is listed as a "COVID" death, whereas in most countries unless COVID is actually what caused your death, your cause of death is not listed as COVID. It's not an apples to apples comparison.

Medical stats from country to country are NEVER an apples-to-apples comparison, because they don't compile ANY medical stats the same way we do. How many times have we heard the canard that infant mortality in the US is so much worse than the rest of the world, only to find out that it's largely because other countries simply don't count children who die in the first week of life as ever having existed at all?

On COVID the death rates per 100k most developed nations are using the same method, indeed it is the USA that most world health bodies are concerned are vastly under reporting due to your fragment health care system run by 50 different states. Some estimates are that the USA is under reporting by 33%.

You mean our health care system that bodies the DHSC for legit life threatening diseases like cancer. Our health care system where you can actually get the surgery you need within a week. Our healthcare system that the rest of the world, except Switzerland, has been leaching off of our innovation and the tens of billions we drop into R+D every year. That healthcare system? Y’all treat the healthy for dumb shit like broken arms and infections, while taxing the fuck out of your citizens and pretend like you’re hero’s for doing so. Meanwhile Canada sends all their cancer patients TO ME, to get the very best treatment that WE develop, and then pay for it. Your nurses and doctors are garbage. When y’all can start actually saving your cancer patients and stop sending them to me, and actually preform surgeries on things like joint replacements that aren’t outdated 30 years, when your hospitals have as many top of the line critical care beds as ours do, when you actually do your part in the world and start developing drugs, procedures, and technologies...then you can lecture us on our healthcare.

Me and my wife both work in one of the largest hospitals right next to the covid epicenter. We’re over reporting. 100%. Notice how the flu has effectively disappeared? In this current “spike”, we have 6 covid patients who are actually suffering from covid, among other things.

Australia has similar wait times as the USA, in fact shorter wait times for GP visits, yet gets far better results in every macro category except breast cancer treatment, and even there we are just behind the USA.

All at much cheaper cost.

BECUASE YOU SEND YOUR WORST CANCER PATIENTS TO US TO FIX. Ipso facto, y’all fucks don’t take the hit in death rates. We take on the worst cases, and still have a better death rate than all of y’all. Turns out, it’s pretty easy to take care of healthy people. In Europe they go to Switzerland. What’s the last medical innovation that came out of Australia? At least the French have Sanofi. Stop fucking swimming in our wake. We’re basically subsidizing the entire globes R+D. We’ve been subsidizing NATOs defense spending for decades. We just invented a goddamn missile that goes Mach 45. Why? Because y’all made incredibly stupid deals with China and now you’re having buyers remorse. And now we’re gonna have to arm you once again. What have you done recently for me Australia? The fucking gall of you foreigners who come here and lecture us about our politics while we’re the ones putting in the elbow grease to make YOUR lives better, healthier, and safer.

No we do not actually.

Australia has the best cancer treatment survival rates in the world.

Australia leads global cancer survival rates – but more can be done

An international study shows Australians have the best chance of survival for seven types of cancers.

www1.racgp.org.au

Here is a good article about Australian heath care and why over all it gets better outcomes than the USA at much lower cost.

What Australia can teach America about health care

Why the Australian system might represent a realistic path forward for the US.

www.vox.com

Nobody cares about your healthcare system....especially the spin from America hating Vox idiots.

You don't have to care.

You can continue to naval gaze as many Americans love to do.

I am just throwing the facts out there for the intelligent minority of Americans to consider.

Intelligent people learn from the rest of the world, both good and bad.

Facts? The only thing you threw out was Vox bullshit.

I understand, the cult of Trump only believes anything Trump says, nothing else.

All cults work this way.

You sound as if you are involved in the cult of the bubble.
A real true believer.

Though only thing I believe in is scientific method, blue skies and cold Australian beer, the rest is just an opinion.

You believe in global warming, so you don't believe in the scientific method.

Yes I do and so does NASA.

Climate Change Evidence: How Do We Know?

The rate of change since the mid-20th century is unprecedented over millennia.

climate.nasa.gov

We have been in a long term cooling trend for 6,000 years, True or False?

The Holocene climate was warming and actually proves our current warming in large part iscaused by humans. The warming 6,000 years ago was caused by Earth orbital changes which are currently not occurring or causing such rapid warming.

This is actually more evidence of human caused global warming in our time.

Mid-Holocene Warm Period – About 6,000 Years Ago | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Paleoclimatologists have long suspected that the "middle Holocene," roughly from 7,000 to 5,000 years ago, was warmer than the present day.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov

" Moreover, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and we know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years."

Here is a basic primer on why previous climate changes are not proof this climate change is not man made, rather proof it is.



"The Earth was indeed cooling over the last 6,000 years due to Earth's orbit, heading into the next glacial phase scheduled for about the year 3500 AD. But all that changed when we got to the industrial era. Global temperatures departed from that cooling trend, and instead rose parallel with our greenhouse gas emissions."

What does past climate change tell us about global warming?

Natural climate change in the past proves that climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past climate change actually provides evidence for our...

skepticalscience.com

That's pure bunk. We have no idea what temperature fluctuations were like 6000 years ago. The granularity of our records is measured in hundreds of years. You can't legitimately claim our temperatures have departed from anything. There is nothing unusual about our current warming.

I quote the link below again.

"The Earth was indeed cooling over the last 6,000 years due to Earth's orbit, heading into the next glacial phase scheduled for about the year 3500 AD....

Fake news. There was no "scheduled date" for the next glacial advance.

... But all that changed when we got to the industrial era. Global temperatures departed from that cooling trend, and instead rose parallel with our greenhouse gas emissions. "...

Fake News, temperatures began recovering at the end of the little ice age, and with warming temperatures, we get rising CO^2 levels, and earth's processes convert some of the excess CO^2 into living cells.

... We should be in a cooling period...

We are cooler than we were 5,000 years ago.

... denilist cheery....

No. The last interglacial lasted about 15,000 years, and we are pacing fairly consistently with that. Everything is as expected.

... Climate change denial has all the hallmarks of faith or religion, it only sees what it wants to see....

You are the one promoting a Doomsday Cult, I'm just pointing out that the evidence doesn't support your claims, which is the way with doomsday cults. They point to a date when the world is supposed to end, and then they are disappointed when the date passes uneventfully.

Your fake news is faker than the fake news you think is fake news.

The science is clear if you could understand it, the oribital causes of climate change was seeing us going into a cooling period well into the next thousand years but the carbon released from the industrial revolution changed all that.


I think I will trust the majority of climate scientists and NASA before I will trust a cult member always chanting "fake news" when confronted with scientific information they simply do not want to believe.

The actual science is the more energy dense fuel you use, the less carbon emissions there actually is. The order of energy density goes from (least-greatest) wood, coal, oil, gas, then nuclear (which doesn’t have carbon as a byproduct of the process). Wood is at 16 MJ/kg vs coal (depending on the type) is in the range of 20-30MJ/kg. Due to the laws of physics, it takes around twice the amount of carbon expenditure for wood to boil water (boiling water is the method for basically every large scale power generation) compared to coal. Natural gas is at 40 MJ/m3. So, thanks to Isaac Newton natural gas uses at least 33% less carbon byproduct to boil water. On top of that, with the nature of it being gas, and technology allowing precision amounts of gas to obtain the desired temp, there’s far less wasteful burning of it vs a solid fuel. In other words, a 1/m3 of gas goes a lot further than 1/KG of any solid fuel. Maybe you could achieve the same results with a powdered fuel as you would gas, but to powder it would be a process that requires more energy expenditure than gas in its natural form. Obviously because there is no carbon involved in the nuclear process, it’s superior by far. If you “care” about the climate, and you’re not pushing for nuclear, exit the conversation immediately. We haven’t even scratched the surface of what we can do with nuclear. We’re using 80 year old technology, and even then it’s still the far superior option. All because Jane Fonda, Gov Brown, the Sierra Club, and scores of other elites decided to demonize nuclear. Many of them to profit off of the oil business dealings they had (cough* cough* gov Brown), others because they nonsensically conflated nuclear energy with nuclear bombs during the Cold War (cough* cough* Jane Fonda types). And others (cough* cough* the Sierra club) wanted to continue their exploitation of 3rd world countries, because it’s easier to exploit poor people who remain poor by spending vast amounts of energy and money (and vast amount of environmental damage as well as carbon emissions) to cook their food and heat their homes using wood (set up for my next paragraph). It also helps when the philosophy of your little elite Sierra club is a Malthusian one, so fuck those poor people, amaright?

As I set up in the last paragraph......I mentioned wood even though it’s hardly used in 1st world countries. Not true for 3rd world countries. There’s this crazy idea out there that we can “leap frog” the 3rd world with renewable energies, and bypass coal and gas completely (set up for my 3rd paragraph). Absolutely absurd idea. The 1st world is struggling “renewable energy”. It is not reliable. So what winds up happening in these countries is that people just go back to using wood. Cutting down vast swaths of carbon scrubbing trees, destroying natural habitats, and oh yeah, dumping a hell of a lot more carbon into the atmosphere than they would if we accelerated their development with coal, then to gas, then to nuclear. Obviously I have no problem in helping them develop clean burning coal, clean burning gas, etc. It’s just a simple fact. The more developed your country is, the less emissions there are per person. It also follows that the less resources (physical, time, money, etc) people have to spend producing energy (I.e. cutting down trees, splitting wood, starting and keeping fires) the more time and energy they will have to be productive in other areas and become more prosperous. Having a reliable source of electricity is basically the #1 key on the road to prosperity, and consequently a reduction in carbon emissions.

What people are also not telling you is that not only is solar and wind severely unreliable, the battery/fuel cell tech is not there (never will be until the invention of super conductors), but also the production of fuel cells and panels (which eventually go bad 10 years at best) creates more emissions, and there is NO safe way to dispose of the extremely environmentally hazardous materials used to make them. There simply is no way to get around Isaac Newton’s laws. People think solar panels just sit there and the sun hits them and bam, energy. The sun itself does not boil water on its own (in most areas). Therefore you need to go through an energy costing process in order to get the photons from the sun to be transformed into usable energy. Not only do you need energy to do this, you also need extremely environmentally toxic chemicals to help boost this process. Both fuel cells and the solar panels themselves are made out of extremely toxic materials. Currently the strategy of nations “leading the way with renewable energy” is to pay 3rd world countries to have them take the fuel cell/panel waste to throw in a dump somewhere. And you can bet your bottom dollar they aren’t dumping it in a safe way. Basically, the net energy solar is producing is 2 steps backward to get 3 steps forward, AT BEST, as long as the panels last 10 years WITHOUT the use of fuel cell storage (which also goes bad). You simply cannot get around the laws of physics. Solar/wind is actually way more expensive for citizens. It is so unreliable, no sun, not enough wind, power plants have to stay fully staffed even when shut down, because they will have to continually power up and power back down. Mind you these are plants designed to run continuously, and the constant power-up power-down process is extremely energy inefficient. So, if you live in an area receiving energy from solar panels or wind, you’re paying for the same power plant you’ve been using before plus the solar/wind generators, plus the infrastructure between the renewable generators, plus the costly process (both in carbon emissions and dollars) of powering up and down continuously. As it turns out, our most “renewable” energy is water. Yes it requires energy to boil, but it goes up, comes back down, and we have plenty of it. This is why nuclear is by far the best option. Zero emissions to hear water, a fraction of a percentile of the current waste produced by solar, as well as a very easy and safe way to store it, and oh yeah did mention far less energy and land investment made into building a Nuclear plant. I almost forgot to mention the vast amounts of land needed for solar/wind just produce a fraction of what a standard power plant can produce. You know, land that would otherwise be used by those big green leafy things (the name escapes me) that actually absorb carbon and exhale oxygen. Land that’s also home to the little critters we value so much.

That is a lot of deluded gibberish.


I think I will go with the actual scientists on this one and the consensus is clear, we are warming the planet with carbon emissions.

You do not have to believe it, you do not have to believe in gravity either, but you still have to live with it.

Consensus isn't science, moron. It's politics.

We don't have to live with nutbag proposals to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

Yes, there is a scientific consensus that gravity exists.

Now that is always up for challenge through empirical evidence if one can provide that evidence.

Such evidence does not exist.

The same applies to global warming.

Once again I refer you to actual scientists.

Scientific Consensus - NASA Science

It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s...

climate.nasa.gov

 

[DBA]

And that of course would be the case through out the world, so we can still rationally compare outcomes and Germany's outcome is much better than America's.

NO. That is NOT the case throughout the world unless the CDC is now managing the health of the entire planet.
The subject is how the CDC inflated deaths in the US by attributing all deaths to the Chinese originated
covid virus if the virus was present at all. So much so that the CDC was pressured into changing that policy.

Nevertheless that policy was in place for months and the US death toll remains inflated and uncorrected
and you remain disingenuous.

All countries are using that methodology, they have an "excess death mythology" as defined as " A range of estimates for the number of excess deaths was calculated as the difference between the observed count and one of two thresholds (either the average expected count or the upper bound threshold), by week and jurisdiction. Negative values, where the observed count fell below the threshold, were set to zero."

And the method of if one did not have a prognosis of death within the year and contracted COVID it is counted across the globe as a Covid related death.

There is no world health body, or American for that matter, which believes the USA is doing well in this pandemic.

Just wishing Americans were not dropping like flies by playing semantics with the numbers is not going to save any American lives.

America is far from the worst record when it comes to covid deaths and far from the best.
I know it serves your agenda to state otherwise, however. Saying we are "dropping like flies" is disingenuous and misleading and it won't win Joe the election you so desperately want.
Nothing will including all the post election chaos and disorder the left has planned.


As things stand right now we will have a covid vaccine soon and society will begin to come out of
politicized lockdown box leftist swine has tried to keep us in.

Joe Biden and all the Karens can wear their little masks all day long, if it thrills them to do so.

Only Spain in Europe has a worse death per 100K rate right now.

As in the chart I have provided in this thread many times.

Just to be clear....

There are other countries...just not in Europe....that have worse rates.

Also, we pay our hospitals more for treating COVID, so anyone who dies, that has COVID is listed as a "COVID" death, whereas in most countries unless COVID is actually what caused your death, your cause of death is not listed as COVID. It's not an apples to apples comparison.

Medical stats from country to country are NEVER an apples-to-apples comparison, because they don't compile ANY medical stats the same way we do. How many times have we heard the canard that infant mortality in the US is so much worse than the rest of the world, only to find out that it's largely because other countries simply don't count children who die in the first week of life as ever having existed at all?

On COVID the death rates per 100k most developed nations are using the same method, indeed it is the USA that most world health bodies are concerned are vastly under reporting due to your fragment health care system run by 50 different states. Some estimates are that the USA is under reporting by 33%.

You mean our health care system that bodies the DHSC for legit life threatening diseases like cancer. Our health care system where you can actually get the surgery you need within a week. Our healthcare system that the rest of the world, except Switzerland, has been leaching off of our innovation and the tens of billions we drop into R+D every year. That healthcare system? Y’all treat the healthy for dumb shit like broken arms and infections, while taxing the fuck out of your citizens and pretend like you’re hero’s for doing so. Meanwhile Canada sends all their cancer patients TO ME, to get the very best treatment that WE develop, and then pay for it. Your nurses and doctors are garbage. When y’all can start actually saving your cancer patients and stop sending them to me, and actually preform surgeries on things like joint replacements that aren’t outdated 30 years, when your hospitals have as many top of the line critical care beds as ours do, when you actually do your part in the world and start developing drugs, procedures, and technologies...then you can lecture us on our healthcare.

Me and my wife both work in one of the largest hospitals right next to the covid epicenter. We’re over reporting. 100%. Notice how the flu has effectively disappeared? In this current “spike”, we have 6 covid patients who are actually suffering from covid, among other things.

Australia has similar wait times as the USA, in fact shorter wait times for GP visits, yet gets far better results in every macro category except breast cancer treatment, and even there we are just behind the USA.

All at much cheaper cost.

BECUASE YOU SEND YOUR WORST CANCER PATIENTS TO US TO FIX. Ipso facto, y’all fucks don’t take the hit in death rates. We take on the worst cases, and still have a better death rate than all of y’all. Turns out, it’s pretty easy to take care of healthy people. In Europe they go to Switzerland. What’s the last medical innovation that came out of Australia? At least the French have Sanofi. Stop fucking swimming in our wake. We’re basically subsidizing the entire globes R+D. We’ve been subsidizing NATOs defense spending for decades. We just invented a goddamn missile that goes Mach 45. Why? Because y’all made incredibly stupid deals with China and now you’re having buyers remorse. And now we’re gonna have to arm you once again. What have you done recently for me Australia? The fucking gall of you foreigners who come here and lecture us about our politics while we’re the ones putting in the elbow grease to make YOUR lives better, healthier, and safer.

No we do not actually.

Australia has the best cancer treatment survival rates in the world.

Australia leads global cancer survival rates – but more can be done

An international study shows Australians have the best chance of survival for seven types of cancers.

www1.racgp.org.au

Here is a good article about Australian heath care and why over all it gets better outcomes than the USA at much lower cost.

What Australia can teach America about health care

Why the Australian system might represent a realistic path forward for the US.

www.vox.com

Nobody cares about your healthcare system....especially the spin from America hating Vox idiots.

You don't have to care.

You can continue to naval gaze as many Americans love to do.

I am just throwing the facts out there for the intelligent minority of Americans to consider.

Intelligent people learn from the rest of the world, both good and bad.

Facts? The only thing you threw out was Vox bullshit.

I understand, the cult of Trump only believes anything Trump says, nothing else.

All cults work this way.

You sound as if you are involved in the cult of the bubble.
A real true believer.

Though only thing I believe in is scientific method, blue skies and cold Australian beer, the rest is just an opinion.

You believe in global warming, so you don't believe in the scientific method.

Yes I do and so does NASA.

Climate Change Evidence: How Do We Know?

The rate of change since the mid-20th century is unprecedented over millennia.

climate.nasa.gov

We have been in a long term cooling trend for 6,000 years, True or False?

The Holocene climate was warming and actually proves our current warming in large part iscaused by humans. The warming 6,000 years ago was caused by Earth orbital changes which are currently not occurring or causing such rapid warming.

This is actually more evidence of human caused global warming in our time.

Mid-Holocene Warm Period – About 6,000 Years Ago | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Paleoclimatologists have long suspected that the "middle Holocene," roughly from 7,000 to 5,000 years ago, was warmer than the present day.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov

" Moreover, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and we know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years."

Here is a basic primer on why previous climate changes are not proof this climate change is not man made, rather proof it is.



"The Earth was indeed cooling over the last 6,000 years due to Earth's orbit, heading into the next glacial phase scheduled for about the year 3500 AD. But all that changed when we got to the industrial era. Global temperatures departed from that cooling trend, and instead rose parallel with our greenhouse gas emissions."

What does past climate change tell us about global warming?

Natural climate change in the past proves that climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past climate change actually provides evidence for our...

skepticalscience.com

That's pure bunk. We have no idea what temperature fluctuations were like 6000 years ago. The granularity of our records is measured in hundreds of years. You can't legitimately claim our temperatures have departed from anything. There is nothing unusual about our current warming.

I quote the link below again.

"The Earth was indeed cooling over the last 6,000 years due to Earth's orbit, heading into the next glacial phase scheduled for about the year 3500 AD....

Fake news. There was no "scheduled date" for the next glacial advance.

... But all that changed when we got to the industrial era. Global temperatures departed from that cooling trend, and instead rose parallel with our greenhouse gas emissions. "...

Fake News, temperatures began recovering at the end of the little ice age, and with warming temperatures, we get rising CO^2 levels, and earth's processes convert some of the excess CO^2 into living cells.

... We should be in a cooling period...

We are cooler than we were 5,000 years ago.

... denilist cheery....

No. The last interglacial lasted about 15,000 years, and we are pacing fairly consistently with that. Everything is as expected.

... Climate change denial has all the hallmarks of faith or religion, it only sees what it wants to see....

You are the one promoting a Doomsday Cult, I'm just pointing out that the evidence doesn't support your claims, which is the way with doomsday cults. They point to a date when the world is supposed to end, and then they are disappointed when the date passes uneventfully.

Your fake news is faker than the fake news you think is fake news.

The science is clear if you could understand it, the oribital causes of climate change was seeing us going into a cooling period well into the next thousand years but the carbon released from the industrial revolution changed all that.


I think I will trust the majority of climate scientists and NASA before I will trust a cult member always chanting "fake news" when confronted with scientific information they simply do not want to believe.

The actual science is the more energy dense fuel you use, the less carbon emissions there actually is. The order of energy density goes from (least-greatest) wood, coal, oil, gas, then nuclear (which doesn’t have carbon as a byproduct of the process). Wood is at 16 MJ/kg vs coal (depending on the type) is in the range of 20-30MJ/kg. Due to the laws of physics, it takes around twice the amount of carbon expenditure for wood to boil water (boiling water is the method for basically every large scale power generation) compared to coal. Natural gas is at 40 MJ/m3. So, thanks to Isaac Newton natural gas uses at least 33% less carbon byproduct to boil water. On top of that, with the nature of it being gas, and technology allowing precision amounts of gas to obtain the desired temp, there’s far less wasteful burning of it vs a solid fuel. In other words, a 1/m3 of gas goes a lot further than 1/KG of any solid fuel. Maybe you could achieve the same results with a powdered fuel as you would gas, but to powder it would be a process that requires more energy expenditure than gas in its natural form. Obviously because there is no carbon involved in the nuclear process, it’s superior by far. If you “care” about the climate, and you’re not pushing for nuclear, exit the conversation immediately. We haven’t even scratched the surface of what we can do with nuclear. We’re using 80 year old technology, and even then it’s still the far superior option. All because Jane Fonda, Gov Brown, the Sierra Club, and scores of other elites decided to demonize nuclear. Many of them to profit off of the oil business dealings they had (cough* cough* gov Brown), others because they nonsensically conflated nuclear energy with nuclear bombs during the Cold War (cough* cough* Jane Fonda types). And others (cough* cough* the Sierra club) wanted to continue their exploitation of 3rd world countries, because it’s easier to exploit poor people who remain poor by spending vast amounts of energy and money (and vast amount of environmental damage as well as carbon emissions) to cook their food and heat their homes using wood (set up for my next paragraph). It also helps when the philosophy of your little elite Sierra club is a Malthusian one, so fuck those poor people, amaright?

As I set up in the last paragraph......I mentioned wood even though it’s hardly used in 1st world countries. Not true for 3rd world countries. There’s this crazy idea out there that we can “leap frog” the 3rd world with renewable energies, and bypass coal and gas completely (set up for my 3rd paragraph). Absolutely absurd idea. The 1st world is struggling “renewable energy”. It is not reliable. So what winds up happening in these countries is that people just go back to using wood. Cutting down vast swaths of carbon scrubbing trees, destroying natural habitats, and oh yeah, dumping a hell of a lot more carbon into the atmosphere than they would if we accelerated their development with coal, then to gas, then to nuclear. Obviously I have no problem in helping them develop clean burning coal, clean burning gas, etc. It’s just a simple fact. The more developed your country is, the less emissions there are per person. It also follows that the less resources (physical, time, money, etc) people have to spend producing energy (I.e. cutting down trees, splitting wood, starting and keeping fires) the more time and energy they will have to be productive in other areas and become more prosperous. Having a reliable source of electricity is basically the #1 key on the road to prosperity, and consequently a reduction in carbon emissions.

What people are also not telling you is that not only is solar and wind severely unreliable, the battery/fuel cell tech is not there (never will be until the invention of super conductors), but also the production of fuel cells and panels (which eventually go bad 10 years at best) creates more emissions, and there is NO safe way to dispose of the extremely environmentally hazardous materials used to make them. There simply is no way to get around Isaac Newton’s laws. People think solar panels just sit there and the sun hits them and bam, energy. The sun itself does not boil water on its own (in most areas). Therefore you need to go through an energy costing process in order to get the photons from the sun to be transformed into usable energy. Not only do you need energy to do this, you also need extremely environmentally toxic chemicals to help boost this process. Both fuel cells and the solar panels themselves are made out of extremely toxic materials. Currently the strategy of nations “leading the way with renewable energy” is to pay 3rd world countries to have them take the fuel cell/panel waste to throw in a dump somewhere. And you can bet your bottom dollar they aren’t dumping it in a safe way. Basically, the net energy solar is producing is 2 steps backward to get 3 steps forward, AT BEST, as long as the panels last 10 years WITHOUT the use of fuel cell storage (which also goes bad). You simply cannot get around the laws of physics. Solar/wind is actually way more expensive for citizens. It is so unreliable, no sun, not enough wind, power plants have to stay fully staffed even when shut down, because they will have to continually power up and power back down. Mind you these are plants designed to run continuously, and the constant power-up power-down process is extremely energy inefficient. So, if you live in an area receiving energy from solar panels or wind, you’re paying for the same power plant you’ve been using before plus the solar/wind generators, plus the infrastructure between the renewable generators, plus the costly process (both in carbon emissions and dollars) of powering up and down continuously. As it turns out, our most “renewable” energy is water. Yes it requires energy to boil, but it goes up, comes back down, and we have plenty of it. This is why nuclear is by far the best option. Zero emissions to hear water, a fraction of a percentile of the current waste produced by solar, as well as a very easy and safe way to store it, and oh yeah did mention far less energy and land investment made into building a Nuclear plant. I almost forgot to mention the vast amounts of land needed for solar/wind just produce a fraction of what a standard power plant can produce. You know, land that would otherwise be used by those big green leafy things (the name escapes me) that actually absorb carbon and exhale oxygen. Land that’s also home to the little critters we value so much.

That is a lot of deluded gibberish.


I think I will go with the actual scientists on this one and the consensus is clear, we are warming the planet with carbon emissions.

You do not have to believe it, you do not have to believe in gravity either, but you still have to live with it.

Consensus isn't science, moron. It's politics.

We don't have to live with nutbag proposals to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

Yes, there is a scientific consensus that gravity exists.

Now that is always up for challenge through empirical evidence if one can provide that evidence.

Such evidence does not exist.

The same applies to global warming.

Once again I refer you to actual scientists.

Scientific Consensus - NASA Science

It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s...

climate.nasa.gov

Sorry, but the argument for the existence of gravity hasn't changed in quite some time and there is no funny money behind it. There is a stark difference. Gravity is settled science, man made global warming is not.

 

[Jake Winker Frogen]

And that of course would be the case through out the world, so we can still rationally compare outcomes and Germany's outcome is much better than America's.

NO. That is NOT the case throughout the world unless the CDC is now managing the health of the entire planet.
The subject is how the CDC inflated deaths in the US by attributing all deaths to the Chinese originated
covid virus if the virus was present at all. So much so that the CDC was pressured into changing that policy.

Nevertheless that policy was in place for months and the US death toll remains inflated and uncorrected
and you remain disingenuous.

All countries are using that methodology, they have an "excess death mythology" as defined as " A range of estimates for the number of excess deaths was calculated as the difference between the observed count and one of two thresholds (either the average expected count or the upper bound threshold), by week and jurisdiction. Negative values, where the observed count fell below the threshold, were set to zero."

And the method of if one did not have a prognosis of death within the year and contracted COVID it is counted across the globe as a Covid related death.

There is no world health body, or American for that matter, which believes the USA is doing well in this pandemic.

Just wishing Americans were not dropping like flies by playing semantics with the numbers is not going to save any American lives.

America is far from the worst record when it comes to covid deaths and far from the best.
I know it serves your agenda to state otherwise, however. Saying we are "dropping like flies" is disingenuous and misleading and it won't win Joe the election you so desperately want.
Nothing will including all the post election chaos and disorder the left has planned.


As things stand right now we will have a covid vaccine soon and society will begin to come out of
politicized lockdown box leftist swine has tried to keep us in.

Joe Biden and all the Karens can wear their little masks all day long, if it thrills them to do so.

Only Spain in Europe has a worse death per 100K rate right now.

As in the chart I have provided in this thread many times.

Just to be clear....

There are other countries...just not in Europe....that have worse rates.

Also, we pay our hospitals more for treating COVID, so anyone who dies, that has COVID is listed as a "COVID" death, whereas in most countries unless COVID is actually what caused your death, your cause of death is not listed as COVID. It's not an apples to apples comparison.

Medical stats from country to country are NEVER an apples-to-apples comparison, because they don't compile ANY medical stats the same way we do. How many times have we heard the canard that infant mortality in the US is so much worse than the rest of the world, only to find out that it's largely because other countries simply don't count children who die in the first week of life as ever having existed at all?

On COVID the death rates per 100k most developed nations are using the same method, indeed it is the USA that most world health bodies are concerned are vastly under reporting due to your fragment health care system run by 50 different states. Some estimates are that the USA is under reporting by 33%.

You mean our health care system that bodies the DHSC for legit life threatening diseases like cancer. Our health care system where you can actually get the surgery you need within a week. Our healthcare system that the rest of the world, except Switzerland, has been leaching off of our innovation and the tens of billions we drop into R+D every year. That healthcare system? Y’all treat the healthy for dumb shit like broken arms and infections, while taxing the fuck out of your citizens and pretend like you’re hero’s for doing so. Meanwhile Canada sends all their cancer patients TO ME, to get the very best treatment that WE develop, and then pay for it. Your nurses and doctors are garbage. When y’all can start actually saving your cancer patients and stop sending them to me, and actually preform surgeries on things like joint replacements that aren’t outdated 30 years, when your hospitals have as many top of the line critical care beds as ours do, when you actually do your part in the world and start developing drugs, procedures, and technologies...then you can lecture us on our healthcare.

Me and my wife both work in one of the largest hospitals right next to the covid epicenter. We’re over reporting. 100%. Notice how the flu has effectively disappeared? In this current “spike”, we have 6 covid patients who are actually suffering from covid, among other things.

Australia has similar wait times as the USA, in fact shorter wait times for GP visits, yet gets far better results in every macro category except breast cancer treatment, and even there we are just behind the USA.

All at much cheaper cost.

BECUASE YOU SEND YOUR WORST CANCER PATIENTS TO US TO FIX. Ipso facto, y’all fucks don’t take the hit in death rates. We take on the worst cases, and still have a better death rate than all of y’all. Turns out, it’s pretty easy to take care of healthy people. In Europe they go to Switzerland. What’s the last medical innovation that came out of Australia? At least the French have Sanofi. Stop fucking swimming in our wake. We’re basically subsidizing the entire globes R+D. We’ve been subsidizing NATOs defense spending for decades. We just invented a goddamn missile that goes Mach 45. Why? Because y’all made incredibly stupid deals with China and now you’re having buyers remorse. And now we’re gonna have to arm you once again. What have you done recently for me Australia? The fucking gall of you foreigners who come here and lecture us about our politics while we’re the ones putting in the elbow grease to make YOUR lives better, healthier, and safer.

No we do not actually.

Australia has the best cancer treatment survival rates in the world.

Australia leads global cancer survival rates – but more can be done

An international study shows Australians have the best chance of survival for seven types of cancers.

www1.racgp.org.au

Here is a good article about Australian heath care and why over all it gets better outcomes than the USA at much lower cost.

What Australia can teach America about health care

Why the Australian system might represent a realistic path forward for the US.

www.vox.com

Nobody cares about your healthcare system....especially the spin from America hating Vox idiots.

You don't have to care.

You can continue to naval gaze as many Americans love to do.

I am just throwing the facts out there for the intelligent minority of Americans to consider.

Intelligent people learn from the rest of the world, both good and bad.

Facts? The only thing you threw out was Vox bullshit.

I understand, the cult of Trump only believes anything Trump says, nothing else.

All cults work this way.

You sound as if you are involved in the cult of the bubble.
A real true believer.

Though only thing I believe in is scientific method, blue skies and cold Australian beer, the rest is just an opinion.

You believe in global warming, so you don't believe in the scientific method.

Yes I do and so does NASA.

Climate Change Evidence: How Do We Know?

The rate of change since the mid-20th century is unprecedented over millennia.

climate.nasa.gov

We have been in a long term cooling trend for 6,000 years, True or False?

The Holocene climate was warming and actually proves our current warming in large part iscaused by humans. The warming 6,000 years ago was caused by Earth orbital changes which are currently not occurring or causing such rapid warming.

This is actually more evidence of human caused global warming in our time.

Mid-Holocene Warm Period – About 6,000 Years Ago | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Paleoclimatologists have long suspected that the "middle Holocene," roughly from 7,000 to 5,000 years ago, was warmer than the present day.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov

" Moreover, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and we know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years."

Here is a basic primer on why previous climate changes are not proof this climate change is not man made, rather proof it is.



"The Earth was indeed cooling over the last 6,000 years due to Earth's orbit, heading into the next glacial phase scheduled for about the year 3500 AD. But all that changed when we got to the industrial era. Global temperatures departed from that cooling trend, and instead rose parallel with our greenhouse gas emissions."

What does past climate change tell us about global warming?

Natural climate change in the past proves that climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past climate change actually provides evidence for our...

skepticalscience.com

That's pure bunk. We have no idea what temperature fluctuations were like 6000 years ago. The granularity of our records is measured in hundreds of years. You can't legitimately claim our temperatures have departed from anything. There is nothing unusual about our current warming.

I quote the link below again.

"The Earth was indeed cooling over the last 6,000 years due to Earth's orbit, heading into the next glacial phase scheduled for about the year 3500 AD....

Fake news. There was no "scheduled date" for the next glacial advance.

... But all that changed when we got to the industrial era. Global temperatures departed from that cooling trend, and instead rose parallel with our greenhouse gas emissions. "...

Fake News, temperatures began recovering at the end of the little ice age, and with warming temperatures, we get rising CO^2 levels, and earth's processes convert some of the excess CO^2 into living cells.

... We should be in a cooling period...

We are cooler than we were 5,000 years ago.

... denilist cheery....

No. The last interglacial lasted about 15,000 years, and we are pacing fairly consistently with that. Everything is as expected.

... Climate change denial has all the hallmarks of faith or religion, it only sees what it wants to see....

You are the one promoting a Doomsday Cult, I'm just pointing out that the evidence doesn't support your claims, which is the way with doomsday cults. They point to a date when the world is supposed to end, and then they are disappointed when the date passes uneventfully.

Your fake news is faker than the fake news you think is fake news.

The science is clear if you could understand it, the oribital causes of climate change was seeing us going into a cooling period well into the next thousand years but the carbon released from the industrial revolution changed all that.


I think I will trust the majority of climate scientists and NASA before I will trust a cult member always chanting "fake news" when confronted with scientific information they simply do not want to believe.

The actual science is the more energy dense fuel you use, the less carbon emissions there actually is. The order of energy density goes from (least-greatest) wood, coal, oil, gas, then nuclear (which doesn’t have carbon as a byproduct of the process). Wood is at 16 MJ/kg vs coal (depending on the type) is in the range of 20-30MJ/kg. Due to the laws of physics, it takes around twice the amount of carbon expenditure for wood to boil water (boiling water is the method for basically every large scale power generation) compared to coal. Natural gas is at 40 MJ/m3. So, thanks to Isaac Newton natural gas uses at least 33% less carbon byproduct to boil water. On top of that, with the nature of it being gas, and technology allowing precision amounts of gas to obtain the desired temp, there’s far less wasteful burning of it vs a solid fuel. In other words, a 1/m3 of gas goes a lot further than 1/KG of any solid fuel. Maybe you could achieve the same results with a powdered fuel as you would gas, but to powder it would be a process that requires more energy expenditure than gas in its natural form. Obviously because there is no carbon involved in the nuclear process, it’s superior by far. If you “care” about the climate, and you’re not pushing for nuclear, exit the conversation immediately. We haven’t even scratched the surface of what we can do with nuclear. We’re using 80 year old technology, and even then it’s still the far superior option. All because Jane Fonda, Gov Brown, the Sierra Club, and scores of other elites decided to demonize nuclear. Many of them to profit off of the oil business dealings they had (cough* cough* gov Brown), others because they nonsensically conflated nuclear energy with nuclear bombs during the Cold War (cough* cough* Jane Fonda types). And others (cough* cough* the Sierra club) wanted to continue their exploitation of 3rd world countries, because it’s easier to exploit poor people who remain poor by spending vast amounts of energy and money (and vast amount of environmental damage as well as carbon emissions) to cook their food and heat their homes using wood (set up for my next paragraph). It also helps when the philosophy of your little elite Sierra club is a Malthusian one, so fuck those poor people, amaright?

As I set up in the last paragraph......I mentioned wood even though it’s hardly used in 1st world countries. Not true for 3rd world countries. There’s this crazy idea out there that we can “leap frog” the 3rd world with renewable energies, and bypass coal and gas completely (set up for my 3rd paragraph). Absolutely absurd idea. The 1st world is struggling “renewable energy”. It is not reliable. So what winds up happening in these countries is that people just go back to using wood. Cutting down vast swaths of carbon scrubbing trees, destroying natural habitats, and oh yeah, dumping a hell of a lot more carbon into the atmosphere than they would if we accelerated their development with coal, then to gas, then to nuclear. Obviously I have no problem in helping them develop clean burning coal, clean burning gas, etc. It’s just a simple fact. The more developed your country is, the less emissions there are per person. It also follows that the less resources (physical, time, money, etc) people have to spend producing energy (I.e. cutting down trees, splitting wood, starting and keeping fires) the more time and energy they will have to be productive in other areas and become more prosperous. Having a reliable source of electricity is basically the #1 key on the road to prosperity, and consequently a reduction in carbon emissions.

What people are also not telling you is that not only is solar and wind severely unreliable, the battery/fuel cell tech is not there (never will be until the invention of super conductors), but also the production of fuel cells and panels (which eventually go bad 10 years at best) creates more emissions, and there is NO safe way to dispose of the extremely environmentally hazardous materials used to make them. There simply is no way to get around Isaac Newton’s laws. People think solar panels just sit there and the sun hits them and bam, energy. The sun itself does not boil water on its own (in most areas). Therefore you need to go through an energy costing process in order to get the photons from the sun to be transformed into usable energy. Not only do you need energy to do this, you also need extremely environmentally toxic chemicals to help boost this process. Both fuel cells and the solar panels themselves are made out of extremely toxic materials. Currently the strategy of nations “leading the way with renewable energy” is to pay 3rd world countries to have them take the fuel cell/panel waste to throw in a dump somewhere. And you can bet your bottom dollar they aren’t dumping it in a safe way. Basically, the net energy solar is producing is 2 steps backward to get 3 steps forward, AT BEST, as long as the panels last 10 years WITHOUT the use of fuel cell storage (which also goes bad). You simply cannot get around the laws of physics. Solar/wind is actually way more expensive for citizens. It is so unreliable, no sun, not enough wind, power plants have to stay fully staffed even when shut down, because they will have to continually power up and power back down. Mind you these are plants designed to run continuously, and the constant power-up power-down process is extremely energy inefficient. So, if you live in an area receiving energy from solar panels or wind, you’re paying for the same power plant you’ve been using before plus the solar/wind generators, plus the infrastructure between the renewable generators, plus the costly process (both in carbon emissions and dollars) of powering up and down continuously. As it turns out, our most “renewable” energy is water. Yes it requires energy to boil, but it goes up, comes back down, and we have plenty of it. This is why nuclear is by far the best option. Zero emissions to hear water, a fraction of a percentile of the current waste produced by solar, as well as a very easy and safe way to store it, and oh yeah did mention far less energy and land investment made into building a Nuclear plant. I almost forgot to mention the vast amounts of land needed for solar/wind just produce a fraction of what a standard power plant can produce. You know, land that would otherwise be used by those big green leafy things (the name escapes me) that actually absorb carbon and exhale oxygen. Land that’s also home to the little critters we value so much.

That is a lot of deluded gibberish.


I think I will go with the actual scientists on this one and the consensus is clear, we are warming the planet with carbon emissions.

You do not have to believe it, you do not have to believe in gravity either, but you still have to live with it.

Consensus isn't science, moron. It's politics.

We don't have to live with nutbag proposals to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

Yes, there is a scientific consensus that gravity exists.

Now that is always up for challenge through empirical evidence if one can provide that evidence.

Such evidence does not exist.

The same applies to global warming.

Once again I refer you to actual scientists.

Scientific Consensus - NASA Science

It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s...

climate.nasa.gov

Sorry, but the argument for the existence of gravity hasn't changed in quite some time and there is no funny money behind it. There is a stark difference. Gravity is settled science, man made global warming is not.

Oh yes every international scientific body in the world is being bribed. Because as with gravity there is a scientific consensus on this issue.

NASA is being bribed.

Probably by the Secret Society of Spaghetti Monsters Against Fossil Fuels and Vaccines.

 

[DBA]

And that of course would be the case through out the world, so we can still rationally compare outcomes and Germany's outcome is much better than America's.

NO. That is NOT the case throughout the world unless the CDC is now managing the health of the entire planet.
The subject is how the CDC inflated deaths in the US by attributing all deaths to the Chinese originated
covid virus if the virus was present at all. So much so that the CDC was pressured into changing that policy.

Nevertheless that policy was in place for months and the US death toll remains inflated and uncorrected
and you remain disingenuous.

All countries are using that methodology, they have an "excess death mythology" as defined as " A range of estimates for the number of excess deaths was calculated as the difference between the observed count and one of two thresholds (either the average expected count or the upper bound threshold), by week and jurisdiction. Negative values, where the observed count fell below the threshold, were set to zero."

And the method of if one did not have a prognosis of death within the year and contracted COVID it is counted across the globe as a Covid related death.

There is no world health body, or American for that matter, which believes the USA is doing well in this pandemic.

Just wishing Americans were not dropping like flies by playing semantics with the numbers is not going to save any American lives.

America is far from the worst record when it comes to covid deaths and far from the best.
I know it serves your agenda to state otherwise, however. Saying we are "dropping like flies" is disingenuous and misleading and it won't win Joe the election you so desperately want.
Nothing will including all the post election chaos and disorder the left has planned.


As things stand right now we will have a covid vaccine soon and society will begin to come out of
politicized lockdown box leftist swine has tried to keep us in.

Joe Biden and all the Karens can wear their little masks all day long, if it thrills them to do so.

Only Spain in Europe has a worse death per 100K rate right now.

As in the chart I have provided in this thread many times.

Just to be clear....

There are other countries...just not in Europe....that have worse rates.

Also, we pay our hospitals more for treating COVID, so anyone who dies, that has COVID is listed as a "COVID" death, whereas in most countries unless COVID is actually what caused your death, your cause of death is not listed as COVID. It's not an apples to apples comparison.

Medical stats from country to country are NEVER an apples-to-apples comparison, because they don't compile ANY medical stats the same way we do. How many times have we heard the canard that infant mortality in the US is so much worse than the rest of the world, only to find out that it's largely because other countries simply don't count children who die in the first week of life as ever having existed at all?

On COVID the death rates per 100k most developed nations are using the same method, indeed it is the USA that most world health bodies are concerned are vastly under reporting due to your fragment health care system run by 50 different states. Some estimates are that the USA is under reporting by 33%.

You mean our health care system that bodies the DHSC for legit life threatening diseases like cancer. Our health care system where you can actually get the surgery you need within a week. Our healthcare system that the rest of the world, except Switzerland, has been leaching off of our innovation and the tens of billions we drop into R+D every year. That healthcare system? Y’all treat the healthy for dumb shit like broken arms and infections, while taxing the fuck out of your citizens and pretend like you’re hero’s for doing so. Meanwhile Canada sends all their cancer patients TO ME, to get the very best treatment that WE develop, and then pay for it. Your nurses and doctors are garbage. When y’all can start actually saving your cancer patients and stop sending them to me, and actually preform surgeries on things like joint replacements that aren’t outdated 30 years, when your hospitals have as many top of the line critical care beds as ours do, when you actually do your part in the world and start developing drugs, procedures, and technologies...then you can lecture us on our healthcare.

Me and my wife both work in one of the largest hospitals right next to the covid epicenter. We’re over reporting. 100%. Notice how the flu has effectively disappeared? In this current “spike”, we have 6 covid patients who are actually suffering from covid, among other things.

Australia has similar wait times as the USA, in fact shorter wait times for GP visits, yet gets far better results in every macro category except breast cancer treatment, and even there we are just behind the USA.

All at much cheaper cost.

BECUASE YOU SEND YOUR WORST CANCER PATIENTS TO US TO FIX. Ipso facto, y’all fucks don’t take the hit in death rates. We take on the worst cases, and still have a better death rate than all of y’all. Turns out, it’s pretty easy to take care of healthy people. In Europe they go to Switzerland. What’s the last medical innovation that came out of Australia? At least the French have Sanofi. Stop fucking swimming in our wake. We’re basically subsidizing the entire globes R+D. We’ve been subsidizing NATOs defense spending for decades. We just invented a goddamn missile that goes Mach 45. Why? Because y’all made incredibly stupid deals with China and now you’re having buyers remorse. And now we’re gonna have to arm you once again. What have you done recently for me Australia? The fucking gall of you foreigners who come here and lecture us about our politics while we’re the ones putting in the elbow grease to make YOUR lives better, healthier, and safer.

No we do not actually.

Australia has the best cancer treatment survival rates in the world.

Australia leads global cancer survival rates – but more can be done

An international study shows Australians have the best chance of survival for seven types of cancers.

www1.racgp.org.au

Here is a good article about Australian heath care and why over all it gets better outcomes than the USA at much lower cost.

What Australia can teach America about health care

Why the Australian system might represent a realistic path forward for the US.

www.vox.com

Nobody cares about your healthcare system....especially the spin from America hating Vox idiots.

You don't have to care.

You can continue to naval gaze as many Americans love to do.

I am just throwing the facts out there for the intelligent minority of Americans to consider.

Intelligent people learn from the rest of the world, both good and bad.

Facts? The only thing you threw out was Vox bullshit.

I understand, the cult of Trump only believes anything Trump says, nothing else.

All cults work this way.

You sound as if you are involved in the cult of the bubble.
A real true believer.

Though only thing I believe in is scientific method, blue skies and cold Australian beer, the rest is just an opinion.

You believe in global warming, so you don't believe in the scientific method.

Yes I do and so does NASA.

Climate Change Evidence: How Do We Know?

The rate of change since the mid-20th century is unprecedented over millennia.

climate.nasa.gov

We have been in a long term cooling trend for 6,000 years, True or False?

The Holocene climate was warming and actually proves our current warming in large part iscaused by humans. The warming 6,000 years ago was caused by Earth orbital changes which are currently not occurring or causing such rapid warming.

This is actually more evidence of human caused global warming in our time.

Mid-Holocene Warm Period – About 6,000 Years Ago | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Paleoclimatologists have long suspected that the "middle Holocene," roughly from 7,000 to 5,000 years ago, was warmer than the present day.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov

" Moreover, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and we know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years."

Here is a basic primer on why previous climate changes are not proof this climate change is not man made, rather proof it is.



"The Earth was indeed cooling over the last 6,000 years due to Earth's orbit, heading into the next glacial phase scheduled for about the year 3500 AD. But all that changed when we got to the industrial era. Global temperatures departed from that cooling trend, and instead rose parallel with our greenhouse gas emissions."

What does past climate change tell us about global warming?

Natural climate change in the past proves that climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past climate change actually provides evidence for our...

skepticalscience.com

That's pure bunk. We have no idea what temperature fluctuations were like 6000 years ago. The granularity of our records is measured in hundreds of years. You can't legitimately claim our temperatures have departed from anything. There is nothing unusual about our current warming.

I quote the link below again.

"The Earth was indeed cooling over the last 6,000 years due to Earth's orbit, heading into the next glacial phase scheduled for about the year 3500 AD....

Fake news. There was no "scheduled date" for the next glacial advance.

... But all that changed when we got to the industrial era. Global temperatures departed from that cooling trend, and instead rose parallel with our greenhouse gas emissions. "...

Fake News, temperatures began recovering at the end of the little ice age, and with warming temperatures, we get rising CO^2 levels, and earth's processes convert some of the excess CO^2 into living cells.

... We should be in a cooling period...

We are cooler than we were 5,000 years ago.

... denilist cheery....

No. The last interglacial lasted about 15,000 years, and we are pacing fairly consistently with that. Everything is as expected.

... Climate change denial has all the hallmarks of faith or religion, it only sees what it wants to see....

You are the one promoting a Doomsday Cult, I'm just pointing out that the evidence doesn't support your claims, which is the way with doomsday cults. They point to a date when the world is supposed to end, and then they are disappointed when the date passes uneventfully.

Your fake news is faker than the fake news you think is fake news.

The science is clear if you could understand it, the oribital causes of climate change was seeing us going into a cooling period well into the next thousand years but the carbon released from the industrial revolution changed all that.


I think I will trust the majority of climate scientists and NASA before I will trust a cult member always chanting "fake news" when confronted with scientific information they simply do not want to believe.

The actual science is the more energy dense fuel you use, the less carbon emissions there actually is. The order of energy density goes from (least-greatest) wood, coal, oil, gas, then nuclear (which doesn’t have carbon as a byproduct of the process). Wood is at 16 MJ/kg vs coal (depending on the type) is in the range of 20-30MJ/kg. Due to the laws of physics, it takes around twice the amount of carbon expenditure for wood to boil water (boiling water is the method for basically every large scale power generation) compared to coal. Natural gas is at 40 MJ/m3. So, thanks to Isaac Newton natural gas uses at least 33% less carbon byproduct to boil water. On top of that, with the nature of it being gas, and technology allowing precision amounts of gas to obtain the desired temp, there’s far less wasteful burning of it vs a solid fuel. In other words, a 1/m3 of gas goes a lot further than 1/KG of any solid fuel. Maybe you could achieve the same results with a powdered fuel as you would gas, but to powder it would be a process that requires more energy expenditure than gas in its natural form. Obviously because there is no carbon involved in the nuclear process, it’s superior by far. If you “care” about the climate, and you’re not pushing for nuclear, exit the conversation immediately. We haven’t even scratched the surface of what we can do with nuclear. We’re using 80 year old technology, and even then it’s still the far superior option. All because Jane Fonda, Gov Brown, the Sierra Club, and scores of other elites decided to demonize nuclear. Many of them to profit off of the oil business dealings they had (cough* cough* gov Brown), others because they nonsensically conflated nuclear energy with nuclear bombs during the Cold War (cough* cough* Jane Fonda types). And others (cough* cough* the Sierra club) wanted to continue their exploitation of 3rd world countries, because it’s easier to exploit poor people who remain poor by spending vast amounts of energy and money (and vast amount of environmental damage as well as carbon emissions) to cook their food and heat their homes using wood (set up for my next paragraph). It also helps when the philosophy of your little elite Sierra club is a Malthusian one, so fuck those poor people, amaright?

As I set up in the last paragraph......I mentioned wood even though it’s hardly used in 1st world countries. Not true for 3rd world countries. There’s this crazy idea out there that we can “leap frog” the 3rd world with renewable energies, and bypass coal and gas completely (set up for my 3rd paragraph). Absolutely absurd idea. The 1st world is struggling “renewable energy”. It is not reliable. So what winds up happening in these countries is that people just go back to using wood. Cutting down vast swaths of carbon scrubbing trees, destroying natural habitats, and oh yeah, dumping a hell of a lot more carbon into the atmosphere than they would if we accelerated their development with coal, then to gas, then to nuclear. Obviously I have no problem in helping them develop clean burning coal, clean burning gas, etc. It’s just a simple fact. The more developed your country is, the less emissions there are per person. It also follows that the less resources (physical, time, money, etc) people have to spend producing energy (I.e. cutting down trees, splitting wood, starting and keeping fires) the more time and energy they will have to be productive in other areas and become more prosperous. Having a reliable source of electricity is basically the #1 key on the road to prosperity, and consequently a reduction in carbon emissions.

What people are also not telling you is that not only is solar and wind severely unreliable, the battery/fuel cell tech is not there (never will be until the invention of super conductors), but also the production of fuel cells and panels (which eventually go bad 10 years at best) creates more emissions, and there is NO safe way to dispose of the extremely environmentally hazardous materials used to make them. There simply is no way to get around Isaac Newton’s laws. People think solar panels just sit there and the sun hits them and bam, energy. The sun itself does not boil water on its own (in most areas). Therefore you need to go through an energy costing process in order to get the photons from the sun to be transformed into usable energy. Not only do you need energy to do this, you also need extremely environmentally toxic chemicals to help boost this process. Both fuel cells and the solar panels themselves are made out of extremely toxic materials. Currently the strategy of nations “leading the way with renewable energy” is to pay 3rd world countries to have them take the fuel cell/panel waste to throw in a dump somewhere. And you can bet your bottom dollar they aren’t dumping it in a safe way. Basically, the net energy solar is producing is 2 steps backward to get 3 steps forward, AT BEST, as long as the panels last 10 years WITHOUT the use of fuel cell storage (which also goes bad). You simply cannot get around the laws of physics. Solar/wind is actually way more expensive for citizens. It is so unreliable, no sun, not enough wind, power plants have to stay fully staffed even when shut down, because they will have to continually power up and power back down. Mind you these are plants designed to run continuously, and the constant power-up power-down process is extremely energy inefficient. So, if you live in an area receiving energy from solar panels or wind, you’re paying for the same power plant you’ve been using before plus the solar/wind generators, plus the infrastructure between the renewable generators, plus the costly process (both in carbon emissions and dollars) of powering up and down continuously. As it turns out, our most “renewable” energy is water. Yes it requires energy to boil, but it goes up, comes back down, and we have plenty of it. This is why nuclear is by far the best option. Zero emissions to hear water, a fraction of a percentile of the current waste produced by solar, as well as a very easy and safe way to store it, and oh yeah did mention far less energy and land investment made into building a Nuclear plant. I almost forgot to mention the vast amounts of land needed for solar/wind just produce a fraction of what a standard power plant can produce. You know, land that would otherwise be used by those big green leafy things (the name escapes me) that actually absorb carbon and exhale oxygen. Land that’s also home to the little critters we value so much.

That is a lot of deluded gibberish.


I think I will go with the actual scientists on this one and the consensus is clear, we are warming the planet with carbon emissions.

You do not have to believe it, you do not have to believe in gravity either, but you still have to live with it.

Consensus isn't science, moron. It's politics.

We don't have to live with nutbag proposals to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

Yes, there is a scientific consensus that gravity exists.

Now that is always up for challenge through empirical evidence if one can provide that evidence.

Such evidence does not exist.

The same applies to global warming.

Once again I refer you to actual scientists.

Scientific Consensus - NASA Science

It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s...

climate.nasa.gov

Sorry, but the argument for the existence of gravity hasn't changed in quite some time and there is no funny money behind it. There is a stark difference. Gravity is settled science, man made global warming is not.

Oh yes every international scientific body in the world is being bribed. Because as with gravity there is a scientific consensus on this issue.

NASA is being bribed.

Probably by the Secret Society of Spaghetti Monsters Against Fossil Fuels and Vaccines.

Money talks even in science.

Man made global warming is not even close to being settled science.

 

[Jake Winker Frogen]

"There is currently a strong scientific consensus that the Earth is warming and that this warming is mainly caused by human activities. This consensus is supported by various studies of scientists' opinions and by position statements of scientific organizations, many of which explicitly agree with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) synthesis reports.

Nearly all actively publishing climate scientists (97–98%[1]) support the consensus on anthropogenic climate change,[2][3] and the remaining 2% of contrarian studies either cannot be replicated or contain errors.[4]"

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[bripat9643]

"There is currently a strong scientific consensus that the Earth is warming and that this warming is mainly caused by human activities. This consensus is supported by various studies of scientists' opinions and by position statements of scientific organizations, many of which explicitly agree with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) synthesis reports.

Nearly all actively publishing climate scientists (97–98%[1]) support the consensus on anthropogenic climate change,[2][3] and the remaining 2% of contrarian studies either cannot be replicated or contain errors.[4]"

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That's a myth that has been debunked many times. As I already told you, consensus isn't science. It's politics.

 

[Nostra]

"There is currently a strong scientific consensus that the Earth is warming and that this warming is mainly caused by human activities. This consensus is supported by various studies of scientists' opinions and by position statements of scientific organizations, many of which explicitly agree with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) synthesis reports.

Nearly all actively publishing climate scientists (97–98%[1]) support the consensus on anthropogenic climate change,[2][3] and the remaining 2% of contrarian studies either cannot be replicated or contain errors.[4]"

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Is that the IPCC who was busted for manipulating data?

That IPCC?

You are such a lemming.

Fakegate: The Obnoxious Fabrication of Global Warming

Any speaker, any authority, any journalist or bureaucrat asserting the catastrophic danger of supposed man-caused global warming needs to be asked for their response to Climate Change Reconsidered. If they have none, then they are not qualified to address the subject.

www.forbes.com

 

[DBA]

"There is currently a strong scientific consensus that the Earth is warming and that this warming is mainly caused by human activities. This consensus is supported by various studies of scientists' opinions and by position statements of scientific organizations, many of which explicitly agree with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) synthesis reports.

Nearly all actively publishing climate scientists (97–98%[1]) support the consensus on anthropogenic climate change,[2][3] and the remaining 2% of contrarian studies either cannot be replicated or contain errors.[4]"

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ah, the same organization that was caught falsifying their data back in 2010. Those guys. LOL...dupe.

 

[bripat9643]

And that of course would be the case through out the world, so we can still rationally compare outcomes and Germany's outcome is much better than America's.

NO. That is NOT the case throughout the world unless the CDC is now managing the health of the entire planet.
The subject is how the CDC inflated deaths in the US by attributing all deaths to the Chinese originated
covid virus if the virus was present at all. So much so that the CDC was pressured into changing that policy.

Nevertheless that policy was in place for months and the US death toll remains inflated and uncorrected
and you remain disingenuous.

All countries are using that methodology, they have an "excess death mythology" as defined as " A range of estimates for the number of excess deaths was calculated as the difference between the observed count and one of two thresholds (either the average expected count or the upper bound threshold), by week and jurisdiction. Negative values, where the observed count fell below the threshold, were set to zero."

And the method of if one did not have a prognosis of death within the year and contracted COVID it is counted across the globe as a Covid related death.

There is no world health body, or American for that matter, which believes the USA is doing well in this pandemic.

Just wishing Americans were not dropping like flies by playing semantics with the numbers is not going to save any American lives.

America is far from the worst record when it comes to covid deaths and far from the best.
I know it serves your agenda to state otherwise, however. Saying we are "dropping like flies" is disingenuous and misleading and it won't win Joe the election you so desperately want.
Nothing will including all the post election chaos and disorder the left has planned.


As things stand right now we will have a covid vaccine soon and society will begin to come out of
politicized lockdown box leftist swine has tried to keep us in.

Joe Biden and all the Karens can wear their little masks all day long, if it thrills them to do so.

Only Spain in Europe has a worse death per 100K rate right now.

As in the chart I have provided in this thread many times.

Just to be clear....

There are other countries...just not in Europe....that have worse rates.

Also, we pay our hospitals more for treating COVID, so anyone who dies, that has COVID is listed as a "COVID" death, whereas in most countries unless COVID is actually what caused your death, your cause of death is not listed as COVID. It's not an apples to apples comparison.

Medical stats from country to country are NEVER an apples-to-apples comparison, because they don't compile ANY medical stats the same way we do. How many times have we heard the canard that infant mortality in the US is so much worse than the rest of the world, only to find out that it's largely because other countries simply don't count children who die in the first week of life as ever having existed at all?

On COVID the death rates per 100k most developed nations are using the same method, indeed it is the USA that most world health bodies are concerned are vastly under reporting due to your fragment health care system run by 50 different states. Some estimates are that the USA is under reporting by 33%.

You mean our health care system that bodies the DHSC for legit life threatening diseases like cancer. Our health care system where you can actually get the surgery you need within a week. Our healthcare system that the rest of the world, except Switzerland, has been leaching off of our innovation and the tens of billions we drop into R+D every year. That healthcare system? Y’all treat the healthy for dumb shit like broken arms and infections, while taxing the fuck out of your citizens and pretend like you’re hero’s for doing so. Meanwhile Canada sends all their cancer patients TO ME, to get the very best treatment that WE develop, and then pay for it. Your nurses and doctors are garbage. When y’all can start actually saving your cancer patients and stop sending them to me, and actually preform surgeries on things like joint replacements that aren’t outdated 30 years, when your hospitals have as many top of the line critical care beds as ours do, when you actually do your part in the world and start developing drugs, procedures, and technologies...then you can lecture us on our healthcare.

Me and my wife both work in one of the largest hospitals right next to the covid epicenter. We’re over reporting. 100%. Notice how the flu has effectively disappeared? In this current “spike”, we have 6 covid patients who are actually suffering from covid, among other things.

Australia has similar wait times as the USA, in fact shorter wait times for GP visits, yet gets far better results in every macro category except breast cancer treatment, and even there we are just behind the USA.

All at much cheaper cost.

BECUASE YOU SEND YOUR WORST CANCER PATIENTS TO US TO FIX. Ipso facto, y’all fucks don’t take the hit in death rates. We take on the worst cases, and still have a better death rate than all of y’all. Turns out, it’s pretty easy to take care of healthy people. In Europe they go to Switzerland. What’s the last medical innovation that came out of Australia? At least the French have Sanofi. Stop fucking swimming in our wake. We’re basically subsidizing the entire globes R+D. We’ve been subsidizing NATOs defense spending for decades. We just invented a goddamn missile that goes Mach 45. Why? Because y’all made incredibly stupid deals with China and now you’re having buyers remorse. And now we’re gonna have to arm you once again. What have you done recently for me Australia? The fucking gall of you foreigners who come here and lecture us about our politics while we’re the ones putting in the elbow grease to make YOUR lives better, healthier, and safer.

No we do not actually.

Australia has the best cancer treatment survival rates in the world.

Australia leads global cancer survival rates – but more can be done

An international study shows Australians have the best chance of survival for seven types of cancers.

www1.racgp.org.au

Here is a good article about Australian heath care and why over all it gets better outcomes than the USA at much lower cost.

What Australia can teach America about health care

Why the Australian system might represent a realistic path forward for the US.

www.vox.com

Nobody cares about your healthcare system....especially the spin from America hating Vox idiots.

You don't have to care.

You can continue to naval gaze as many Americans love to do.

I am just throwing the facts out there for the intelligent minority of Americans to consider.

Intelligent people learn from the rest of the world, both good and bad.

Facts? The only thing you threw out was Vox bullshit.

I understand, the cult of Trump only believes anything Trump says, nothing else.

All cults work this way.

You sound as if you are involved in the cult of the bubble.
A real true believer.

Though only thing I believe in is scientific method, blue skies and cold Australian beer, the rest is just an opinion.

You believe in global warming, so you don't believe in the scientific method.

Yes I do and so does NASA.

Climate Change Evidence: How Do We Know?

The rate of change since the mid-20th century is unprecedented over millennia.

climate.nasa.gov

We have been in a long term cooling trend for 6,000 years, True or False?

The Holocene climate was warming and actually proves our current warming in large part iscaused by humans. The warming 6,000 years ago was caused by Earth orbital changes which are currently not occurring or causing such rapid warming.

This is actually more evidence of human caused global warming in our time.

Mid-Holocene Warm Period – About 6,000 Years Ago | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Paleoclimatologists have long suspected that the "middle Holocene," roughly from 7,000 to 5,000 years ago, was warmer than the present day.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov

" Moreover, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and we know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years."

Here is a basic primer on why previous climate changes are not proof this climate change is not man made, rather proof it is.



"The Earth was indeed cooling over the last 6,000 years due to Earth's orbit, heading into the next glacial phase scheduled for about the year 3500 AD. But all that changed when we got to the industrial era. Global temperatures departed from that cooling trend, and instead rose parallel with our greenhouse gas emissions."

What does past climate change tell us about global warming?

Natural climate change in the past proves that climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past climate change actually provides evidence for our...

skepticalscience.com

That's pure bunk. We have no idea what temperature fluctuations were like 6000 years ago. The granularity of our records is measured in hundreds of years. You can't legitimately claim our temperatures have departed from anything. There is nothing unusual about our current warming.

I quote the link below again.

"The Earth was indeed cooling over the last 6,000 years due to Earth's orbit, heading into the next glacial phase scheduled for about the year 3500 AD....

Fake news. There was no "scheduled date" for the next glacial advance.

... But all that changed when we got to the industrial era. Global temperatures departed from that cooling trend, and instead rose parallel with our greenhouse gas emissions. "...

Fake News, temperatures began recovering at the end of the little ice age, and with warming temperatures, we get rising CO^2 levels, and earth's processes convert some of the excess CO^2 into living cells.

... We should be in a cooling period...

We are cooler than we were 5,000 years ago.

... denilist cheery....

No. The last interglacial lasted about 15,000 years, and we are pacing fairly consistently with that. Everything is as expected.

... Climate change denial has all the hallmarks of faith or religion, it only sees what it wants to see....

You are the one promoting a Doomsday Cult, I'm just pointing out that the evidence doesn't support your claims, which is the way with doomsday cults. They point to a date when the world is supposed to end, and then they are disappointed when the date passes uneventfully.

Your fake news is faker than the fake news you think is fake news.

The science is clear if you could understand it, the oribital causes of climate change was seeing us going into a cooling period well into the next thousand years but the carbon released from the industrial revolution changed all that.


I think I will trust the majority of climate scientists and NASA before I will trust a cult member always chanting "fake news" when confronted with scientific information they simply do not want to believe.

The actual science is the more energy dense fuel you use, the less carbon emissions there actually is. The order of energy density goes from (least-greatest) wood, coal, oil, gas, then nuclear (which doesn’t have carbon as a byproduct of the process). Wood is at 16 MJ/kg vs coal (depending on the type) is in the range of 20-30MJ/kg. Due to the laws of physics, it takes around twice the amount of carbon expenditure for wood to boil water (boiling water is the method for basically every large scale power generation) compared to coal. Natural gas is at 40 MJ/m3. So, thanks to Isaac Newton natural gas uses at least 33% less carbon byproduct to boil water. On top of that, with the nature of it being gas, and technology allowing precision amounts of gas to obtain the desired temp, there’s far less wasteful burning of it vs a solid fuel. In other words, a 1/m3 of gas goes a lot further than 1/KG of any solid fuel. Maybe you could achieve the same results with a powdered fuel as you would gas, but to powder it would be a process that requires more energy expenditure than gas in its natural form. Obviously because there is no carbon involved in the nuclear process, it’s superior by far. If you “care” about the climate, and you’re not pushing for nuclear, exit the conversation immediately. We haven’t even scratched the surface of what we can do with nuclear. We’re using 80 year old technology, and even then it’s still the far superior option. All because Jane Fonda, Gov Brown, the Sierra Club, and scores of other elites decided to demonize nuclear. Many of them to profit off of the oil business dealings they had (cough* cough* gov Brown), others because they nonsensically conflated nuclear energy with nuclear bombs during the Cold War (cough* cough* Jane Fonda types). And others (cough* cough* the Sierra club) wanted to continue their exploitation of 3rd world countries, because it’s easier to exploit poor people who remain poor by spending vast amounts of energy and money (and vast amount of environmental damage as well as carbon emissions) to cook their food and heat their homes using wood (set up for my next paragraph). It also helps when the philosophy of your little elite Sierra club is a Malthusian one, so fuck those poor people, amaright?

As I set up in the last paragraph......I mentioned wood even though it’s hardly used in 1st world countries. Not true for 3rd world countries. There’s this crazy idea out there that we can “leap frog” the 3rd world with renewable energies, and bypass coal and gas completely (set up for my 3rd paragraph). Absolutely absurd idea. The 1st world is struggling “renewable energy”. It is not reliable. So what winds up happening in these countries is that people just go back to using wood. Cutting down vast swaths of carbon scrubbing trees, destroying natural habitats, and oh yeah, dumping a hell of a lot more carbon into the atmosphere than they would if we accelerated their development with coal, then to gas, then to nuclear. Obviously I have no problem in helping them develop clean burning coal, clean burning gas, etc. It’s just a simple fact. The more developed your country is, the less emissions there are per person. It also follows that the less resources (physical, time, money, etc) people have to spend producing energy (I.e. cutting down trees, splitting wood, starting and keeping fires) the more time and energy they will have to be productive in other areas and become more prosperous. Having a reliable source of electricity is basically the #1 key on the road to prosperity, and consequently a reduction in carbon emissions.

What people are also not telling you is that not only is solar and wind severely unreliable, the battery/fuel cell tech is not there (never will be until the invention of super conductors), but also the production of fuel cells and panels (which eventually go bad 10 years at best) creates more emissions, and there is NO safe way to dispose of the extremely environmentally hazardous materials used to make them. There simply is no way to get around Isaac Newton’s laws. People think solar panels just sit there and the sun hits them and bam, energy. The sun itself does not boil water on its own (in most areas). Therefore you need to go through an energy costing process in order to get the photons from the sun to be transformed into usable energy. Not only do you need energy to do this, you also need extremely environmentally toxic chemicals to help boost this process. Both fuel cells and the solar panels themselves are made out of extremely toxic materials. Currently the strategy of nations “leading the way with renewable energy” is to pay 3rd world countries to have them take the fuel cell/panel waste to throw in a dump somewhere. And you can bet your bottom dollar they aren’t dumping it in a safe way. Basically, the net energy solar is producing is 2 steps backward to get 3 steps forward, AT BEST, as long as the panels last 10 years WITHOUT the use of fuel cell storage (which also goes bad). You simply cannot get around the laws of physics. Solar/wind is actually way more expensive for citizens. It is so unreliable, no sun, not enough wind, power plants have to stay fully staffed even when shut down, because they will have to continually power up and power back down. Mind you these are plants designed to run continuously, and the constant power-up power-down process is extremely energy inefficient. So, if you live in an area receiving energy from solar panels or wind, you’re paying for the same power plant you’ve been using before plus the solar/wind generators, plus the infrastructure between the renewable generators, plus the costly process (both in carbon emissions and dollars) of powering up and down continuously. As it turns out, our most “renewable” energy is water. Yes it requires energy to boil, but it goes up, comes back down, and we have plenty of it. This is why nuclear is by far the best option. Zero emissions to hear water, a fraction of a percentile of the current waste produced by solar, as well as a very easy and safe way to store it, and oh yeah did mention far less energy and land investment made into building a Nuclear plant. I almost forgot to mention the vast amounts of land needed for solar/wind just produce a fraction of what a standard power plant can produce. You know, land that would otherwise be used by those big green leafy things (the name escapes me) that actually absorb carbon and exhale oxygen. Land that’s also home to the little critters we value so much.

That is a lot of deluded gibberish.


I think I will go with the actual scientists on this one and the consensus is clear, we are warming the planet with carbon emissions.

You do not have to believe it, you do not have to believe in gravity either, but you still have to live with it.

Consensus isn't science, moron. It's politics.

We don't have to live with nutbag proposals to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

Yes, there is a scientific consensus that gravity exists.

Now that is always up for challenge through empirical evidence if one can provide that evidence.

Such evidence does not exist.

The same applies to global warming.

Once again I refer you to actual scientists.

Scientific Consensus - NASA Science

It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s...

climate.nasa.gov

Sorry, but the argument for the existence of gravity hasn't changed in quite some time and there is no funny money behind it. There is a stark difference. Gravity is settled science, man made global warming is not.

Oh yes every international scientific body in the world is being bribed. Because as with gravity there is a scientific consensus on this issue.

NASA is being bribed.

Probably by the Secret Society of Spaghetti Monsters Against Fossil Fuels and Vaccines.

They certainly are being bribed. They are all on the govenrment payroll. Most of them owe their careers to the proposition being true, which is the best reason imaginable for believing it isn't true.

 

[Jake Winker Frogen]

And that of course would be the case through out the world, so we can still rationally compare outcomes and Germany's outcome is much better than America's.

NO. That is NOT the case throughout the world unless the CDC is now managing the health of the entire planet.
The subject is how the CDC inflated deaths in the US by attributing all deaths to the Chinese originated
covid virus if the virus was present at all. So much so that the CDC was pressured into changing that policy.

Nevertheless that policy was in place for months and the US death toll remains inflated and uncorrected
and you remain disingenuous.

All countries are using that methodology, they have an "excess death mythology" as defined as " A range of estimates for the number of excess deaths was calculated as the difference between the observed count and one of two thresholds (either the average expected count or the upper bound threshold), by week and jurisdiction. Negative values, where the observed count fell below the threshold, were set to zero."

And the method of if one did not have a prognosis of death within the year and contracted COVID it is counted across the globe as a Covid related death.

There is no world health body, or American for that matter, which believes the USA is doing well in this pandemic.

Just wishing Americans were not dropping like flies by playing semantics with the numbers is not going to save any American lives.

America is far from the worst record when it comes to covid deaths and far from the best.
I know it serves your agenda to state otherwise, however. Saying we are "dropping like flies" is disingenuous and misleading and it won't win Joe the election you so desperately want.
Nothing will including all the post election chaos and disorder the left has planned.


As things stand right now we will have a covid vaccine soon and society will begin to come out of
politicized lockdown box leftist swine has tried to keep us in.

Joe Biden and all the Karens can wear their little masks all day long, if it thrills them to do so.

Only Spain in Europe has a worse death per 100K rate right now.

As in the chart I have provided in this thread many times.

Just to be clear....

There are other countries...just not in Europe....that have worse rates.

Also, we pay our hospitals more for treating COVID, so anyone who dies, that has COVID is listed as a "COVID" death, whereas in most countries unless COVID is actually what caused your death, your cause of death is not listed as COVID. It's not an apples to apples comparison.

Medical stats from country to country are NEVER an apples-to-apples comparison, because they don't compile ANY medical stats the same way we do. How many times have we heard the canard that infant mortality in the US is so much worse than the rest of the world, only to find out that it's largely because other countries simply don't count children who die in the first week of life as ever having existed at all?

On COVID the death rates per 100k most developed nations are using the same method, indeed it is the USA that most world health bodies are concerned are vastly under reporting due to your fragment health care system run by 50 different states. Some estimates are that the USA is under reporting by 33%.

You mean our health care system that bodies the DHSC for legit life threatening diseases like cancer. Our health care system where you can actually get the surgery you need within a week. Our healthcare system that the rest of the world, except Switzerland, has been leaching off of our innovation and the tens of billions we drop into R+D every year. That healthcare system? Y’all treat the healthy for dumb shit like broken arms and infections, while taxing the fuck out of your citizens and pretend like you’re hero’s for doing so. Meanwhile Canada sends all their cancer patients TO ME, to get the very best treatment that WE develop, and then pay for it. Your nurses and doctors are garbage. When y’all can start actually saving your cancer patients and stop sending them to me, and actually preform surgeries on things like joint replacements that aren’t outdated 30 years, when your hospitals have as many top of the line critical care beds as ours do, when you actually do your part in the world and start developing drugs, procedures, and technologies...then you can lecture us on our healthcare.

Me and my wife both work in one of the largest hospitals right next to the covid epicenter. We’re over reporting. 100%. Notice how the flu has effectively disappeared? In this current “spike”, we have 6 covid patients who are actually suffering from covid, among other things.

Australia has similar wait times as the USA, in fact shorter wait times for GP visits, yet gets far better results in every macro category except breast cancer treatment, and even there we are just behind the USA.

All at much cheaper cost.

BECUASE YOU SEND YOUR WORST CANCER PATIENTS TO US TO FIX. Ipso facto, y’all fucks don’t take the hit in death rates. We take on the worst cases, and still have a better death rate than all of y’all. Turns out, it’s pretty easy to take care of healthy people. In Europe they go to Switzerland. What’s the last medical innovation that came out of Australia? At least the French have Sanofi. Stop fucking swimming in our wake. We’re basically subsidizing the entire globes R+D. We’ve been subsidizing NATOs defense spending for decades. We just invented a goddamn missile that goes Mach 45. Why? Because y’all made incredibly stupid deals with China and now you’re having buyers remorse. And now we’re gonna have to arm you once again. What have you done recently for me Australia? The fucking gall of you foreigners who come here and lecture us about our politics while we’re the ones putting in the elbow grease to make YOUR lives better, healthier, and safer.

No we do not actually.

Australia has the best cancer treatment survival rates in the world.

Australia leads global cancer survival rates – but more can be done

An international study shows Australians have the best chance of survival for seven types of cancers.

www1.racgp.org.au

Here is a good article about Australian heath care and why over all it gets better outcomes than the USA at much lower cost.

What Australia can teach America about health care

Why the Australian system might represent a realistic path forward for the US.

www.vox.com

Nobody cares about your healthcare system....especially the spin from America hating Vox idiots.

You don't have to care.

You can continue to naval gaze as many Americans love to do.

I am just throwing the facts out there for the intelligent minority of Americans to consider.

Intelligent people learn from the rest of the world, both good and bad.

Facts? The only thing you threw out was Vox bullshit.

I understand, the cult of Trump only believes anything Trump says, nothing else.

All cults work this way.

You sound as if you are involved in the cult of the bubble.
A real true believer.

Though only thing I believe in is scientific method, blue skies and cold Australian beer, the rest is just an opinion.

You believe in global warming, so you don't believe in the scientific method.

Yes I do and so does NASA.

Climate Change Evidence: How Do We Know?

The rate of change since the mid-20th century is unprecedented over millennia.

climate.nasa.gov

We have been in a long term cooling trend for 6,000 years, True or False?

The Holocene climate was warming and actually proves our current warming in large part iscaused by humans. The warming 6,000 years ago was caused by Earth orbital changes which are currently not occurring or causing such rapid warming.

This is actually more evidence of human caused global warming in our time.

Mid-Holocene Warm Period – About 6,000 Years Ago | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Paleoclimatologists have long suspected that the "middle Holocene," roughly from 7,000 to 5,000 years ago, was warmer than the present day.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov

" Moreover, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and we know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years."

Here is a basic primer on why previous climate changes are not proof this climate change is not man made, rather proof it is.



"The Earth was indeed cooling over the last 6,000 years due to Earth's orbit, heading into the next glacial phase scheduled for about the year 3500 AD. But all that changed when we got to the industrial era. Global temperatures departed from that cooling trend, and instead rose parallel with our greenhouse gas emissions."

What does past climate change tell us about global warming?

Natural climate change in the past proves that climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past climate change actually provides evidence for our...

skepticalscience.com

That's pure bunk. We have no idea what temperature fluctuations were like 6000 years ago. The granularity of our records is measured in hundreds of years. You can't legitimately claim our temperatures have departed from anything. There is nothing unusual about our current warming.

I quote the link below again.

"The Earth was indeed cooling over the last 6,000 years due to Earth's orbit, heading into the next glacial phase scheduled for about the year 3500 AD....

Fake news. There was no "scheduled date" for the next glacial advance.

... But all that changed when we got to the industrial era. Global temperatures departed from that cooling trend, and instead rose parallel with our greenhouse gas emissions. "...

Fake News, temperatures began recovering at the end of the little ice age, and with warming temperatures, we get rising CO^2 levels, and earth's processes convert some of the excess CO^2 into living cells.

... We should be in a cooling period...

We are cooler than we were 5,000 years ago.

... denilist cheery....

No. The last interglacial lasted about 15,000 years, and we are pacing fairly consistently with that. Everything is as expected.

... Climate change denial has all the hallmarks of faith or religion, it only sees what it wants to see....

You are the one promoting a Doomsday Cult, I'm just pointing out that the evidence doesn't support your claims, which is the way with doomsday cults. They point to a date when the world is supposed to end, and then they are disappointed when the date passes uneventfully.

Your fake news is faker than the fake news you think is fake news.

The science is clear if you could understand it, the oribital causes of climate change was seeing us going into a cooling period well into the next thousand years but the carbon released from the industrial revolution changed all that.


I think I will trust the majority of climate scientists and NASA before I will trust a cult member always chanting "fake news" when confronted with scientific information they simply do not want to believe.

The actual science is the more energy dense fuel you use, the less carbon emissions there actually is. The order of energy density goes from (least-greatest) wood, coal, oil, gas, then nuclear (which doesn’t have carbon as a byproduct of the process). Wood is at 16 MJ/kg vs coal (depending on the type) is in the range of 20-30MJ/kg. Due to the laws of physics, it takes around twice the amount of carbon expenditure for wood to boil water (boiling water is the method for basically every large scale power generation) compared to coal. Natural gas is at 40 MJ/m3. So, thanks to Isaac Newton natural gas uses at least 33% less carbon byproduct to boil water. On top of that, with the nature of it being gas, and technology allowing precision amounts of gas to obtain the desired temp, there’s far less wasteful burning of it vs a solid fuel. In other words, a 1/m3 of gas goes a lot further than 1/KG of any solid fuel. Maybe you could achieve the same results with a powdered fuel as you would gas, but to powder it would be a process that requires more energy expenditure than gas in its natural form. Obviously because there is no carbon involved in the nuclear process, it’s superior by far. If you “care” about the climate, and you’re not pushing for nuclear, exit the conversation immediately. We haven’t even scratched the surface of what we can do with nuclear. We’re using 80 year old technology, and even then it’s still the far superior option. All because Jane Fonda, Gov Brown, the Sierra Club, and scores of other elites decided to demonize nuclear. Many of them to profit off of the oil business dealings they had (cough* cough* gov Brown), others because they nonsensically conflated nuclear energy with nuclear bombs during the Cold War (cough* cough* Jane Fonda types). And others (cough* cough* the Sierra club) wanted to continue their exploitation of 3rd world countries, because it’s easier to exploit poor people who remain poor by spending vast amounts of energy and money (and vast amount of environmental damage as well as carbon emissions) to cook their food and heat their homes using wood (set up for my next paragraph). It also helps when the philosophy of your little elite Sierra club is a Malthusian one, so fuck those poor people, amaright?

As I set up in the last paragraph......I mentioned wood even though it’s hardly used in 1st world countries. Not true for 3rd world countries. There’s this crazy idea out there that we can “leap frog” the 3rd world with renewable energies, and bypass coal and gas completely (set up for my 3rd paragraph). Absolutely absurd idea. The 1st world is struggling “renewable energy”. It is not reliable. So what winds up happening in these countries is that people just go back to using wood. Cutting down vast swaths of carbon scrubbing trees, destroying natural habitats, and oh yeah, dumping a hell of a lot more carbon into the atmosphere than they would if we accelerated their development with coal, then to gas, then to nuclear. Obviously I have no problem in helping them develop clean burning coal, clean burning gas, etc. It’s just a simple fact. The more developed your country is, the less emissions there are per person. It also follows that the less resources (physical, time, money, etc) people have to spend producing energy (I.e. cutting down trees, splitting wood, starting and keeping fires) the more time and energy they will have to be productive in other areas and become more prosperous. Having a reliable source of electricity is basically the #1 key on the road to prosperity, and consequently a reduction in carbon emissions.

What people are also not telling you is that not only is solar and wind severely unreliable, the battery/fuel cell tech is not there (never will be until the invention of super conductors), but also the production of fuel cells and panels (which eventually go bad 10 years at best) creates more emissions, and there is NO safe way to dispose of the extremely environmentally hazardous materials used to make them. There simply is no way to get around Isaac Newton’s laws. People think solar panels just sit there and the sun hits them and bam, energy. The sun itself does not boil water on its own (in most areas). Therefore you need to go through an energy costing process in order to get the photons from the sun to be transformed into usable energy. Not only do you need energy to do this, you also need extremely environmentally toxic chemicals to help boost this process. Both fuel cells and the solar panels themselves are made out of extremely toxic materials. Currently the strategy of nations “leading the way with renewable energy” is to pay 3rd world countries to have them take the fuel cell/panel waste to throw in a dump somewhere. And you can bet your bottom dollar they aren’t dumping it in a safe way. Basically, the net energy solar is producing is 2 steps backward to get 3 steps forward, AT BEST, as long as the panels last 10 years WITHOUT the use of fuel cell storage (which also goes bad). You simply cannot get around the laws of physics. Solar/wind is actually way more expensive for citizens. It is so unreliable, no sun, not enough wind, power plants have to stay fully staffed even when shut down, because they will have to continually power up and power back down. Mind you these are plants designed to run continuously, and the constant power-up power-down process is extremely energy inefficient. So, if you live in an area receiving energy from solar panels or wind, you’re paying for the same power plant you’ve been using before plus the solar/wind generators, plus the infrastructure between the renewable generators, plus the costly process (both in carbon emissions and dollars) of powering up and down continuously. As it turns out, our most “renewable” energy is water. Yes it requires energy to boil, but it goes up, comes back down, and we have plenty of it. This is why nuclear is by far the best option. Zero emissions to hear water, a fraction of a percentile of the current waste produced by solar, as well as a very easy and safe way to store it, and oh yeah did mention far less energy and land investment made into building a Nuclear plant. I almost forgot to mention the vast amounts of land needed for solar/wind just produce a fraction of what a standard power plant can produce. You know, land that would otherwise be used by those big green leafy things (the name escapes me) that actually absorb carbon and exhale oxygen. Land that’s also home to the little critters we value so much.

That is a lot of deluded gibberish.


I think I will go with the actual scientists on this one and the consensus is clear, we are warming the planet with carbon emissions.

You do not have to believe it, you do not have to believe in gravity either, but you still have to live with it.

Consensus isn't science, moron. It's politics.

We don't have to live with nutbag proposals to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

Yes, there is a scientific consensus that gravity exists.

Now that is always up for challenge through empirical evidence if one can provide that evidence.

Such evidence does not exist.

The same applies to global warming.

Once again I refer you to actual scientists.

Scientific Consensus - NASA Science

It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s...

climate.nasa.gov

Sorry, but the argument for the existence of gravity hasn't changed in quite some time and there is no funny money behind it. There is a stark difference. Gravity is settled science, man made global warming is not.

Oh yes every international scientific body in the world is being bribed. Because as with gravity there is a scientific consensus on this issue.

NASA is being bribed.

Probably by the Secret Society of Spaghetti Monsters Against Fossil Fuels and Vaccines.

They certainly are being bribed. They are all on the govenrment payroll. Most of them owe their careers to the proposition being true, which is the best reason imaginable for believing it isn't true.

97% of global scientists are being bribed.


All I can say to that is "the truth is out there"

Groan!

 

[Jake Winker Frogen]

"There is currently a strong scientific consensus that the Earth is warming and that this warming is mainly caused by human activities. This consensus is supported by various studies of scientists' opinions and by position statements of scientific organizations, many of which explicitly agree with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) synthesis reports.

Nearly all actively publishing climate scientists (97–98%[1]) support the consensus on anthropogenic climate change,[2][3] and the remaining 2% of contrarian studies either cannot be replicated or contain errors.[4]"

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ah, the same organization that was caught falsifying their data back in 2010. Those guys. LOL...dupe.

I know any source you do not want to believe is untrue.

NASA, the UN, every university on the planet, they are all lying.

That is how the superstitious work.

 

[DBA]

And that of course would be the case through out the world, so we can still rationally compare outcomes and Germany's outcome is much better than America's.

NO. That is NOT the case throughout the world unless the CDC is now managing the health of the entire planet.
The subject is how the CDC inflated deaths in the US by attributing all deaths to the Chinese originated
covid virus if the virus was present at all. So much so that the CDC was pressured into changing that policy.

Nevertheless that policy was in place for months and the US death toll remains inflated and uncorrected
and you remain disingenuous.

All countries are using that methodology, they have an "excess death mythology" as defined as " A range of estimates for the number of excess deaths was calculated as the difference between the observed count and one of two thresholds (either the average expected count or the upper bound threshold), by week and jurisdiction. Negative values, where the observed count fell below the threshold, were set to zero."

And the method of if one did not have a prognosis of death within the year and contracted COVID it is counted across the globe as a Covid related death.

There is no world health body, or American for that matter, which believes the USA is doing well in this pandemic.

Just wishing Americans were not dropping like flies by playing semantics with the numbers is not going to save any American lives.

America is far from the worst record when it comes to covid deaths and far from the best.
I know it serves your agenda to state otherwise, however. Saying we are "dropping like flies" is disingenuous and misleading and it won't win Joe the election you so desperately want.
Nothing will including all the post election chaos and disorder the left has planned.


As things stand right now we will have a covid vaccine soon and society will begin to come out of
politicized lockdown box leftist swine has tried to keep us in.

Joe Biden and all the Karens can wear their little masks all day long, if it thrills them to do so.

Only Spain in Europe has a worse death per 100K rate right now.

As in the chart I have provided in this thread many times.

Just to be clear....

There are other countries...just not in Europe....that have worse rates.

Also, we pay our hospitals more for treating COVID, so anyone who dies, that has COVID is listed as a "COVID" death, whereas in most countries unless COVID is actually what caused your death, your cause of death is not listed as COVID. It's not an apples to apples comparison.

Medical stats from country to country are NEVER an apples-to-apples comparison, because they don't compile ANY medical stats the same way we do. How many times have we heard the canard that infant mortality in the US is so much worse than the rest of the world, only to find out that it's largely because other countries simply don't count children who die in the first week of life as ever having existed at all?

On COVID the death rates per 100k most developed nations are using the same method, indeed it is the USA that most world health bodies are concerned are vastly under reporting due to your fragment health care system run by 50 different states. Some estimates are that the USA is under reporting by 33%.

You mean our health care system that bodies the DHSC for legit life threatening diseases like cancer. Our health care system where you can actually get the surgery you need within a week. Our healthcare system that the rest of the world, except Switzerland, has been leaching off of our innovation and the tens of billions we drop into R+D every year. That healthcare system? Y’all treat the healthy for dumb shit like broken arms and infections, while taxing the fuck out of your citizens and pretend like you’re hero’s for doing so. Meanwhile Canada sends all their cancer patients TO ME, to get the very best treatment that WE develop, and then pay for it. Your nurses and doctors are garbage. When y’all can start actually saving your cancer patients and stop sending them to me, and actually preform surgeries on things like joint replacements that aren’t outdated 30 years, when your hospitals have as many top of the line critical care beds as ours do, when you actually do your part in the world and start developing drugs, procedures, and technologies...then you can lecture us on our healthcare.

Me and my wife both work in one of the largest hospitals right next to the covid epicenter. We’re over reporting. 100%. Notice how the flu has effectively disappeared? In this current “spike”, we have 6 covid patients who are actually suffering from covid, among other things.

Australia has similar wait times as the USA, in fact shorter wait times for GP visits, yet gets far better results in every macro category except breast cancer treatment, and even there we are just behind the USA.

All at much cheaper cost.

BECUASE YOU SEND YOUR WORST CANCER PATIENTS TO US TO FIX. Ipso facto, y’all fucks don’t take the hit in death rates. We take on the worst cases, and still have a better death rate than all of y’all. Turns out, it’s pretty easy to take care of healthy people. In Europe they go to Switzerland. What’s the last medical innovation that came out of Australia? At least the French have Sanofi. Stop fucking swimming in our wake. We’re basically subsidizing the entire globes R+D. We’ve been subsidizing NATOs defense spending for decades. We just invented a goddamn missile that goes Mach 45. Why? Because y’all made incredibly stupid deals with China and now you’re having buyers remorse. And now we’re gonna have to arm you once again. What have you done recently for me Australia? The fucking gall of you foreigners who come here and lecture us about our politics while we’re the ones putting in the elbow grease to make YOUR lives better, healthier, and safer.

No we do not actually.

Australia has the best cancer treatment survival rates in the world.

Australia leads global cancer survival rates – but more can be done

An international study shows Australians have the best chance of survival for seven types of cancers.

www1.racgp.org.au

Here is a good article about Australian heath care and why over all it gets better outcomes than the USA at much lower cost.

What Australia can teach America about health care

Why the Australian system might represent a realistic path forward for the US.

www.vox.com

Nobody cares about your healthcare system....especially the spin from America hating Vox idiots.

You don't have to care.

You can continue to naval gaze as many Americans love to do.

I am just throwing the facts out there for the intelligent minority of Americans to consider.

Intelligent people learn from the rest of the world, both good and bad.

Facts? The only thing you threw out was Vox bullshit.

I understand, the cult of Trump only believes anything Trump says, nothing else.

All cults work this way.

You sound as if you are involved in the cult of the bubble.
A real true believer.

Though only thing I believe in is scientific method, blue skies and cold Australian beer, the rest is just an opinion.

You believe in global warming, so you don't believe in the scientific method.

Yes I do and so does NASA.

Climate Change Evidence: How Do We Know?

The rate of change since the mid-20th century is unprecedented over millennia.

climate.nasa.gov

We have been in a long term cooling trend for 6,000 years, True or False?

The Holocene climate was warming and actually proves our current warming in large part iscaused by humans. The warming 6,000 years ago was caused by Earth orbital changes which are currently not occurring or causing such rapid warming.

This is actually more evidence of human caused global warming in our time.

Mid-Holocene Warm Period – About 6,000 Years Ago | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Paleoclimatologists have long suspected that the "middle Holocene," roughly from 7,000 to 5,000 years ago, was warmer than the present day.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov

" Moreover, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and we know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years."

Here is a basic primer on why previous climate changes are not proof this climate change is not man made, rather proof it is.



"The Earth was indeed cooling over the last 6,000 years due to Earth's orbit, heading into the next glacial phase scheduled for about the year 3500 AD. But all that changed when we got to the industrial era. Global temperatures departed from that cooling trend, and instead rose parallel with our greenhouse gas emissions."

What does past climate change tell us about global warming?

Natural climate change in the past proves that climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past climate change actually provides evidence for our...

skepticalscience.com

That's pure bunk. We have no idea what temperature fluctuations were like 6000 years ago. The granularity of our records is measured in hundreds of years. You can't legitimately claim our temperatures have departed from anything. There is nothing unusual about our current warming.

I quote the link below again.

"The Earth was indeed cooling over the last 6,000 years due to Earth's orbit, heading into the next glacial phase scheduled for about the year 3500 AD....

Fake news. There was no "scheduled date" for the next glacial advance.

... But all that changed when we got to the industrial era. Global temperatures departed from that cooling trend, and instead rose parallel with our greenhouse gas emissions. "...

Fake News, temperatures began recovering at the end of the little ice age, and with warming temperatures, we get rising CO^2 levels, and earth's processes convert some of the excess CO^2 into living cells.

... We should be in a cooling period...

We are cooler than we were 5,000 years ago.

... denilist cheery....

No. The last interglacial lasted about 15,000 years, and we are pacing fairly consistently with that. Everything is as expected.

... Climate change denial has all the hallmarks of faith or religion, it only sees what it wants to see....

You are the one promoting a Doomsday Cult, I'm just pointing out that the evidence doesn't support your claims, which is the way with doomsday cults. They point to a date when the world is supposed to end, and then they are disappointed when the date passes uneventfully.

Your fake news is faker than the fake news you think is fake news.

The science is clear if you could understand it, the oribital causes of climate change was seeing us going into a cooling period well into the next thousand years but the carbon released from the industrial revolution changed all that.


I think I will trust the majority of climate scientists and NASA before I will trust a cult member always chanting "fake news" when confronted with scientific information they simply do not want to believe.

The actual science is the more energy dense fuel you use, the less carbon emissions there actually is. The order of energy density goes from (least-greatest) wood, coal, oil, gas, then nuclear (which doesn’t have carbon as a byproduct of the process). Wood is at 16 MJ/kg vs coal (depending on the type) is in the range of 20-30MJ/kg. Due to the laws of physics, it takes around twice the amount of carbon expenditure for wood to boil water (boiling water is the method for basically every large scale power generation) compared to coal. Natural gas is at 40 MJ/m3. So, thanks to Isaac Newton natural gas uses at least 33% less carbon byproduct to boil water. On top of that, with the nature of it being gas, and technology allowing precision amounts of gas to obtain the desired temp, there’s far less wasteful burning of it vs a solid fuel. In other words, a 1/m3 of gas goes a lot further than 1/KG of any solid fuel. Maybe you could achieve the same results with a powdered fuel as you would gas, but to powder it would be a process that requires more energy expenditure than gas in its natural form. Obviously because there is no carbon involved in the nuclear process, it’s superior by far. If you “care” about the climate, and you’re not pushing for nuclear, exit the conversation immediately. We haven’t even scratched the surface of what we can do with nuclear. We’re using 80 year old technology, and even then it’s still the far superior option. All because Jane Fonda, Gov Brown, the Sierra Club, and scores of other elites decided to demonize nuclear. Many of them to profit off of the oil business dealings they had (cough* cough* gov Brown), others because they nonsensically conflated nuclear energy with nuclear bombs during the Cold War (cough* cough* Jane Fonda types). And others (cough* cough* the Sierra club) wanted to continue their exploitation of 3rd world countries, because it’s easier to exploit poor people who remain poor by spending vast amounts of energy and money (and vast amount of environmental damage as well as carbon emissions) to cook their food and heat their homes using wood (set up for my next paragraph). It also helps when the philosophy of your little elite Sierra club is a Malthusian one, so fuck those poor people, amaright?

As I set up in the last paragraph......I mentioned wood even though it’s hardly used in 1st world countries. Not true for 3rd world countries. There’s this crazy idea out there that we can “leap frog” the 3rd world with renewable energies, and bypass coal and gas completely (set up for my 3rd paragraph). Absolutely absurd idea. The 1st world is struggling “renewable energy”. It is not reliable. So what winds up happening in these countries is that people just go back to using wood. Cutting down vast swaths of carbon scrubbing trees, destroying natural habitats, and oh yeah, dumping a hell of a lot more carbon into the atmosphere than they would if we accelerated their development with coal, then to gas, then to nuclear. Obviously I have no problem in helping them develop clean burning coal, clean burning gas, etc. It’s just a simple fact. The more developed your country is, the less emissions there are per person. It also follows that the less resources (physical, time, money, etc) people have to spend producing energy (I.e. cutting down trees, splitting wood, starting and keeping fires) the more time and energy they will have to be productive in other areas and become more prosperous. Having a reliable source of electricity is basically the #1 key on the road to prosperity, and consequently a reduction in carbon emissions.

What people are also not telling you is that not only is solar and wind severely unreliable, the battery/fuel cell tech is not there (never will be until the invention of super conductors), but also the production of fuel cells and panels (which eventually go bad 10 years at best) creates more emissions, and there is NO safe way to dispose of the extremely environmentally hazardous materials used to make them. There simply is no way to get around Isaac Newton’s laws. People think solar panels just sit there and the sun hits them and bam, energy. The sun itself does not boil water on its own (in most areas). Therefore you need to go through an energy costing process in order to get the photons from the sun to be transformed into usable energy. Not only do you need energy to do this, you also need extremely environmentally toxic chemicals to help boost this process. Both fuel cells and the solar panels themselves are made out of extremely toxic materials. Currently the strategy of nations “leading the way with renewable energy” is to pay 3rd world countries to have them take the fuel cell/panel waste to throw in a dump somewhere. And you can bet your bottom dollar they aren’t dumping it in a safe way. Basically, the net energy solar is producing is 2 steps backward to get 3 steps forward, AT BEST, as long as the panels last 10 years WITHOUT the use of fuel cell storage (which also goes bad). You simply cannot get around the laws of physics. Solar/wind is actually way more expensive for citizens. It is so unreliable, no sun, not enough wind, power plants have to stay fully staffed even when shut down, because they will have to continually power up and power back down. Mind you these are plants designed to run continuously, and the constant power-up power-down process is extremely energy inefficient. So, if you live in an area receiving energy from solar panels or wind, you’re paying for the same power plant you’ve been using before plus the solar/wind generators, plus the infrastructure between the renewable generators, plus the costly process (both in carbon emissions and dollars) of powering up and down continuously. As it turns out, our most “renewable” energy is water. Yes it requires energy to boil, but it goes up, comes back down, and we have plenty of it. This is why nuclear is by far the best option. Zero emissions to hear water, a fraction of a percentile of the current waste produced by solar, as well as a very easy and safe way to store it, and oh yeah did mention far less energy and land investment made into building a Nuclear plant. I almost forgot to mention the vast amounts of land needed for solar/wind just produce a fraction of what a standard power plant can produce. You know, land that would otherwise be used by those big green leafy things (the name escapes me) that actually absorb carbon and exhale oxygen. Land that’s also home to the little critters we value so much.

That is a lot of deluded gibberish.


I think I will go with the actual scientists on this one and the consensus is clear, we are warming the planet with carbon emissions.

You do not have to believe it, you do not have to believe in gravity either, but you still have to live with it.

Consensus isn't science, moron. It's politics.

We don't have to live with nutbag proposals to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

Yes, there is a scientific consensus that gravity exists.

Now that is always up for challenge through empirical evidence if one can provide that evidence.

Such evidence does not exist.

The same applies to global warming.

Once again I refer you to actual scientists.

Scientific Consensus - NASA Science

It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s...

climate.nasa.gov

Sorry, but the argument for the existence of gravity hasn't changed in quite some time and there is no funny money behind it. There is a stark difference. Gravity is settled science, man made global warming is not.

Oh yes every international scientific body in the world is being bribed. Because as with gravity there is a scientific consensus on this issue.

NASA is being bribed.

Probably by the Secret Society of Spaghetti Monsters Against Fossil Fuels and Vaccines.

They certainly are being bribed. They are all on the govenrment payroll. Most of them owe their careers to the proposition being true, which is the best reason imaginable for believing it isn't true.

97% of global scientists are being bribed.


All I can say to that is "the truth is out there"

Groan!

They want it to be true. They aren't being bribed, they simply want funding, which will dry up if they go against the grain on this issue. They bought into the IPCC's data, even after it was found to be purposely manipulated to the desired outcome. The numbers proved the opposite of what they wanted to be true, so they changed the numbers. That is all you need to know about their true integrity.

 

[DBA]

"There is currently a strong scientific consensus that the Earth is warming and that this warming is mainly caused by human activities. This consensus is supported by various studies of scientists' opinions and by position statements of scientific organizations, many of which explicitly agree with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) synthesis reports.

Nearly all actively publishing climate scientists (97–98%[1]) support the consensus on anthropogenic climate change,[2][3] and the remaining 2% of contrarian studies either cannot be replicated or contain errors.[4]"

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ah, the same organization that was caught falsifying their data back in 2010. Those guys. LOL...dupe.

I know any source you do not want to believe is untrue.

NASA, the UN, every university on the planet, they are all lying.

That is how the superstitious work.

I can assure you that if they were to get grant or federal money to prove that it was not caused by humans, they would magically find other reasons for the change. The problem is, they don't.

 

[Jake Winker Frogen]

"There is currently a strong scientific consensus that the Earth is warming and that this warming is mainly caused by human activities. This consensus is supported by various studies of scientists' opinions and by position statements of scientific organizations, many of which explicitly agree with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) synthesis reports.

Nearly all actively publishing climate scientists (97–98%[1]) support the consensus on anthropogenic climate change,[2][3] and the remaining 2% of contrarian studies either cannot be replicated or contain errors.[4]"

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ah, the same organization that was caught falsifying their data back in 2010. Those guys. LOL...dupe.

I know any source you do not want to believe is untrue.

NASA, the UN, every university on the planet, they are all lying.

That is how the superstitious work.

I can assure you that if they were to get grant or federal money to prove that it was not caused by humans, they would magically find other reasons for the change. The problem is, they don't.

Yes 97% of the world's climate scientists are being bribed.


This concludes our game of try and talk about real science, thank you for playing.

 

[DBA]

"There is currently a strong scientific consensus that the Earth is warming and that this warming is mainly caused by human activities. This consensus is supported by various studies of scientists' opinions and by position statements of scientific organizations, many of which explicitly agree with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) synthesis reports.

Nearly all actively publishing climate scientists (97–98%[1]) support the consensus on anthropogenic climate change,[2][3] and the remaining 2% of contrarian studies either cannot be replicated or contain errors.[4]"

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ah, the same organization that was caught falsifying their data back in 2010. Those guys. LOL...dupe.

I know any source you do not want to believe is untrue.

NASA, the UN, every university on the planet, they are all lying.

That is how the superstitious work.

I can assure you that if they were to get grant or federal money to prove that it was not caused by humans, they would magically find other reasons for the change. The problem is, they don't.

Yes 97% of the world's climate scientists are being bribed.


This concludes our game of try and talk about real science, thank you for playing.

Don’t talk to me about real science. Real science doesn’t ever, ever falsify or ignore findings...not ever. PERIOD.

Yes, this concludes our game.

 

[Zorro!]

And that of course would be the case through out the world, so we can still rationally compare outcomes and Germany's outcome is much better than America's.

NO. That is NOT the case throughout the world unless the CDC is now managing the health of the entire planet.
The subject is how the CDC inflated deaths in the US by attributing all deaths to the Chinese originated
covid virus if the virus was present at all. So much so that the CDC was pressured into changing that policy.

Nevertheless that policy was in place for months and the US death toll remains inflated and uncorrected
and you remain disingenuous.

All countries are using that methodology, they have an "excess death mythology" as defined as " A range of estimates for the number of excess deaths was calculated as the difference between the observed count and one of two thresholds (either the average expected count or the upper bound threshold), by week and jurisdiction. Negative values, where the observed count fell below the threshold, were set to zero."

And the method of if one did not have a prognosis of death within the year and contracted COVID it is counted across the globe as a Covid related death.

There is no world health body, or American for that matter, which believes the USA is doing well in this pandemic.

Just wishing Americans were not dropping like flies by playing semantics with the numbers is not going to save any American lives.

America is far from the worst record when it comes to covid deaths and far from the best.
I know it serves your agenda to state otherwise, however. Saying we are "dropping like flies" is disingenuous and misleading and it won't win Joe the election you so desperately want.
Nothing will including all the post election chaos and disorder the left has planned.


As things stand right now we will have a covid vaccine soon and society will begin to come out of
politicized lockdown box leftist swine has tried to keep us in.

Joe Biden and all the Karens can wear their little masks all day long, if it thrills them to do so.

Only Spain in Europe has a worse death per 100K rate right now.

As in the chart I have provided in this thread many times.

Just to be clear....

There are other countries...just not in Europe....that have worse rates.

Also, we pay our hospitals more for treating COVID, so anyone who dies, that has COVID is listed as a "COVID" death, whereas in most countries unless COVID is actually what caused your death, your cause of death is not listed as COVID. It's not an apples to apples comparison.

Medical stats from country to country are NEVER an apples-to-apples comparison, because they don't compile ANY medical stats the same way we do. How many times have we heard the canard that infant mortality in the US is so much worse than the rest of the world, only to find out that it's largely because other countries simply don't count children who die in the first week of life as ever having existed at all?

On COVID the death rates per 100k most developed nations are using the same method, indeed it is the USA that most world health bodies are concerned are vastly under reporting due to your fragment health care system run by 50 different states. Some estimates are that the USA is under reporting by 33%.

You mean our health care system that bodies the DHSC for legit life threatening diseases like cancer. Our health care system where you can actually get the surgery you need within a week. Our healthcare system that the rest of the world, except Switzerland, has been leaching off of our innovation and the tens of billions we drop into R+D every year. That healthcare system? Y’all treat the healthy for dumb shit like broken arms and infections, while taxing the fuck out of your citizens and pretend like you’re hero’s for doing so. Meanwhile Canada sends all their cancer patients TO ME, to get the very best treatment that WE develop, and then pay for it. Your nurses and doctors are garbage. When y’all can start actually saving your cancer patients and stop sending them to me, and actually preform surgeries on things like joint replacements that aren’t outdated 30 years, when your hospitals have as many top of the line critical care beds as ours do, when you actually do your part in the world and start developing drugs, procedures, and technologies...then you can lecture us on our healthcare.

Me and my wife both work in one of the largest hospitals right next to the covid epicenter. We’re over reporting. 100%. Notice how the flu has effectively disappeared? In this current “spike”, we have 6 covid patients who are actually suffering from covid, among other things.

Australia has similar wait times as the USA, in fact shorter wait times for GP visits, yet gets far better results in every macro category except breast cancer treatment, and even there we are just behind the USA.

All at much cheaper cost.

BECUASE YOU SEND YOUR WORST CANCER PATIENTS TO US TO FIX. Ipso facto, y’all fucks don’t take the hit in death rates. We take on the worst cases, and still have a better death rate than all of y’all. Turns out, it’s pretty easy to take care of healthy people. In Europe they go to Switzerland. What’s the last medical innovation that came out of Australia? At least the French have Sanofi. Stop fucking swimming in our wake. We’re basically subsidizing the entire globes R+D. We’ve been subsidizing NATOs defense spending for decades. We just invented a goddamn missile that goes Mach 45. Why? Because y’all made incredibly stupid deals with China and now you’re having buyers remorse. And now we’re gonna have to arm you once again. What have you done recently for me Australia? The fucking gall of you foreigners who come here and lecture us about our politics while we’re the ones putting in the elbow grease to make YOUR lives better, healthier, and safer.

No we do not actually.

Australia has the best cancer treatment survival rates in the world.

Australia leads global cancer survival rates – but more can be done

An international study shows Australians have the best chance of survival for seven types of cancers.

www1.racgp.org.au

Here is a good article about Australian heath care and why over all it gets better outcomes than the USA at much lower cost.

What Australia can teach America about health care

Why the Australian system might represent a realistic path forward for the US.

www.vox.com

Nobody cares about your healthcare system....especially the spin from America hating Vox idiots.

You don't have to care.

You can continue to naval gaze as many Americans love to do.

I am just throwing the facts out there for the intelligent minority of Americans to consider.

Intelligent people learn from the rest of the world, both good and bad.

Facts? The only thing you threw out was Vox bullshit.

I understand, the cult of Trump only believes anything Trump says, nothing else.

All cults work this way.

You sound as if you are involved in the cult of the bubble.
A real true believer.

Though only thing I believe in is scientific method, blue skies and cold Australian beer, the rest is just an opinion.

You believe in global warming, so you don't believe in the scientific method.

Yes I do and so does NASA.

Climate Change Evidence: How Do We Know?

The rate of change since the mid-20th century is unprecedented over millennia.

climate.nasa.gov

We have been in a long term cooling trend for 6,000 years, True or False?

The Holocene climate was warming and actually proves our current warming in large part iscaused by humans. The warming 6,000 years ago was caused by Earth orbital changes which are currently not occurring or causing such rapid warming.

This is actually more evidence of human caused global warming in our time.

Mid-Holocene Warm Period – About 6,000 Years Ago | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Paleoclimatologists have long suspected that the "middle Holocene," roughly from 7,000 to 5,000 years ago, was warmer than the present day.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov

" Moreover, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and we know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years."

Here is a basic primer on why previous climate changes are not proof this climate change is not man made, rather proof it is.



"The Earth was indeed cooling over the last 6,000 years due to Earth's orbit, heading into the next glacial phase scheduled for about the year 3500 AD. But all that changed when we got to the industrial era. Global temperatures departed from that cooling trend, and instead rose parallel with our greenhouse gas emissions."

What does past climate change tell us about global warming?

Natural climate change in the past proves that climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past climate change actually provides evidence for our...

skepticalscience.com

That's pure bunk. We have no idea what temperature fluctuations were like 6000 years ago. The granularity of our records is measured in hundreds of years. You can't legitimately claim our temperatures have departed from anything. There is nothing unusual about our current warming.

I quote the link below again.

"The Earth was indeed cooling over the last 6,000 years due to Earth's orbit, heading into the next glacial phase scheduled for about the year 3500 AD....

Fake news. There was no "scheduled date" for the next glacial advance.

... But all that changed when we got to the industrial era. Global temperatures departed from that cooling trend, and instead rose parallel with our greenhouse gas emissions. "...

Fake News, temperatures began recovering at the end of the little ice age, and with warming temperatures, we get rising CO^2 levels, and earth's processes convert some of the excess CO^2 into living cells.

... We should be in a cooling period...

We are cooler than we were 5,000 years ago.

... denilist cheery....

No. The last interglacial lasted about 15,000 years, and we are pacing fairly consistently with that. Everything is as expected.

... Climate change denial has all the hallmarks of faith or religion, it only sees what it wants to see....

You are the one promoting a Doomsday Cult, I'm just pointing out that the evidence doesn't support your claims, which is the way with doomsday cults. They point to a date when the world is supposed to end, and then they are disappointed when the date passes uneventfully.

Your fake news is faker than the fake news you think is fake news.

The science is clear if you could understand it, the oribital causes of climate change was seeing us going into a cooling period well into the next thousand years but the carbon released from the industrial revolution changed all that.


I think I will trust the majority of climate scientists and NASA before I will trust a cult member always chanting "fake news" when confronted with scientific information they simply do not want to believe.

The actual science is the more energy dense fuel you use, the less carbon emissions there actually is. The order of energy density goes from (least-greatest) wood, coal, oil, gas, then nuclear (which doesn’t have carbon as a byproduct of the process). Wood is at 16 MJ/kg vs coal (depending on the type) is in the range of 20-30MJ/kg. Due to the laws of physics, it takes around twice the amount of carbon expenditure for wood to boil water (boiling water is the method for basically every large scale power generation) compared to coal. Natural gas is at 40 MJ/m3. So, thanks to Isaac Newton natural gas uses at least 33% less carbon byproduct to boil water. On top of that, with the nature of it being gas, and technology allowing precision amounts of gas to obtain the desired temp, there’s far less wasteful burning of it vs a solid fuel. In other words, a 1/m3 of gas goes a lot further than 1/KG of any solid fuel. Maybe you could achieve the same results with a powdered fuel as you would gas, but to powder it would be a process that requires more energy expenditure than gas in its natural form. Obviously because there is no carbon involved in the nuclear process, it’s superior by far. If you “care” about the climate, and you’re not pushing for nuclear, exit the conversation immediately. We haven’t even scratched the surface of what we can do with nuclear. We’re using 80 year old technology, and even then it’s still the far superior option. All because Jane Fonda, Gov Brown, the Sierra Club, and scores of other elites decided to demonize nuclear. Many of them to profit off of the oil business dealings they had (cough* cough* gov Brown), others because they nonsensically conflated nuclear energy with nuclear bombs during the Cold War (cough* cough* Jane Fonda types). And others (cough* cough* the Sierra club) wanted to continue their exploitation of 3rd world countries, because it’s easier to exploit poor people who remain poor by spending vast amounts of energy and money (and vast amount of environmental damage as well as carbon emissions) to cook their food and heat their homes using wood (set up for my next paragraph). It also helps when the philosophy of your little elite Sierra club is a Malthusian one, so fuck those poor people, amaright?

As I set up in the last paragraph......I mentioned wood even though it’s hardly used in 1st world countries. Not true for 3rd world countries. There’s this crazy idea out there that we can “leap frog” the 3rd world with renewable energies, and bypass coal and gas completely (set up for my 3rd paragraph). Absolutely absurd idea. The 1st world is struggling “renewable energy”. It is not reliable. So what winds up happening in these countries is that people just go back to using wood. Cutting down vast swaths of carbon scrubbing trees, destroying natural habitats, and oh yeah, dumping a hell of a lot more carbon into the atmosphere than they would if we accelerated their development with coal, then to gas, then to nuclear. Obviously I have no problem in helping them develop clean burning coal, clean burning gas, etc. It’s just a simple fact. The more developed your country is, the less emissions there are per person. It also follows that the less resources (physical, time, money, etc) people have to spend producing energy (I.e. cutting down trees, splitting wood, starting and keeping fires) the more time and energy they will have to be productive in other areas and become more prosperous. Having a reliable source of electricity is basically the #1 key on the road to prosperity, and consequently a reduction in carbon emissions.

What people are also not telling you is that not only is solar and wind severely unreliable, the battery/fuel cell tech is not there (never will be until the invention of super conductors), but also the production of fuel cells and panels (which eventually go bad 10 years at best) creates more emissions, and there is NO safe way to dispose of the extremely environmentally hazardous materials used to make them. There simply is no way to get around Isaac Newton’s laws. People think solar panels just sit there and the sun hits them and bam, energy. The sun itself does not boil water on its own (in most areas). Therefore you need to go through an energy costing process in order to get the photons from the sun to be transformed into usable energy. Not only do you need energy to do this, you also need extremely environmentally toxic chemicals to help boost this process. Both fuel cells and the solar panels themselves are made out of extremely toxic materials. Currently the strategy of nations “leading the way with renewable energy” is to pay 3rd world countries to have them take the fuel cell/panel waste to throw in a dump somewhere. And you can bet your bottom dollar they aren’t dumping it in a safe way. Basically, the net energy solar is producing is 2 steps backward to get 3 steps forward, AT BEST, as long as the panels last 10 years WITHOUT the use of fuel cell storage (which also goes bad). You simply cannot get around the laws of physics. Solar/wind is actually way more expensive for citizens. It is so unreliable, no sun, not enough wind, power plants have to stay fully staffed even when shut down, because they will have to continually power up and power back down. Mind you these are plants designed to run continuously, and the constant power-up power-down process is extremely energy inefficient. So, if you live in an area receiving energy from solar panels or wind, you’re paying for the same power plant you’ve been using before plus the solar/wind generators, plus the infrastructure between the renewable generators, plus the costly process (both in carbon emissions and dollars) of powering up and down continuously. As it turns out, our most “renewable” energy is water. Yes it requires energy to boil, but it goes up, comes back down, and we have plenty of it. This is why nuclear is by far the best option. Zero emissions to hear water, a fraction of a percentile of the current waste produced by solar, as well as a very easy and safe way to store it, and oh yeah did mention far less energy and land investment made into building a Nuclear plant. I almost forgot to mention the vast amounts of land needed for solar/wind just produce a fraction of what a standard power plant can produce. You know, land that would otherwise be used by those big green leafy things (the name escapes me) that actually absorb carbon and exhale oxygen. Land that’s also home to the little critters we value so much.

That is a lot of deluded gibberish.


I think I will go with the actual scientists on this one and the consensus is clear, we are warming the planet with carbon emissions.

You do not have to believe it, you do not have to believe in gravity either, but you still have to live with it.

Consensus isn't science, moron. It's politics.

We don't have to live with nutbag proposals to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

Yes, there is a scientific consensus that gravity exists.

Now that is always up for challenge through empirical evidence if one can provide that evidence.

Such evidence does not exist.

The same applies to global warming.

Once again I refer you to actual scientists.

Scientific Consensus - NASA Science

It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s...

climate.nasa.gov

Sorry, but the argument for the existence of gravity hasn't changed in quite some time and there is no funny money behind it. There is a stark difference. Gravity is settled science, man made global warming is not.

Oh yes every international scientific body in the world is being bribed. Because as with gravity there is a scientific consensus on this issue.

NASA is being bribed.

Probably by the Secret Society of Spaghetti Monsters Against Fossil Fuels and Vaccines.

They certainly are being bribed. They are all on the govenrment payroll. Most of them owe their careers to the proposition being true, which is the best reason imaginable for believing it isn't true.

97% of global scientists are being bribed.


All I can say to that is "the truth is out there"

Groan!

Fake News.

1. How many total scientists are there?
2. What was the testable statement they were asked to affirm?
3. How were their responses conveyed?

 

[Zorro!]

And that of course would be the case through out the world, so we can still rationally compare outcomes and Germany's outcome is much better than America's.

NO. That is NOT the case throughout the world unless the CDC is now managing the health of the entire planet.
The subject is how the CDC inflated deaths in the US by attributing all deaths to the Chinese originated
covid virus if the virus was present at all. So much so that the CDC was pressured into changing that policy.

Nevertheless that policy was in place for months and the US death toll remains inflated and uncorrected
and you remain disingenuous.

All countries are using that methodology, they have an "excess death mythology" as defined as " A range of estimates for the number of excess deaths was calculated as the difference between the observed count and one of two thresholds (either the average expected count or the upper bound threshold), by week and jurisdiction. Negative values, where the observed count fell below the threshold, were set to zero."

And the method of if one did not have a prognosis of death within the year and contracted COVID it is counted across the globe as a Covid related death.

There is no world health body, or American for that matter, which believes the USA is doing well in this pandemic.

Just wishing Americans were not dropping like flies by playing semantics with the numbers is not going to save any American lives.

America is far from the worst record when it comes to covid deaths and far from the best.
I know it serves your agenda to state otherwise, however. Saying we are "dropping like flies" is disingenuous and misleading and it won't win Joe the election you so desperately want.
Nothing will including all the post election chaos and disorder the left has planned.


As things stand right now we will have a covid vaccine soon and society will begin to come out of
politicized lockdown box leftist swine has tried to keep us in.

Joe Biden and all the Karens can wear their little masks all day long, if it thrills them to do so.

Only Spain in Europe has a worse death per 100K rate right now.

As in the chart I have provided in this thread many times.

Just to be clear....

There are other countries...just not in Europe....that have worse rates.

Also, we pay our hospitals more for treating COVID, so anyone who dies, that has COVID is listed as a "COVID" death, whereas in most countries unless COVID is actually what caused your death, your cause of death is not listed as COVID. It's not an apples to apples comparison.

Medical stats from country to country are NEVER an apples-to-apples comparison, because they don't compile ANY medical stats the same way we do. How many times have we heard the canard that infant mortality in the US is so much worse than the rest of the world, only to find out that it's largely because other countries simply don't count children who die in the first week of life as ever having existed at all?

On COVID the death rates per 100k most developed nations are using the same method, indeed it is the USA that most world health bodies are concerned are vastly under reporting due to your fragment health care system run by 50 different states. Some estimates are that the USA is under reporting by 33%.

You mean our health care system that bodies the DHSC for legit life threatening diseases like cancer. Our health care system where you can actually get the surgery you need within a week. Our healthcare system that the rest of the world, except Switzerland, has been leaching off of our innovation and the tens of billions we drop into R+D every year. That healthcare system? Y’all treat the healthy for dumb shit like broken arms and infections, while taxing the fuck out of your citizens and pretend like you’re hero’s for doing so. Meanwhile Canada sends all their cancer patients TO ME, to get the very best treatment that WE develop, and then pay for it. Your nurses and doctors are garbage. When y’all can start actually saving your cancer patients and stop sending them to me, and actually preform surgeries on things like joint replacements that aren’t outdated 30 years, when your hospitals have as many top of the line critical care beds as ours do, when you actually do your part in the world and start developing drugs, procedures, and technologies...then you can lecture us on our healthcare.

Me and my wife both work in one of the largest hospitals right next to the covid epicenter. We’re over reporting. 100%. Notice how the flu has effectively disappeared? In this current “spike”, we have 6 covid patients who are actually suffering from covid, among other things.

Australia has similar wait times as the USA, in fact shorter wait times for GP visits, yet gets far better results in every macro category except breast cancer treatment, and even there we are just behind the USA.

All at much cheaper cost.

BECUASE YOU SEND YOUR WORST CANCER PATIENTS TO US TO FIX. Ipso facto, y’all fucks don’t take the hit in death rates. We take on the worst cases, and still have a better death rate than all of y’all. Turns out, it’s pretty easy to take care of healthy people. In Europe they go to Switzerland. What’s the last medical innovation that came out of Australia? At least the French have Sanofi. Stop fucking swimming in our wake. We’re basically subsidizing the entire globes R+D. We’ve been subsidizing NATOs defense spending for decades. We just invented a goddamn missile that goes Mach 45. Why? Because y’all made incredibly stupid deals with China and now you’re having buyers remorse. And now we’re gonna have to arm you once again. What have you done recently for me Australia? The fucking gall of you foreigners who come here and lecture us about our politics while we’re the ones putting in the elbow grease to make YOUR lives better, healthier, and safer.

No we do not actually.

Australia has the best cancer treatment survival rates in the world.

Australia leads global cancer survival rates – but more can be done

An international study shows Australians have the best chance of survival for seven types of cancers.

www1.racgp.org.au

Here is a good article about Australian heath care and why over all it gets better outcomes than the USA at much lower cost.

What Australia can teach America about health care

Why the Australian system might represent a realistic path forward for the US.

www.vox.com

Nobody cares about your healthcare system....especially the spin from America hating Vox idiots.

You don't have to care.

You can continue to naval gaze as many Americans love to do.

I am just throwing the facts out there for the intelligent minority of Americans to consider.

Intelligent people learn from the rest of the world, both good and bad.

Facts? The only thing you threw out was Vox bullshit.

I understand, the cult of Trump only believes anything Trump says, nothing else.

All cults work this way.

You sound as if you are involved in the cult of the bubble.
A real true believer.

Though only thing I believe in is scientific method, blue skies and cold Australian beer, the rest is just an opinion.

You believe in global warming, so you don't believe in the scientific method.

Yes I do and so does NASA.

Climate Change Evidence: How Do We Know?

The rate of change since the mid-20th century is unprecedented over millennia.

climate.nasa.gov

We have been in a long term cooling trend for 6,000 years, True or False?

The Holocene climate was warming and actually proves our current warming in large part iscaused by humans. The warming 6,000 years ago was caused by Earth orbital changes which are currently not occurring or causing such rapid warming.

This is actually more evidence of human caused global warming in our time.

Mid-Holocene Warm Period – About 6,000 Years Ago | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Paleoclimatologists have long suspected that the "middle Holocene," roughly from 7,000 to 5,000 years ago, was warmer than the present day.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov

" Moreover, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and we know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years."

Here is a basic primer on why previous climate changes are not proof this climate change is not man made, rather proof it is.



"The Earth was indeed cooling over the last 6,000 years due to Earth's orbit, heading into the next glacial phase scheduled for about the year 3500 AD. But all that changed when we got to the industrial era. Global temperatures departed from that cooling trend, and instead rose parallel with our greenhouse gas emissions."

What does past climate change tell us about global warming?

Natural climate change in the past proves that climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past climate change actually provides evidence for our...

skepticalscience.com

That's pure bunk. We have no idea what temperature fluctuations were like 6000 years ago. The granularity of our records is measured in hundreds of years. You can't legitimately claim our temperatures have departed from anything. There is nothing unusual about our current warming.

I quote the link below again.

"The Earth was indeed cooling over the last 6,000 years due to Earth's orbit, heading into the next glacial phase scheduled for about the year 3500 AD....

Fake news. There was no "scheduled date" for the next glacial advance.

... But all that changed when we got to the industrial era. Global temperatures departed from that cooling trend, and instead rose parallel with our greenhouse gas emissions. "...

Fake News, temperatures began recovering at the end of the little ice age, and with warming temperatures, we get rising CO^2 levels, and earth's processes convert some of the excess CO^2 into living cells.

... We should be in a cooling period...

We are cooler than we were 5,000 years ago.

... denilist cheery....

No. The last interglacial lasted about 15,000 years, and we are pacing fairly consistently with that. Everything is as expected.

... Climate change denial has all the hallmarks of faith or religion, it only sees what it wants to see....

You are the one promoting a Doomsday Cult, I'm just pointing out that the evidence doesn't support your claims, which is the way with doomsday cults. They point to a date when the world is supposed to end, and then they are disappointed when the date passes uneventfully.

Your fake news is faker than the fake news you think is fake news.

The science is clear if you could understand it, the oribital causes of climate change was seeing us going into a cooling period well into the next thousand years but the carbon released from the industrial revolution changed all that.


I think I will trust the majority of climate scientists and NASA before I will trust a cult member always chanting "fake news" when confronted with scientific information they simply do not want to believe.

The actual science is the more energy dense fuel you use, the less carbon emissions there actually is. The order of energy density goes from (least-greatest) wood, coal, oil, gas, then nuclear (which doesn’t have carbon as a byproduct of the process). Wood is at 16 MJ/kg vs coal (depending on the type) is in the range of 20-30MJ/kg. Due to the laws of physics, it takes around twice the amount of carbon expenditure for wood to boil water (boiling water is the method for basically every large scale power generation) compared to coal. Natural gas is at 40 MJ/m3. So, thanks to Isaac Newton natural gas uses at least 33% less carbon byproduct to boil water. On top of that, with the nature of it being gas, and technology allowing precision amounts of gas to obtain the desired temp, there’s far less wasteful burning of it vs a solid fuel. In other words, a 1/m3 of gas goes a lot further than 1/KG of any solid fuel. Maybe you could achieve the same results with a powdered fuel as you would gas, but to powder it would be a process that requires more energy expenditure than gas in its natural form. Obviously because there is no carbon involved in the nuclear process, it’s superior by far. If you “care” about the climate, and you’re not pushing for nuclear, exit the conversation immediately. We haven’t even scratched the surface of what we can do with nuclear. We’re using 80 year old technology, and even then it’s still the far superior option. All because Jane Fonda, Gov Brown, the Sierra Club, and scores of other elites decided to demonize nuclear. Many of them to profit off of the oil business dealings they had (cough* cough* gov Brown), others because they nonsensically conflated nuclear energy with nuclear bombs during the Cold War (cough* cough* Jane Fonda types). And others (cough* cough* the Sierra club) wanted to continue their exploitation of 3rd world countries, because it’s easier to exploit poor people who remain poor by spending vast amounts of energy and money (and vast amount of environmental damage as well as carbon emissions) to cook their food and heat their homes using wood (set up for my next paragraph). It also helps when the philosophy of your little elite Sierra club is a Malthusian one, so fuck those poor people, amaright?

As I set up in the last paragraph......I mentioned wood even though it’s hardly used in 1st world countries. Not true for 3rd world countries. There’s this crazy idea out there that we can “leap frog” the 3rd world with renewable energies, and bypass coal and gas completely (set up for my 3rd paragraph). Absolutely absurd idea. The 1st world is struggling “renewable energy”. It is not reliable. So what winds up happening in these countries is that people just go back to using wood. Cutting down vast swaths of carbon scrubbing trees, destroying natural habitats, and oh yeah, dumping a hell of a lot more carbon into the atmosphere than they would if we accelerated their development with coal, then to gas, then to nuclear. Obviously I have no problem in helping them develop clean burning coal, clean burning gas, etc. It’s just a simple fact. The more developed your country is, the less emissions there are per person. It also follows that the less resources (physical, time, money, etc) people have to spend producing energy (I.e. cutting down trees, splitting wood, starting and keeping fires) the more time and energy they will have to be productive in other areas and become more prosperous. Having a reliable source of electricity is basically the #1 key on the road to prosperity, and consequently a reduction in carbon emissions.

What people are also not telling you is that not only is solar and wind severely unreliable, the battery/fuel cell tech is not there (never will be until the invention of super conductors), but also the production of fuel cells and panels (which eventually go bad 10 years at best) creates more emissions, and there is NO safe way to dispose of the extremely environmentally hazardous materials used to make them. There simply is no way to get around Isaac Newton’s laws. People think solar panels just sit there and the sun hits them and bam, energy. The sun itself does not boil water on its own (in most areas). Therefore you need to go through an energy costing process in order to get the photons from the sun to be transformed into usable energy. Not only do you need energy to do this, you also need extremely environmentally toxic chemicals to help boost this process. Both fuel cells and the solar panels themselves are made out of extremely toxic materials. Currently the strategy of nations “leading the way with renewable energy” is to pay 3rd world countries to have them take the fuel cell/panel waste to throw in a dump somewhere. And you can bet your bottom dollar they aren’t dumping it in a safe way. Basically, the net energy solar is producing is 2 steps backward to get 3 steps forward, AT BEST, as long as the panels last 10 years WITHOUT the use of fuel cell storage (which also goes bad). You simply cannot get around the laws of physics. Solar/wind is actually way more expensive for citizens. It is so unreliable, no sun, not enough wind, power plants have to stay fully staffed even when shut down, because they will have to continually power up and power back down. Mind you these are plants designed to run continuously, and the constant power-up power-down process is extremely energy inefficient. So, if you live in an area receiving energy from solar panels or wind, you’re paying for the same power plant you’ve been using before plus the solar/wind generators, plus the infrastructure between the renewable generators, plus the costly process (both in carbon emissions and dollars) of powering up and down continuously. As it turns out, our most “renewable” energy is water. Yes it requires energy to boil, but it goes up, comes back down, and we have plenty of it. This is why nuclear is by far the best option. Zero emissions to hear water, a fraction of a percentile of the current waste produced by solar, as well as a very easy and safe way to store it, and oh yeah did mention far less energy and land investment made into building a Nuclear plant. I almost forgot to mention the vast amounts of land needed for solar/wind just produce a fraction of what a standard power plant can produce. You know, land that would otherwise be used by those big green leafy things (the name escapes me) that actually absorb carbon and exhale oxygen. Land that’s also home to the little critters we value so much.

That is a lot of deluded gibberish.


I think I will go with the actual scientists on this one and the consensus is clear, we are warming the planet with carbon emissions.

You do not have to believe it, you do not have to believe in gravity either, but you still have to live with it.

Consensus isn't science, moron. It's politics.

We don't have to live with nutbag proposals to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

Yes, there is a scientific consensus that gravity exists.

Now that is always up for challenge through empirical evidence if one can provide that evidence.

Such evidence does not exist.

The same applies to global warming.

Once again I refer you to actual scientists.

Scientific Consensus - NASA Science

It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s...

climate.nasa.gov

Sorry, but the argument for the existence of gravity hasn't changed in quite some time and there is no funny money behind it. There is a stark difference. Gravity is settled science, man made global warming is not.

Oh yes every international scientific body in the world is being bribed. Because as with gravity there is a scientific consensus on this issue.

NASA is being bribed.

Probably by the Secret Society of Spaghetti Monsters Against Fossil Fuels and Vaccines.

Fake News.

1. What are the testable statements they affirmed?
2. How was this affirmation communicated?
3. How many directly affirmed the statements in question 1?
4. How many total scientists are their in the world?

 

[Jake Winker Frogen]

And that of course would be the case through out the world, so we can still rationally compare outcomes and Germany's outcome is much better than America's.

NO. That is NOT the case throughout the world unless the CDC is now managing the health of the entire planet.
The subject is how the CDC inflated deaths in the US by attributing all deaths to the Chinese originated
covid virus if the virus was present at all. So much so that the CDC was pressured into changing that policy.

Nevertheless that policy was in place for months and the US death toll remains inflated and uncorrected
and you remain disingenuous.

All countries are using that methodology, they have an "excess death mythology" as defined as " A range of estimates for the number of excess deaths was calculated as the difference between the observed count and one of two thresholds (either the average expected count or the upper bound threshold), by week and jurisdiction. Negative values, where the observed count fell below the threshold, were set to zero."

And the method of if one did not have a prognosis of death within the year and contracted COVID it is counted across the globe as a Covid related death.

There is no world health body, or American for that matter, which believes the USA is doing well in this pandemic.

Just wishing Americans were not dropping like flies by playing semantics with the numbers is not going to save any American lives.

America is far from the worst record when it comes to covid deaths and far from the best.
I know it serves your agenda to state otherwise, however. Saying we are "dropping like flies" is disingenuous and misleading and it won't win Joe the election you so desperately want.
Nothing will including all the post election chaos and disorder the left has planned.


As things stand right now we will have a covid vaccine soon and society will begin to come out of
politicized lockdown box leftist swine has tried to keep us in.

Joe Biden and all the Karens can wear their little masks all day long, if it thrills them to do so.

Only Spain in Europe has a worse death per 100K rate right now.

As in the chart I have provided in this thread many times.

Just to be clear....

There are other countries...just not in Europe....that have worse rates.

Also, we pay our hospitals more for treating COVID, so anyone who dies, that has COVID is listed as a "COVID" death, whereas in most countries unless COVID is actually what caused your death, your cause of death is not listed as COVID. It's not an apples to apples comparison.

Medical stats from country to country are NEVER an apples-to-apples comparison, because they don't compile ANY medical stats the same way we do. How many times have we heard the canard that infant mortality in the US is so much worse than the rest of the world, only to find out that it's largely because other countries simply don't count children who die in the first week of life as ever having existed at all?

On COVID the death rates per 100k most developed nations are using the same method, indeed it is the USA that most world health bodies are concerned are vastly under reporting due to your fragment health care system run by 50 different states. Some estimates are that the USA is under reporting by 33%.

You mean our health care system that bodies the DHSC for legit life threatening diseases like cancer. Our health care system where you can actually get the surgery you need within a week. Our healthcare system that the rest of the world, except Switzerland, has been leaching off of our innovation and the tens of billions we drop into R+D every year. That healthcare system? Y’all treat the healthy for dumb shit like broken arms and infections, while taxing the fuck out of your citizens and pretend like you’re hero’s for doing so. Meanwhile Canada sends all their cancer patients TO ME, to get the very best treatment that WE develop, and then pay for it. Your nurses and doctors are garbage. When y’all can start actually saving your cancer patients and stop sending them to me, and actually preform surgeries on things like joint replacements that aren’t outdated 30 years, when your hospitals have as many top of the line critical care beds as ours do, when you actually do your part in the world and start developing drugs, procedures, and technologies...then you can lecture us on our healthcare.

Me and my wife both work in one of the largest hospitals right next to the covid epicenter. We’re over reporting. 100%. Notice how the flu has effectively disappeared? In this current “spike”, we have 6 covid patients who are actually suffering from covid, among other things.

Australia has similar wait times as the USA, in fact shorter wait times for GP visits, yet gets far better results in every macro category except breast cancer treatment, and even there we are just behind the USA.

All at much cheaper cost.

BECUASE YOU SEND YOUR WORST CANCER PATIENTS TO US TO FIX. Ipso facto, y’all fucks don’t take the hit in death rates. We take on the worst cases, and still have a better death rate than all of y’all. Turns out, it’s pretty easy to take care of healthy people. In Europe they go to Switzerland. What’s the last medical innovation that came out of Australia? At least the French have Sanofi. Stop fucking swimming in our wake. We’re basically subsidizing the entire globes R+D. We’ve been subsidizing NATOs defense spending for decades. We just invented a goddamn missile that goes Mach 45. Why? Because y’all made incredibly stupid deals with China and now you’re having buyers remorse. And now we’re gonna have to arm you once again. What have you done recently for me Australia? The fucking gall of you foreigners who come here and lecture us about our politics while we’re the ones putting in the elbow grease to make YOUR lives better, healthier, and safer.

No we do not actually.

Australia has the best cancer treatment survival rates in the world.

Australia leads global cancer survival rates – but more can be done

An international study shows Australians have the best chance of survival for seven types of cancers.

www1.racgp.org.au

Here is a good article about Australian heath care and why over all it gets better outcomes than the USA at much lower cost.

What Australia can teach America about health care

Why the Australian system might represent a realistic path forward for the US.

www.vox.com

Nobody cares about your healthcare system....especially the spin from America hating Vox idiots.

You don't have to care.

You can continue to naval gaze as many Americans love to do.

I am just throwing the facts out there for the intelligent minority of Americans to consider.

Intelligent people learn from the rest of the world, both good and bad.

Facts? The only thing you threw out was Vox bullshit.

I understand, the cult of Trump only believes anything Trump says, nothing else.

All cults work this way.

You sound as if you are involved in the cult of the bubble.
A real true believer.

Though only thing I believe in is scientific method, blue skies and cold Australian beer, the rest is just an opinion.

You believe in global warming, so you don't believe in the scientific method.

Yes I do and so does NASA.

Climate Change Evidence: How Do We Know?

The rate of change since the mid-20th century is unprecedented over millennia.

climate.nasa.gov

We have been in a long term cooling trend for 6,000 years, True or False?

The Holocene climate was warming and actually proves our current warming in large part iscaused by humans. The warming 6,000 years ago was caused by Earth orbital changes which are currently not occurring or causing such rapid warming.

This is actually more evidence of human caused global warming in our time.

Mid-Holocene Warm Period – About 6,000 Years Ago | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Paleoclimatologists have long suspected that the "middle Holocene," roughly from 7,000 to 5,000 years ago, was warmer than the present day.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov

" Moreover, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and we know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years."

Here is a basic primer on why previous climate changes are not proof this climate change is not man made, rather proof it is.



"The Earth was indeed cooling over the last 6,000 years due to Earth's orbit, heading into the next glacial phase scheduled for about the year 3500 AD. But all that changed when we got to the industrial era. Global temperatures departed from that cooling trend, and instead rose parallel with our greenhouse gas emissions."

What does past climate change tell us about global warming?

Natural climate change in the past proves that climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past climate change actually provides evidence for our...

skepticalscience.com

That's pure bunk. We have no idea what temperature fluctuations were like 6000 years ago. The granularity of our records is measured in hundreds of years. You can't legitimately claim our temperatures have departed from anything. There is nothing unusual about our current warming.

I quote the link below again.

"The Earth was indeed cooling over the last 6,000 years due to Earth's orbit, heading into the next glacial phase scheduled for about the year 3500 AD....

Fake news. There was no "scheduled date" for the next glacial advance.

... But all that changed when we got to the industrial era. Global temperatures departed from that cooling trend, and instead rose parallel with our greenhouse gas emissions. "...

Fake News, temperatures began recovering at the end of the little ice age, and with warming temperatures, we get rising CO^2 levels, and earth's processes convert some of the excess CO^2 into living cells.

... We should be in a cooling period...

We are cooler than we were 5,000 years ago.

... denilist cheery....

No. The last interglacial lasted about 15,000 years, and we are pacing fairly consistently with that. Everything is as expected.

... Climate change denial has all the hallmarks of faith or religion, it only sees what it wants to see....

You are the one promoting a Doomsday Cult, I'm just pointing out that the evidence doesn't support your claims, which is the way with doomsday cults. They point to a date when the world is supposed to end, and then they are disappointed when the date passes uneventfully.

Your fake news is faker than the fake news you think is fake news.

The science is clear if you could understand it, the oribital causes of climate change was seeing us going into a cooling period well into the next thousand years but the carbon released from the industrial revolution changed all that.


I think I will trust the majority of climate scientists and NASA before I will trust a cult member always chanting "fake news" when confronted with scientific information they simply do not want to believe.

The actual science is the more energy dense fuel you use, the less carbon emissions there actually is. The order of energy density goes from (least-greatest) wood, coal, oil, gas, then nuclear (which doesn’t have carbon as a byproduct of the process). Wood is at 16 MJ/kg vs coal (depending on the type) is in the range of 20-30MJ/kg. Due to the laws of physics, it takes around twice the amount of carbon expenditure for wood to boil water (boiling water is the method for basically every large scale power generation) compared to coal. Natural gas is at 40 MJ/m3. So, thanks to Isaac Newton natural gas uses at least 33% less carbon byproduct to boil water. On top of that, with the nature of it being gas, and technology allowing precision amounts of gas to obtain the desired temp, there’s far less wasteful burning of it vs a solid fuel. In other words, a 1/m3 of gas goes a lot further than 1/KG of any solid fuel. Maybe you could achieve the same results with a powdered fuel as you would gas, but to powder it would be a process that requires more energy expenditure than gas in its natural form. Obviously because there is no carbon involved in the nuclear process, it’s superior by far. If you “care” about the climate, and you’re not pushing for nuclear, exit the conversation immediately. We haven’t even scratched the surface of what we can do with nuclear. We’re using 80 year old technology, and even then it’s still the far superior option. All because Jane Fonda, Gov Brown, the Sierra Club, and scores of other elites decided to demonize nuclear. Many of them to profit off of the oil business dealings they had (cough* cough* gov Brown), others because they nonsensically conflated nuclear energy with nuclear bombs during the Cold War (cough* cough* Jane Fonda types). And others (cough* cough* the Sierra club) wanted to continue their exploitation of 3rd world countries, because it’s easier to exploit poor people who remain poor by spending vast amounts of energy and money (and vast amount of environmental damage as well as carbon emissions) to cook their food and heat their homes using wood (set up for my next paragraph). It also helps when the philosophy of your little elite Sierra club is a Malthusian one, so fuck those poor people, amaright?

As I set up in the last paragraph......I mentioned wood even though it’s hardly used in 1st world countries. Not true for 3rd world countries. There’s this crazy idea out there that we can “leap frog” the 3rd world with renewable energies, and bypass coal and gas completely (set up for my 3rd paragraph). Absolutely absurd idea. The 1st world is struggling “renewable energy”. It is not reliable. So what winds up happening in these countries is that people just go back to using wood. Cutting down vast swaths of carbon scrubbing trees, destroying natural habitats, and oh yeah, dumping a hell of a lot more carbon into the atmosphere than they would if we accelerated their development with coal, then to gas, then to nuclear. Obviously I have no problem in helping them develop clean burning coal, clean burning gas, etc. It’s just a simple fact. The more developed your country is, the less emissions there are per person. It also follows that the less resources (physical, time, money, etc) people have to spend producing energy (I.e. cutting down trees, splitting wood, starting and keeping fires) the more time and energy they will have to be productive in other areas and become more prosperous. Having a reliable source of electricity is basically the #1 key on the road to prosperity, and consequently a reduction in carbon emissions.

What people are also not telling you is that not only is solar and wind severely unreliable, the battery/fuel cell tech is not there (never will be until the invention of super conductors), but also the production of fuel cells and panels (which eventually go bad 10 years at best) creates more emissions, and there is NO safe way to dispose of the extremely environmentally hazardous materials used to make them. There simply is no way to get around Isaac Newton’s laws. People think solar panels just sit there and the sun hits them and bam, energy. The sun itself does not boil water on its own (in most areas). Therefore you need to go through an energy costing process in order to get the photons from the sun to be transformed into usable energy. Not only do you need energy to do this, you also need extremely environmentally toxic chemicals to help boost this process. Both fuel cells and the solar panels themselves are made out of extremely toxic materials. Currently the strategy of nations “leading the way with renewable energy” is to pay 3rd world countries to have them take the fuel cell/panel waste to throw in a dump somewhere. And you can bet your bottom dollar they aren’t dumping it in a safe way. Basically, the net energy solar is producing is 2 steps backward to get 3 steps forward, AT BEST, as long as the panels last 10 years WITHOUT the use of fuel cell storage (which also goes bad). You simply cannot get around the laws of physics. Solar/wind is actually way more expensive for citizens. It is so unreliable, no sun, not enough wind, power plants have to stay fully staffed even when shut down, because they will have to continually power up and power back down. Mind you these are plants designed to run continuously, and the constant power-up power-down process is extremely energy inefficient. So, if you live in an area receiving energy from solar panels or wind, you’re paying for the same power plant you’ve been using before plus the solar/wind generators, plus the infrastructure between the renewable generators, plus the costly process (both in carbon emissions and dollars) of powering up and down continuously. As it turns out, our most “renewable” energy is water. Yes it requires energy to boil, but it goes up, comes back down, and we have plenty of it. This is why nuclear is by far the best option. Zero emissions to hear water, a fraction of a percentile of the current waste produced by solar, as well as a very easy and safe way to store it, and oh yeah did mention far less energy and land investment made into building a Nuclear plant. I almost forgot to mention the vast amounts of land needed for solar/wind just produce a fraction of what a standard power plant can produce. You know, land that would otherwise be used by those big green leafy things (the name escapes me) that actually absorb carbon and exhale oxygen. Land that’s also home to the little critters we value so much.

That is a lot of deluded gibberish.


I think I will go with the actual scientists on this one and the consensus is clear, we are warming the planet with carbon emissions.

You do not have to believe it, you do not have to believe in gravity either, but you still have to live with it.

Consensus isn't science, moron. It's politics.

We don't have to live with nutbag proposals to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

Yes, there is a scientific consensus that gravity exists.

Now that is always up for challenge through empirical evidence if one can provide that evidence.

Such evidence does not exist.

The same applies to global warming.

Once again I refer you to actual scientists.

Scientific Consensus - NASA Science

It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s...

climate.nasa.gov

Sorry, but the argument for the existence of gravity hasn't changed in quite some time and there is no funny money behind it. There is a stark difference. Gravity is settled science, man made global warming is not.

Oh yes every international scientific body in the world is being bribed. Because as with gravity there is a scientific consensus on this issue.

NASA is being bribed.

Probably by the Secret Society of Spaghetti Monsters Against Fossil Fuels and Vaccines.

Fake News.

1. What are the testable statements they affirmed?
2. How was this affirmation communicated?
3. How many directly affirmed the statements in question 1?
4. How many total scientists are their in the world?

You can read the sources and answer your questions, some posted here for you.

But you will not, because you do not want any answer that does not tell you what you do not want to hear.
I am worn out, discussing science with you is like trying to discuss quantum physics with a gerbil that just emerged from Elton John's ass.

 

[Zorro!]

Liberty is find, rejected scientific evidence or any source that does not tell you what you want to hear is not intellectual liberty however, it is mental slavery.

So, socialism just killed 120 million. It is by far the most evil idea in human history and yet Democrats embrace it. It that scientific thinking and plain pure stupidity??

Totolitarian communism killed more than that actually.

As raw, unregulated capitalism has mass killed as well. The trans Atlantic slave trade enslaved 10 million to 12 million and there are no reliable figures on how many died. The Irish potato famine occurred largely due to capitalist notions the market should sort it out and the state not provide mass aid. The list could go on and on as capitalist exploitation of global resources led to global colonialism in the 19th century which killed hundreds of million.

Extremes of any economic ideology kills.

Democratic social welfare states such as Norway or Denmark actually proved their people with a better overall standard of living than the USA.

give us an example of when "unregulated capitalism" mass killed.

Slavery is not a feature of capitalism, moron. Capitalism did not cause the Irish Potato famine. It was the British government that prevented the import of grain to Ireland. That has nothing to do with the free market.

You list is full of the typical bogus examples. When Gengis Khan wiped out entire nations, was that capitalism? Can you define precisely what you believe capitalism is?

I just did, slavery was totally based on capitalism, every historian on the planet will tell you that.

The Triangular Trade, which connected capitalist trading connections with the policy of capitalism. Indeed every aspect of capitalism drove the slave trade, from the rise of insurance to cover risk of the voyages and losses of dead slaves to stock markets which floated stocks in slave trading companies to credit extended with slaves as collateral.

Most of Thomas Jefferson's wealth was due to loans based on his slaves as colleterial.

No you didn't give an example, moron. capitalism is not compatible with slavery.

You are dismissed.

The Irish Potato Famine was directly caused by capitalist philosophy. The British government was being flooded with pleas to offer help, they refused because it violated their capitalist ideology government should not intervene in what they saw as a market rather than a humanitarian disaster.

One could go on and on through the evolution of capitalism.

The British government prevented Ireland from importing grain. A famine caused by government is not an example of capitalism.

You're a moron.

The slaughter of the Native American tribes was often driven by capitalist greed for land, either by individuals or capitalist organisations. The Black Hills were taken from the Native Americans not by the government, but by capitalist individuals and mining companies searching for gold against the government's objections for a time.

In the first place, there's no credible argument that native Americans owned the black hills. In the second place, you're blaming capitalism for government policy. Apparently, no matter what the government does, capitalism is to blame. That's a stupid argument.

And now we come to the biggie, global warming, which if we do nothing about it will end up killing hundreds of millions, that is directly caused by capitalist development of fossil fuels and the capitalist idea consumption and economies should ever grow.

Global warming is a hoax, If anything, fewer people will die if the global climate warms.

International Relief Efforts During the Famine - Irish America

The Irish government designated 17 May 2009 as the first National Famine Memorial Day. On that day, Irish people throughout the world remembered and honored the victims of Ireland’s Great […]

irishamerica.com

"Despite the shortages, the British government decided not to interfere in the marketplace to provide food to the poor Irish, but left food import and distribution to free market forces. Moreover, they allowed foodstuffs – vast amounts of foodstuffs – to be exported from Ireland. Merchants made large profits while people starved. "

That's a giant lie. The British government outlawed the import of cheap American grain.

You need to quit reading Marxist propaganda.

It is clear if you actually read historians and not just the voices in your mind, the British government did not provide relief because they believed market forces should sort it out and even allowed capitalist traders to make money exporting food away from Ireland.

They allowed the free market to make all the decisions and it caused mass death.

Now you can call historians liars because they are telling you something you do not want to know, but that does not make it any less a historical fact.

The Black Hills never belonged to the Lakota Souix?

Not according to the Fort Laramie Treaty between the United States and the Sioux Nation unambiguously recognized their ownership of the land. It is just capitalists Americans rushed in and ignored the treaty to get gold, against the wishes of the US government.

Climate Change a hoax.

So is gravity I suppose or the Moon landing?

Climate Change Evidence: How Do We Know?

The rate of change since the mid-20th century is unprecedented over millennia.

climate.nasa.gov

climate change is a hoax in the sense that silly communists and socialists in America are making you believe that if you drive a Prius it will make a difference while China and India are adding tremendously to the net carbon content of the atmosphere every day and will continue to do so for decades to come. If it is real the solution is Geo engineering not battery powered cars.

Yes the moon landing was a hoax and 5G towers will control your mind and vaccines are mind control drugs.

And that of course would be the case through out the world, so we can still rationally compare outcomes and Germany's outcome is much better than America's.

NO. That is NOT the case throughout the world unless the CDC is now managing the health of the entire planet.
The subject is how the CDC inflated deaths in the US by attributing all deaths to the Chinese originated
covid virus if the virus was present at all. So much so that the CDC was pressured into changing that policy.

Nevertheless that policy was in place for months and the US death toll remains inflated and uncorrected
and you remain disingenuous.

All countries are using that methodology, they have an "excess death mythology" as defined as " A range of estimates for the number of excess deaths was calculated as the difference between the observed count and one of two thresholds (either the average expected count or the upper bound threshold), by week and jurisdiction. Negative values, where the observed count fell below the threshold, were set to zero."

And the method of if one did not have a prognosis of death within the year and contracted COVID it is counted across the globe as a Covid related death.

There is no world health body, or American for that matter, which believes the USA is doing well in this pandemic.

Just wishing Americans were not dropping like flies by playing semantics with the numbers is not going to save any American lives.

America is far from the worst record when it comes to covid deaths and far from the best.
I know it serves your agenda to state otherwise, however. Saying we are "dropping like flies" is disingenuous and misleading and it won't win Joe the election you so desperately want.
Nothing will including all the post election chaos and disorder the left has planned.


As things stand right now we will have a covid vaccine soon and society will begin to come out of
politicized lockdown box leftist swine has tried to keep us in.

Joe Biden and all the Karens can wear their little masks all day long, if it thrills them to do so.

Only Spain in Europe has a worse death per 100K rate right now.

As in the chart I have provided in this thread many times.

Just to be clear....

There are other countries...just not in Europe....that have worse rates.

Also, we pay our hospitals more for treating COVID, so anyone who dies, that has COVID is listed as a "COVID" death, whereas in most countries unless COVID is actually what caused your death, your cause of death is not listed as COVID. It's not an apples to apples comparison.

Medical stats from country to country are NEVER an apples-to-apples comparison, because they don't compile ANY medical stats the same way we do. How many times have we heard the canard that infant mortality in the US is so much worse than the rest of the world, only to find out that it's largely because other countries simply don't count children who die in the first week of life as ever having existed at all?

On COVID the death rates per 100k most developed nations are using the same method, indeed it is the USA that most world health bodies are concerned are vastly under reporting due to your fragment health care system run by 50 different states. Some estimates are that the USA is under reporting by 33%.

You mean our health care system that bodies the DHSC for legit life threatening diseases like cancer. Our health care system where you can actually get the surgery you need within a week. Our healthcare system that the rest of the world, except Switzerland, has been leaching off of our innovation and the tens of billions we drop into R+D every year. That healthcare system? Y’all treat the healthy for dumb shit like broken arms and infections, while taxing the fuck out of your citizens and pretend like you’re hero’s for doing so. Meanwhile Canada sends all their cancer patients TO ME, to get the very best treatment that WE develop, and then pay for it. Your nurses and doctors are garbage. When y’all can start actually saving your cancer patients and stop sending them to me, and actually preform surgeries on things like joint replacements that aren’t outdated 30 years, when your hospitals have as many top of the line critical care beds as ours do, when you actually do your part in the world and start developing drugs, procedures, and technologies...then you can lecture us on our healthcare.

Me and my wife both work in one of the largest hospitals right next to the covid epicenter. We’re over reporting. 100%. Notice how the flu has effectively disappeared? In this current “spike”, we have 6 covid patients who are actually suffering from covid, among other things.

Australia has similar wait times as the USA, in fact shorter wait times for GP visits, yet gets far better results in every macro category except breast cancer treatment, and even there we are just behind the USA.

All at much cheaper cost.

BECUASE YOU SEND YOUR WORST CANCER PATIENTS TO US TO FIX. Ipso facto, y’all fucks don’t take the hit in death rates. We take on the worst cases, and still have a better death rate than all of y’all. Turns out, it’s pretty easy to take care of healthy people. In Europe they go to Switzerland. What’s the last medical innovation that came out of Australia? At least the French have Sanofi. Stop fucking swimming in our wake. We’re basically subsidizing the entire globes R+D. We’ve been subsidizing NATOs defense spending for decades. We just invented a goddamn missile that goes Mach 45. Why? Because y’all made incredibly stupid deals with China and now you’re having buyers remorse. And now we’re gonna have to arm you once again. What have you done recently for me Australia? The fucking gall of you foreigners who come here and lecture us about our politics while we’re the ones putting in the elbow grease to make YOUR lives better, healthier, and safer.

No we do not actually.

Australia has the best cancer treatment survival rates in the world.

Australia leads global cancer survival rates – but more can be done

An international study shows Australians have the best chance of survival for seven types of cancers.

www1.racgp.org.au

Here is a good article about Australian heath care and why over all it gets better outcomes than the USA at much lower cost.

What Australia can teach America about health care

Why the Australian system might represent a realistic path forward for the US.

www.vox.com

Nobody cares about your healthcare system....especially the spin from America hating Vox idiots.

You don't have to care.

You can continue to naval gaze as many Americans love to do.

I am just throwing the facts out there for the intelligent minority of Americans to consider.

Intelligent people learn from the rest of the world, both good and bad.

Facts? The only thing you threw out was Vox bullshit.

I understand, the cult of Trump only believes anything Trump says, nothing else.

All cults work this way.

You sound as if you are involved in the cult of the bubble.
A real true believer.

Though only thing I believe in is scientific method, blue skies and cold Australian beer, the rest is just an opinion.

You believe in global warming, so you don't believe in the scientific method.

Yes I do and so does NASA.

Climate Change Evidence: How Do We Know?

The rate of change since the mid-20th century is unprecedented over millennia.

climate.nasa.gov

You mean some political hacks in NASA believe in it. As a space agency, Nasa political hacks make great climate scientists.

No that is the official position of the agency as well as most scientists (though not all) in the entire world.

I am sure you can find a few meth addles scientists who disagree.

Science doesn't have anything to do with "official positions." That's politics, not science.

Plenty of real scientists disgree. NASA bureaucrats are not scientists.

You do know NASA has scientists in it?

They put a man on the moon, not the PR guy announcing how they did it.

Jesus American education has totally collapsed since I left.

And you have never won a war since I left.

My leaving was a tragedy for America.

Because Australians have been winning wars left and right, and inventing shit left and right... We had to bail your dingo asses out with a crippled navy from the Japanese. while bailing out your brothers across the pond from the nazis, all while bailing out the soviets with weapons and equipment. How many countries are you protecting with your aircraft carriers...oh wait you have none. Y’all can’t even protect your tourist from crocodiles. Oh yeah, let’s not forget, you can count the war against ISIS, the only terrorist organization to take and hold mass swathes of land and operate as a country, as a win for the US. We’re the only ones holding China and Russia at bay The only ones to actually do something when assholes use chemical weapons against civilian pops. Name me something Australia has done or stop talking shit, go back to your stupid island, and get bit by your stupid trap door spiders, and die of priapism

Well America has not been able to win the last two wars, and then there is Vietnam.

Still we are a small nation, we will never be a global power but we do like our global power of choice to be competent, and America is not at the moment.

As to WWII we were fighting in World War Two while Americans were hiding behind two oceans pretending it had nothing to do with the USA.

Pearl Harbour woke you up from that cowardly dream.

And Australians are the first nation in World War Two to have a victory over Japanese forces in a land battle at Kokoda.

Fake News.

The Japanese had advanced to within sight of Port Moresby but withdrew on 26 September. They had outrun their supply line and had been ordered to withdraw in consequence of reverses suffered at Guadalcanal where US Marines were kicking their asses.

16 November, 1942, two brigades of the Australian 7th Division had crossed the Kumusi River at Wairopi, and advanced on the Japanese beachheads in a joint Australian and United States operation. So you are bad-mouthing us when we were fighting shoulder to shoulder with you and together we were prevailing.

I think you mean fake history.

Of course America was the critical power in that war.

Yes, and we greatly value our fighting Aussie Allies who have fought shoulder to shoulder with us. You do not speak for America, or for the Aussies.

... It is just the present generation of Americans are not up to the level of that Greatest Generation.

You are not even close...

Fake News. We are better. When we entered WWII, Japan was battle hardened and we were not. Much of their equipment was superior and they were better at using it. Today there is no force on the face of the earth that can make that claim about US forces or equipment.

Of course, I speak for myself.


But I live in Australia, a wise nation sees how the are viewed in the world at large.

After going into two disastrous wars with America, Afghanistan and Iraq, the latter which was one of the most incompetently executed in American history, later observing the profanity and gross behaviour of President Trump (polls of Australians reveal most want Biden to win) and witnessing the total incompetence of Americas pandemic response, most Australians do not admire present day America.


Even if they do like the saner, less ever angry, Americans among you.

And yet

And that of course would be the case through out the world, so we can still rationally compare outcomes and Germany's outcome is much better than America's.

NO. That is NOT the case throughout the world unless the CDC is now managing the health of the entire planet.
The subject is how the CDC inflated deaths in the US by attributing all deaths to the Chinese originated
covid virus if the virus was present at all. So much so that the CDC was pressured into changing that policy.

Nevertheless that policy was in place for months and the US death toll remains inflated and uncorrected
and you remain disingenuous.

All countries are using that methodology, they have an "excess death mythology" as defined as " A range of estimates for the number of excess deaths was calculated as the difference between the observed count and one of two thresholds (either the average expected count or the upper bound threshold), by week and jurisdiction. Negative values, where the observed count fell below the threshold, were set to zero."

And the method of if one did not have a prognosis of death within the year and contracted COVID it is counted across the globe as a Covid related death.

There is no world health body, or American for that matter, which believes the USA is doing well in this pandemic.

Just wishing Americans were not dropping like flies by playing semantics with the numbers is not going to save any American lives.

America is far from the worst record when it comes to covid deaths and far from the best.
I know it serves your agenda to state otherwise, however. Saying we are "dropping like flies" is disingenuous and misleading and it won't win Joe the election you so desperately want.
Nothing will including all the post election chaos and disorder the left has planned.


As things stand right now we will have a covid vaccine soon and society will begin to come out of
politicized lockdown box leftist swine has tried to keep us in.

Joe Biden and all the Karens can wear their little masks all day long, if it thrills them to do so.

Only Spain in Europe has a worse death per 100K rate right now.

As in the chart I have provided in this thread many times.

Just to be clear....

There are other countries...just not in Europe....that have worse rates.

Also, we pay our hospitals more for treating COVID, so anyone who dies, that has COVID is listed as a "COVID" death, whereas in most countries unless COVID is actually what caused your death, your cause of death is not listed as COVID. It's not an apples to apples comparison.

Medical stats from country to country are NEVER an apples-to-apples comparison, because they don't compile ANY medical stats the same way we do. How many times have we heard the canard that infant mortality in the US is so much worse than the rest of the world, only to find out that it's largely because other countries simply don't count children who die in the first week of life as ever having existed at all?

On COVID the death rates per 100k most developed nations are using the same method, indeed it is the USA that most world health bodies are concerned are vastly under reporting due to your fragment health care system run by 50 different states. Some estimates are that the USA is under reporting by 33%.

You mean our health care system that bodies the DHSC for legit life threatening diseases like cancer. Our health care system where you can actually get the surgery you need within a week. Our healthcare system that the rest of the world, except Switzerland, has been leaching off of our innovation and the tens of billions we drop into R+D every year. That healthcare system? Y’all treat the healthy for dumb shit like broken arms and infections, while taxing the fuck out of your citizens and pretend like you’re hero’s for doing so. Meanwhile Canada sends all their cancer patients TO ME, to get the very best treatment that WE develop, and then pay for it. Your nurses and doctors are garbage. When y’all can start actually saving your cancer patients and stop sending them to me, and actually preform surgeries on things like joint replacements that aren’t outdated 30 years, when your hospitals have as many top of the line critical care beds as ours do, when you actually do your part in the world and start developing drugs, procedures, and technologies...then you can lecture us on our healthcare.

Me and my wife both work in one of the largest hospitals right next to the covid epicenter. We’re over reporting. 100%. Notice how the flu has effectively disappeared? In this current “spike”, we have 6 covid patients who are actually suffering from covid, among other things.

Australia has similar wait times as the USA, in fact shorter wait times for GP visits, yet gets far better results in every macro category except breast cancer treatment, and even there we are just behind the USA.

All at much cheaper cost.

BECUASE YOU SEND YOUR WORST CANCER PATIENTS TO US TO FIX. Ipso facto, y’all fucks don’t take the hit in death rates. We take on the worst cases, and still have a better death rate than all of y’all. Turns out, it’s pretty easy to take care of healthy people. In Europe they go to Switzerland. What’s the last medical innovation that came out of Australia? At least the French have Sanofi. Stop fucking swimming in our wake. We’re basically subsidizing the entire globes R+D. We’ve been subsidizing NATOs defense spending for decades. We just invented a goddamn missile that goes Mach 45. Why? Because y’all made incredibly stupid deals with China and now you’re having buyers remorse. And now we’re gonna have to arm you once again. What have you done recently for me Australia? The fucking gall of you foreigners who come here and lecture us about our politics while we’re the ones putting in the elbow grease to make YOUR lives better, healthier, and safer.

No we do not actually.

Australia has the best cancer treatment survival rates in the world.

Australia leads global cancer survival rates – but more can be done

An international study shows Australians have the best chance of survival for seven types of cancers.

www1.racgp.org.au

Here is a good article about Australian heath care and why over all it gets better outcomes than the USA at much lower cost.

What Australia can teach America about health care

Why the Australian system might represent a realistic path forward for the US.

www.vox.com

Nobody cares about your healthcare system....especially the spin from America hating Vox idiots.

You don't have to care.

You can continue to naval gaze as many Americans love to do.

I am just throwing the facts out there for the intelligent minority of Americans to consider.

Intelligent people learn from the rest of the world, both good and bad.

Facts? The only thing you threw out was Vox bullshit.

I understand, the cult of Trump only believes anything Trump says, nothing else.

All cults work this way.

You sound as if you are involved in the cult of the bubble.
A real true believer.

Though only thing I believe in is scientific method, blue skies and cold Australian beer, the rest is just an opinion.

You believe in global warming, so you don't believe in the scientific method.

Yes I do and so does NASA.

Climate Change Evidence: How Do We Know?

The rate of change since the mid-20th century is unprecedented over millennia.

climate.nasa.gov

We have been in a long term cooling trend for 6,000 years, True or False?

The Holocene climate was warming and actually proves our current warming in large part iscaused by humans. The warming 6,000 years ago was caused by Earth orbital changes which are currently not occurring or causing such rapid warming.

This is actually more evidence of human caused global warming in our time.

Mid-Holocene Warm Period – About 6,000 Years Ago | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Paleoclimatologists have long suspected that the "middle Holocene," roughly from 7,000 to 5,000 years ago, was warmer than the present day.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov

" Moreover, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and we know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years."

Here is a basic primer on why previous climate changes are not proof this climate change is not man made, rather proof it is.



"The Earth was indeed cooling over the last 6,000 years due to Earth's orbit, heading into the next glacial phase scheduled for about the year 3500 AD. But all that changed when we got to the industrial era. Global temperatures departed from that cooling trend, and instead rose parallel with our greenhouse gas emissions."

What does past climate change tell us about global warming?

Natural climate change in the past proves that climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past climate change actually provides evidence for our...

skepticalscience.com

That's pure bunk. We have no idea what temperature fluctuations were like 6000 years ago. The granularity of our records is measured in hundreds of years. You can't legitimately claim our temperatures have departed from anything. There is nothing unusual about our current warming.

I quote the link below again.

"The Earth was indeed cooling over the last 6,000 years due to Earth's orbit, heading into the next glacial phase scheduled for about the year 3500 AD....

Fake news. There was no "scheduled date" for the next glacial advance.

... But all that changed when we got to the industrial era. Global temperatures departed from that cooling trend, and instead rose parallel with our greenhouse gas emissions. "...

Fake News, temperatures began recovering at the end of the little ice age, and with warming temperatures, we get rising CO^2 levels, and earth's processes convert some of the excess CO^2 into living cells.

... We should be in a cooling period...

We are cooler than we were 5,000 years ago.

... denilist cheery....

No. The last interglacial lasted about 15,000 years, and we are pacing fairly consistently with that. Everything is as expected.

... Climate change denial has all the hallmarks of faith or religion, it only sees what it wants to see....

You are the one promoting a Doomsday Cult, I'm just pointing out that the evidence doesn't support your claims, which is the way with doomsday cults. They point to a date when the world is supposed to end, and then they are disappointed when the date passes uneventfully.

Your fake news is faker than the fake news you think is fake news.

The science is clear if you could understand it, the oribital causes of climate change was seeing us going into a cooling period well into the next thousand years but the carbon released from the industrial revolution changed all that.


I think I will trust the majority of climate scientists and NASA before I will trust a cult member always chanting "fake news" when confronted with scientific information they simply do not want to believe.

One of these days, I am going to have to give a fuck about all this.

Sunny I like you.

Word of advise, buy some property at Florida's highest point, Britton Hill.

It will be beach front some day.

Maybe even an island?

The oceans have been rising for 20,000 years, and the current rate of rise is 1/2 the 20,000 year rate. True or False?

Yes here is why.

" Now, however, sea level is on the rise again, rising faster now than it has in the past 6,000 years. The oldest tide gauges and coastal sediment preserved beneath swamps and marshes show that sea level began to rise around 1850, which is right around the time people started burning coal to propel steam engine trains, and it hasn't stopped since. The climate likely started warming as a part of a natural cycle, but the accelerated warming in the last two hundred years or so is due to a rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide. The resulting rise in sea level is likely twice what we would have seen without the increase in greenhouse gasses due to human activities."

Sea Level Rise

ocean.si.edu

.

"

Fake News. We are better. When we entered WWII, Japan was battle hardened and we were not. Much of their equipment was superior and they were better at using it. Today there is no force on the face of the earth that can make that claim about US forces or equipment.

I wouldn't say that on a general basis. We were behind the Japanese in tactics, but our equipment was equal or better than theirs. The Japanese zero was nicknamed the "Ronson" after the cigarette lighter, as the P-47's while unable to out turn them, were faster, packed a bigger punch, and had self sealing gas tanks.

We sure as hell were better after we got up to speed, and our women, manning the war factories, certainly out produced them. They underestimated us, miscalculated, and it was the end of their empire. Same with Germany, USSR, Iraq, ISIS, OBL and Qasem Soleimani.

I can agree with most of that list except Iraq.

That was a disaster,

It was.

... the US ignited a sectarian war with no occupation plans what so ever resulting in much of the world doubting US political-military competence as Iran now has as much influence over that country as US influence fades.

Fake News. Trump's growing Arab/Israeli Axis looks more powerful than the Turkish led faction and/or the Iran led faction.

Iraq needs to make a decision regarding Iran. They have religious ties in that they are both Sunni, but, they also know full well that Persians regard them, Arabs, as 2nd class citizens.

ISIS doesn't doubt our military might. No one with a brain does. Conquering a country and turning them into an Ali is a low percentage game no matter who attempts it. What I found amazing was that so soon after Bush utterly failed in Iraq, Obama and his collection of clowns tried it in Libya, tried to turn Egypt over to the Moslem Brotherhood and never really explained what in the world they were trying to do in Syria, but you seem to cover this all up with smiley faces.

Trump has ISIS whipped, and is bringing our troops home. That seems to be a real problem for the warmongers. You need to pick better friends.

To the the contrary, the goal of the Iraq War was to expel Saddam, that was easy because the Iraqi army largely did not fight to save him and then see a democratic Iraq rise that would be a blueprint for the region.

Instead the lack of US occupational planning, and the disastrous move by Bremmer to disband an Iraqi army that actually approached the US to help with order issues created instant insurgency.

Indeed it created ISIS.

The US created ISIS.

Now defeating ISIS started before Trump came to office with the Obama administration, who were slow on this, giving the Syrian Kurds a lot of military aid and then direct US battle support. That combined with Russia intervening on behalf of Assad and Iran giving ever more aid and even paramilitary units to the Shia dominated Iraqi government saw ISIS start to lose ground.

After ISIS was defeated during the Trump administration what did he do, he betrayed our Kurdish allies which much of the world noticed and left them to the mercy of Turkey, Assad and Russia.

Now after a decade of war and a lot of blood and treasure lost in Iraq the US has little influence.

Obama created ISIS, fool. It didn't exist when Bush was in office.

I love the way you douchebags find a way to blame everything on Republicans.

Trump campaigned on getting our people out of the Middle East, not sending more in.

So what was thiss great atrocity that was inflicted on the Kurds? I don't recall reading anything about it.

Fake News:

Support your claim that Obama made a pact with the Kurds to protect them against NATO ally, Turkey and to help them establish an autonomous region.

 

[Zorro!]

And that of course would be the case through out the world, so we can still rationally compare outcomes and Germany's outcome is much better than America's.

NO. That is NOT the case throughout the world unless the CDC is now managing the health of the entire planet.
The subject is how the CDC inflated deaths in the US by attributing all deaths to the Chinese originated
covid virus if the virus was present at all. So much so that the CDC was pressured into changing that policy.

Nevertheless that policy was in place for months and the US death toll remains inflated and uncorrected
and you remain disingenuous.

All countries are using that methodology, they have an "excess death mythology" as defined as " A range of estimates for the number of excess deaths was calculated as the difference between the observed count and one of two thresholds (either the average expected count or the upper bound threshold), by week and jurisdiction. Negative values, where the observed count fell below the threshold, were set to zero."

And the method of if one did not have a prognosis of death within the year and contracted COVID it is counted across the globe as a Covid related death.

There is no world health body, or American for that matter, which believes the USA is doing well in this pandemic.

Just wishing Americans were not dropping like flies by playing semantics with the numbers is not going to save any American lives.

America is far from the worst record when it comes to covid deaths and far from the best.
I know it serves your agenda to state otherwise, however. Saying we are "dropping like flies" is disingenuous and misleading and it won't win Joe the election you so desperately want.
Nothing will including all the post election chaos and disorder the left has planned.


As things stand right now we will have a covid vaccine soon and society will begin to come out of
politicized lockdown box leftist swine has tried to keep us in.

Joe Biden and all the Karens can wear their little masks all day long, if it thrills them to do so.

Only Spain in Europe has a worse death per 100K rate right now.

As in the chart I have provided in this thread many times.

Just to be clear....

There are other countries...just not in Europe....that have worse rates.

Also, we pay our hospitals more for treating COVID, so anyone who dies, that has COVID is listed as a "COVID" death, whereas in most countries unless COVID is actually what caused your death, your cause of death is not listed as COVID. It's not an apples to apples comparison.

Medical stats from country to country are NEVER an apples-to-apples comparison, because they don't compile ANY medical stats the same way we do. How many times have we heard the canard that infant mortality in the US is so much worse than the rest of the world, only to find out that it's largely because other countries simply don't count children who die in the first week of life as ever having existed at all?

On COVID the death rates per 100k most developed nations are using the same method, indeed it is the USA that most world health bodies are concerned are vastly under reporting due to your fragment health care system run by 50 different states. Some estimates are that the USA is under reporting by 33%.

You mean our health care system that bodies the DHSC for legit life threatening diseases like cancer. Our health care system where you can actually get the surgery you need within a week. Our healthcare system that the rest of the world, except Switzerland, has been leaching off of our innovation and the tens of billions we drop into R+D every year. That healthcare system? Y’all treat the healthy for dumb shit like broken arms and infections, while taxing the fuck out of your citizens and pretend like you’re hero’s for doing so. Meanwhile Canada sends all their cancer patients TO ME, to get the very best treatment that WE develop, and then pay for it. Your nurses and doctors are garbage. When y’all can start actually saving your cancer patients and stop sending them to me, and actually preform surgeries on things like joint replacements that aren’t outdated 30 years, when your hospitals have as many top of the line critical care beds as ours do, when you actually do your part in the world and start developing drugs, procedures, and technologies...then you can lecture us on our healthcare.

Me and my wife both work in one of the largest hospitals right next to the covid epicenter. We’re over reporting. 100%. Notice how the flu has effectively disappeared? In this current “spike”, we have 6 covid patients who are actually suffering from covid, among other things.

Australia has similar wait times as the USA, in fact shorter wait times for GP visits, yet gets far better results in every macro category except breast cancer treatment, and even there we are just behind the USA.

All at much cheaper cost.

BECUASE YOU SEND YOUR WORST CANCER PATIENTS TO US TO FIX. Ipso facto, y’all fucks don’t take the hit in death rates. We take on the worst cases, and still have a better death rate than all of y’all. Turns out, it’s pretty easy to take care of healthy people. In Europe they go to Switzerland. What’s the last medical innovation that came out of Australia? At least the French have Sanofi. Stop fucking swimming in our wake. We’re basically subsidizing the entire globes R+D. We’ve been subsidizing NATOs defense spending for decades. We just invented a goddamn missile that goes Mach 45. Why? Because y’all made incredibly stupid deals with China and now you’re having buyers remorse. And now we’re gonna have to arm you once again. What have you done recently for me Australia? The fucking gall of you foreigners who come here and lecture us about our politics while we’re the ones putting in the elbow grease to make YOUR lives better, healthier, and safer.

No we do not actually.

Australia has the best cancer treatment survival rates in the world.

Australia leads global cancer survival rates – but more can be done

An international study shows Australians have the best chance of survival for seven types of cancers.

www1.racgp.org.au

Here is a good article about Australian heath care and why over all it gets better outcomes than the USA at much lower cost.

What Australia can teach America about health care

Why the Australian system might represent a realistic path forward for the US.

www.vox.com

Nobody cares about your healthcare system....especially the spin from America hating Vox idiots.

You don't have to care.

You can continue to naval gaze as many Americans love to do.

I am just throwing the facts out there for the intelligent minority of Americans to consider.

Intelligent people learn from the rest of the world, both good and bad.

Facts? The only thing you threw out was Vox bullshit.

I understand, the cult of Trump only believes anything Trump says, nothing else.

All cults work this way.

You sound as if you are involved in the cult of the bubble.
A real true believer.

Though only thing I believe in is scientific method, blue skies and cold Australian beer, the rest is just an opinion.

You believe in global warming, so you don't believe in the scientific method.

Yes I do and so does NASA.

Climate Change Evidence: How Do We Know?

The rate of change since the mid-20th century is unprecedented over millennia.

climate.nasa.gov

We have been in a long term cooling trend for 6,000 years, True or False?

The Holocene climate was warming and actually proves our current warming in large part iscaused by humans. The warming 6,000 years ago was caused by Earth orbital changes which are currently not occurring or causing such rapid warming.

This is actually more evidence of human caused global warming in our time.

Mid-Holocene Warm Period – About 6,000 Years Ago | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Paleoclimatologists have long suspected that the "middle Holocene," roughly from 7,000 to 5,000 years ago, was warmer than the present day.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov

" Moreover, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and we know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years."

Here is a basic primer on why previous climate changes are not proof this climate change is not man made, rather proof it is.



"The Earth was indeed cooling over the last 6,000 years due to Earth's orbit, heading into the next glacial phase scheduled for about the year 3500 AD. But all that changed when we got to the industrial era. Global temperatures departed from that cooling trend, and instead rose parallel with our greenhouse gas emissions."

What does past climate change tell us about global warming?

Natural climate change in the past proves that climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past climate change actually provides evidence for our...

skepticalscience.com

That's pure bunk. We have no idea what temperature fluctuations were like 6000 years ago. The granularity of our records is measured in hundreds of years. You can't legitimately claim our temperatures have departed from anything. There is nothing unusual about our current warming.

I quote the link below again.

"The Earth was indeed cooling over the last 6,000 years due to Earth's orbit, heading into the next glacial phase scheduled for about the year 3500 AD....

Fake news. There was no "scheduled date" for the next glacial advance.

... But all that changed when we got to the industrial era. Global temperatures departed from that cooling trend, and instead rose parallel with our greenhouse gas emissions. "...

Fake News, temperatures began recovering at the end of the little ice age, and with warming temperatures, we get rising CO^2 levels, and earth's processes convert some of the excess CO^2 into living cells.

... We should be in a cooling period...

We are cooler than we were 5,000 years ago.

... denilist cheery....

No. The last interglacial lasted about 15,000 years, and we are pacing fairly consistently with that. Everything is as expected.

... Climate change denial has all the hallmarks of faith or religion, it only sees what it wants to see....

You are the one promoting a Doomsday Cult, I'm just pointing out that the evidence doesn't support your claims, which is the way with doomsday cults. They point to a date when the world is supposed to end, and then they are disappointed when the date passes uneventfully.

Your fake news is faker than the fake news you think is fake news.

The science is clear if you could understand it, the oribital causes of climate change was seeing us going into a cooling period well into the next thousand years but the carbon released from the industrial revolution changed all that.


I think I will trust the majority of climate scientists and NASA before I will trust a cult member always chanting "fake news" when confronted with scientific information they simply do not want to believe.

The actual science is the more energy dense fuel you use, the less carbon emissions there actually is. The order of energy density goes from (least-greatest) wood, coal, oil, gas, then nuclear (which doesn’t have carbon as a byproduct of the process). Wood is at 16 MJ/kg vs coal (depending on the type) is in the range of 20-30MJ/kg. Due to the laws of physics, it takes around twice the amount of carbon expenditure for wood to boil water (boiling water is the method for basically every large scale power generation) compared to coal. Natural gas is at 40 MJ/m3. So, thanks to Isaac Newton natural gas uses at least 33% less carbon byproduct to boil water. On top of that, with the nature of it being gas, and technology allowing precision amounts of gas to obtain the desired temp, there’s far less wasteful burning of it vs a solid fuel. In other words, a 1/m3 of gas goes a lot further than 1/KG of any solid fuel. Maybe you could achieve the same results with a powdered fuel as you would gas, but to powder it would be a process that requires more energy expenditure than gas in its natural form. Obviously because there is no carbon involved in the nuclear process, it’s superior by far. If you “care” about the climate, and you’re not pushing for nuclear, exit the conversation immediately. We haven’t even scratched the surface of what we can do with nuclear. We’re using 80 year old technology, and even then it’s still the far superior option. All because Jane Fonda, Gov Brown, the Sierra Club, and scores of other elites decided to demonize nuclear. Many of them to profit off of the oil business dealings they had (cough* cough* gov Brown), others because they nonsensically conflated nuclear energy with nuclear bombs during the Cold War (cough* cough* Jane Fonda types). And others (cough* cough* the Sierra club) wanted to continue their exploitation of 3rd world countries, because it’s easier to exploit poor people who remain poor by spending vast amounts of energy and money (and vast amount of environmental damage as well as carbon emissions) to cook their food and heat their homes using wood (set up for my next paragraph). It also helps when the philosophy of your little elite Sierra club is a Malthusian one, so fuck those poor people, amaright?

As I set up in the last paragraph......I mentioned wood even though it’s hardly used in 1st world countries. Not true for 3rd world countries. There’s this crazy idea out there that we can “leap frog” the 3rd world with renewable energies, and bypass coal and gas completely (set up for my 3rd paragraph). Absolutely absurd idea. The 1st world is struggling “renewable energy”. It is not reliable. So what winds up happening in these countries is that people just go back to using wood. Cutting down vast swaths of carbon scrubbing trees, destroying natural habitats, and oh yeah, dumping a hell of a lot more carbon into the atmosphere than they would if we accelerated their development with coal, then to gas, then to nuclear. Obviously I have no problem in helping them develop clean burning coal, clean burning gas, etc. It’s just a simple fact. The more developed your country is, the less emissions there are per person. It also follows that the less resources (physical, time, money, etc) people have to spend producing energy (I.e. cutting down trees, splitting wood, starting and keeping fires) the more time and energy they will have to be productive in other areas and become more prosperous. Having a reliable source of electricity is basically the #1 key on the road to prosperity, and consequently a reduction in carbon emissions.

What people are also not telling you is that not only is solar and wind severely unreliable, the battery/fuel cell tech is not there (never will be until the invention of super conductors), but also the production of fuel cells and panels (which eventually go bad 10 years at best) creates more emissions, and there is NO safe way to dispose of the extremely environmentally hazardous materials used to make them. There simply is no way to get around Isaac Newton’s laws. People think solar panels just sit there and the sun hits them and bam, energy. The sun itself does not boil water on its own (in most areas). Therefore you need to go through an energy costing process in order to get the photons from the sun to be transformed into usable energy. Not only do you need energy to do this, you also need extremely environmentally toxic chemicals to help boost this process. Both fuel cells and the solar panels themselves are made out of extremely toxic materials. Currently the strategy of nations “leading the way with renewable energy” is to pay 3rd world countries to have them take the fuel cell/panel waste to throw in a dump somewhere. And you can bet your bottom dollar they aren’t dumping it in a safe way. Basically, the net energy solar is producing is 2 steps backward to get 3 steps forward, AT BEST, as long as the panels last 10 years WITHOUT the use of fuel cell storage (which also goes bad). You simply cannot get around the laws of physics. Solar/wind is actually way more expensive for citizens. It is so unreliable, no sun, not enough wind, power plants have to stay fully staffed even when shut down, because they will have to continually power up and power back down. Mind you these are plants designed to run continuously, and the constant power-up power-down process is extremely energy inefficient. So, if you live in an area receiving energy from solar panels or wind, you’re paying for the same power plant you’ve been using before plus the solar/wind generators, plus the infrastructure between the renewable generators, plus the costly process (both in carbon emissions and dollars) of powering up and down continuously. As it turns out, our most “renewable” energy is water. Yes it requires energy to boil, but it goes up, comes back down, and we have plenty of it. This is why nuclear is by far the best option. Zero emissions to hear water, a fraction of a percentile of the current waste produced by solar, as well as a very easy and safe way to store it, and oh yeah did mention far less energy and land investment made into building a Nuclear plant. I almost forgot to mention the vast amounts of land needed for solar/wind just produce a fraction of what a standard power plant can produce. You know, land that would otherwise be used by those big green leafy things (the name escapes me) that actually absorb carbon and exhale oxygen. Land that’s also home to the little critters we value so much.

That is a lot of deluded gibberish.


I think I will go with the actual scientists on this one and the consensus is clear, we are warming the planet with carbon emissions.

You do not have to believe it, you do not have to believe in gravity either, but you still have to live with it.

Consensus isn't science, moron. It's politics.

We don't have to live with nutbag proposals to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

Yes, there is a scientific consensus that gravity exists.

Now that is always up for challenge through empirical evidence if one can provide that evidence.

Such evidence does not exist.

The same applies to global warming.

Once again I refer you to actual scientists.

Scientific Consensus - NASA Science

It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s...

climate.nasa.gov

Sorry, but the argument for the existence of gravity hasn't changed in quite some time and there is no funny money behind it. There is a stark difference. Gravity is settled science, man made global warming is not.

Oh yes every international scientific body in the world is being bribed. Because as with gravity there is a scientific consensus on this issue.

NASA is being bribed.

Probably by the Secret Society of Spaghetti Monsters Against Fossil Fuels and Vaccines.

Fake News.

1. What are the testable statements they affirmed?
2. How was this affirmation communicated?
3. How many directly affirmed the statements in question 1?
4. How many total scientists are their in the world?

I am worn out, discussing science with you is like trying to discuss quantum physics with a gerbil that just emerged from Elton John's ass.

That's because your claim is fake news.

You claim that "97% of Scientists" agree on something, but you have no clue what the testable statement is that they all agree on, or even if the statement they agree on is testable.

You claim that "97%" agree, but you don't now how many scientists were actually asked, and you don't know what they were asked, and you don't know how these affirmative answers were conveyed.

Of course you find this exhausting, you are claiming great certainty about something that you actually have no information on.

Do you think all scientists were actually asked a particular question and then 97% of them gave the same answer? Were they called on the phone? Were they mailed a questionnaire?

These are simple questions and you haven't a clue, because the claim is fake news. I don't think you realized this before you tried to support it, so, you're welcome!

Fake News.

1. What are the testable statements they affirmed?
2. How was this affirmation communicated?
3. How many directly affirmed the statements in question 1?
4. How many total scientists are their in the world?