AGW and COVID-19 vaccine

[Crick]

I follow CDC guidance on public health matters. Any reasonably intelligent, sane human being would do the same. Ergo, those who do not are either not reasonably intelligent, not sane or neither. That certainly fits my observations to a 'T'

 

[skookerasbil]

I follow CDC guidance on public health matters. Any reasonably intelligent, sane human being would do the same. Ergo, those who do not are either not reasonably intelligent, not sane or neither. That certainly fits my observations to a 'T'

 

[Crick]

My assertion confirmed.

 

[JohnDB]

Climate change is usually deeply flawed science... relying upon faked data and then showing correlation instead of causation.
However, due to the absence of polar ice that had been in existence for years obviously some sort of climate change is happening. But because every climate change model has been consistent with flawed data we know absolutely nothing.

Vaccine trials are a completely different creature in how they are created and compiled... trials are done by two main heads and in several pocket groups in diverse locations. (Moderna's trials are compared to NIH trials of the same meds)

Then the two sets of trials are compared with abnormal highs and lows kicked out of averages unless both sides have similar results for a particular genetic variation (ancestral genetics do play a role)

Everyone uses independent contractors for reporting agencies in these double blind studies...(it's actually a nice cushy job...lots of travel to the most boring places)

So the science behind vaccines or any meds is going to be accurate. We prosecute someone who lies...there is currently a trial going on for someone who lied and misled people...her crucifixion is guaranteed no matter how pretty she might be.

So...we are talking about two fields varying greatly with how the science is accomplished. One has no true science and the other one with exemplary science, reason and logic.

 

[Crick]

The climatological study of global warming does not rely on "faked data" and is not "deeply flawed science". If you have a reliable source that tells you this, please provide a link.

Both the Earth's climate and the human body are very complex systems. Both have been studied extensively. The scientific method is applied to studies of both systems and, within the constraints of what is possible for each system their results are accurate.

 

[JohnDB]

The climatological study of global warming does not rely on "faked data" and is not "deeply flawed science". If you have a reliable source that tells you this, please provide a link.

Both the Earth's climate and the human body are very complex systems. Both have been studied extensively. The scientific method is applied to studies of both systems and, within the constraints of what is possible for each system their results are accurate.

Climate change causes are only correlation and not causation... meaning that there is no imperical evidence of the causes...there is imperical evidence of it happening but the rate is indeterminate because of flawed data, flawed and incomplete models and heavy political agenda influence.

For the Vaccines we have causation as well as correlation to prove effective therapies to prevent disease and infection. No isolated conservatorship of data either. We have literally thousands of people who independently reported the same or similar measured data.
And now because of the widespread use of these vaccines we see vastly different infection and disease rates amongst those inocculated for coronavirus. (mRNA vaccines being the true champions in results)

However, I wish that the climatologist would conduct their science in a similar fashion...but they don't. They are capable of performing true scientific experiments to determine causation but won't... that says something right there.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You make the mistake of thinking you are typical. You are significantly more ignorant than the average American, Frank, and that is R-E-A-L-L-Y not saying much. The answer to your second question is "too much" and this will be the last time I play with you. I'm not a young man and when I'm on my death bed, I am quite certain one of my greatest regrets will be the precious time I wasted talking with you.

How come you never ever never ever never ever never ever never ever never ever never ever never ever never ever never ever never ever never ever never ever never ever never ever never ever never ever never ever never ever never ever never ever never ever never ever never ever can provide a number for the temperature increase when CO2 increases from 280 to 400PPM. It must be 0.0001F or you'd be plastering it all over the planet

 

[Crick]

Climate change causes are only correlation and not causation... meaning that there is no imperical evidence of the causes...there is imperical evidence of it happening but the rate is indeterminate because of flawed data, flawed and incomplete models and heavy political agenda influence.

For the Vaccines we have causation as well as correlation to prove effective therapies to prevent disease and infection. No isolated conservatorship of data either. We have literally thousands of people who independently reported the same or similar measured data.
And now because of the widespread use of these vaccines we see vastly different infection and disease rates amongst those inocculated for coronavirus. (mRNA vaccines being the true champions in results)

However, I wish that the climatologist would conduct their science in a similar fashion...but they don't. They are capable of performing true scientific experiments to determine causation but won't... that says something right there.

The climatologists DO conduct their science in a similar fashion. And there are mountains of Empirical evidence supporting AGW.

 

[JohnDB]

The climatologists DO conduct their science in a similar fashion. And there are mountains of Empirical evidence supporting AGW.

Woah...
I didn't say that there isn't evidence of climate change or that it isn't happening.

What I said is that it's rate and causes are not backed up by science with factual and imperical evidence. What we truly know is extremely limited because of the political spectrum and lousy data collection efforts.

 

[Crick]

JohnDB said:
Climate change causes are only correlation and not causation... meaning that there is no imperical evidence of the causes...there is imperical evidence of it happening but the rate is indeterminate because of flawed data, flawed and incomplete models and heavy political agenda influence.

Please give me an example of what you consider to be evidence of causation for any natural process.

While, as deniers love to point out, correlation is not necessarily causation, what they don't want you to think about is that whatever IS the cause of some process or event ABSOLUTELY HAS TO CORRELATE with that process or event. There are hundreds of thousands of years of clear correlation between temperature and CO2. There are mountains of experimental results showing that CO2 absorbs IR radiation from the Earth that no other atmospheric constituent absorbs; that would escape to space were there no CO2 in the atmosphere. There are direct surface and satellite measurements of incoming and outgoing radiation that show that IR transmission in the frequency ranges absorbed by CO2 are affected by their passage through the atmosphere. And finally, by direct bookkeeping and isotopic analysis, an amount of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere almost exactly equal to the additional 120 ppm that has collected there since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution has been identified as the product of the combustion of fossil fuels; ie, it was produced by humans burning coal and oil.

If that is not enough for you to consider human emissions of GHGs the very likely, primary cause of the warming we have experienced over the last 150 years, you aren't reasoning critically.

 

[JohnDB]

JohnDB said:
Climate change causes are only correlation and not causation... meaning that there is no imperical evidence of the causes...there is imperical evidence of it happening but the rate is indeterminate because of flawed data, flawed and incomplete models and heavy political agenda influence.

Please give me an example of what you consider to be evidence of causation for any natural process.

While, as deniers love to point out, correlation is not necessarily causation, what they don't want you to think about is that whatever IS the cause of some process or event ABSOLUTELY HAS TO CORRELATE with that process or event. There are hundreds of thousands of years of clear correlation between temperature and CO2. There are mountains of experimental results showing that CO2 absorbs IR radiation from the Earth that no other atmospheric constituent absorbs; that would escape to space were there no CO2 in the atmosphere. There are direct surface and satellite measurements of incoming and outgoing radiation that show that IR transmission in the frequency ranges absorbed by CO2 are affected by their passage through the atmosphere. And finally, by direct bookkeeping and isotopic analysis, an amount of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere almost exactly equal to the additional 120 ppm that has collected there since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution has been identified as the product of the combustion of fossil fuels; ie, it was produced by humans burning coal and oil.

If that is not enough for you to consider human emissions of GHGs the very likely, primary cause of the warming we have experienced over the last 150 years, you aren't reasoning critically.

CO² emissions vary... from forest fires to volcanic activity...huge amounts have been pumped into the atmosphere and then come right back out. The smokey mountains also put out greenhouse gasses...not industry. But they burned severely several years back and aren't putting out the same volume of greenhouse gasses they once were.

Greenhouse gasses are a possibility but not definitively a proven cause.
Urbanization is another possibility but again not a proven cause.

Again this is GLOBAL Climate change...not a localized, temporary, regional climate change.

That's why I keep saying the same thing...there is no causal relationship only correlating relationships.

Also a baseline hasn't been established either. The animal remains found in the melting ice demonstrate that the freezing temps that made the previous estimated baseline happened very quickly.

All in all there's no evidence of a baseline, no evidence of causation, no rate of change, and no true science.

I wish we actually knew what is causing the changes. There are experiments that can be done but they won't. The flow dynamics are known...but they keep refusing to do the science.

 

[Crick]

CO² emissions vary... from forest fires to volcanic activity...huge amounts have been pumped into the atmosphere and then come right back out. The smokey mountains also put out greenhouse gasses...not industry. But they burned severely several years back and aren't putting out the same volume of greenhouse gasses they once were.

Greenhouse gasses are a possibility but not definitively a proven cause.
Urbanization is another possibility but again not a proven cause.

Again this is GLOBAL Climate change...not a localized, temporary, regional climate change.

That's why I keep saying the same thing...there is no causal relationship only correlating relationships.

Also a baseline hasn't been established either. The animal remains found in the melting ice demonstrate that the freezing temps that made the previous estimated baseline happened very quickly.

All in all there's no evidence of a baseline, no evidence of causation, no rate of change, and no true science.

I wish we actually knew what is causing the changes. There are experiments that can be done but they won't. The flow dynamics are known...but they keep refusing to do the science.

Again, could you please give us an example of what you consider to be valid evidence of causation for any natural process.

I gave a series of clear, empirical observations that firmly support the contention that increased CO2 is causing the observed warming and that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to human combustion of fossil fuels. You seem to be ignoring that. Can I ask that you address what I actually posted?

 

[skookerasbil]

I train wrecked this whole thread pages ago.

The Climate/Covid obsessed are just not serious people.

Deep matrix dwellers, all.

 

[JohnDB]

Again, could you please give us an example of what you consider to be valid evidence of causation for any natural process.

I gave a series of clear, empirical observations that firmly support the contention that increased CO2 is causing the observed warming and that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to human combustion of fossil fuels. You seem to be ignoring that. Can I ask that you address what I actually posted?

Ok.... you totally missed the point.
In a very localized temporary area GHG might cause a minor spike...
But that's a far cry from proving a global climate change.

So there is no proof of anything. That's what I am saying. The whole world is a big place. Lots of variables and possible causes.

 

[Crick]

You don't seem to be paying the slightest attention to what I'm actually putting down here. I haven't missed any point. The evidence that shows CO2 warms the planet apply to the entire planet. The measurements that show CO2 increasing from 280 ppm to 420 ppm are global. The evidence that shows humans are entirely responsible for that increase are global. There is NO evidence of temporary and/or localized spikes of CO2 or of warming. So, I can't tell what the f you're talking about.

 

[JohnDB]

The evidence that shows humans are entirely responsible for that increase are global

Woah...

There are also rises in past history that had nothing to do with mankind... therefore CO² levels are not solely based on mankind...

What would be more important to find out is why they are rising... output isn't the issue...it's their dissolving processes that are more important. Why aren't they going away? Is the problem bacteriological? (Microbes in soils can produce CO² and others eat it like candy)

Again... correlation without causation.

 

[Crick]

You folks must take lessons to get that dense.

I have no fucking idea what you mean by "their dissolving processes" and I'm pretty sure you don't either.

I started this conversation with you under the assumption that you had some basic science knowledge, but as this "conversation" has proceeded, it has become obvious that you do not. I see no point in rewarding your blatant ignorance. I strongly suggest you find some mainstream science sources and do some actual reading on what is actually happening on this planet before embarrassing yourself here once again.

 

[ding]

You folks must take lessons to get that dense.

I have no fucking idea what you mean by "their dissolving processes" and I'm pretty sure you don't either.

I started this conversation with you under the assumption that you had some basic science knowledge, but as this "conversation" has proceeded, it has become obvious that you do not. I see no point in rewarding your blatant ignorance. I strongly suggest you find some mainstream science sources and do some actual reading on what is actually happening on this planet before embarrassing yourself here once again.

The point you are trying to make is arbitrary and capricious. Why not make the same point about denying the science behind when a human life begins or that the universe was created from nothing?

 

[Crick]

Oh, I would truly love to talk cosmology and abiogenesis with you. Those used to be some of my favorite topics. But this is the ENVIRONMENT forum and those are not ENVIRONMENT topics. And I may not know what JohnDB was trying to say but I am abso-lutely certain it had nothing to do with abiogenesis or cosmology. I have to ask: how much weed do you smoke in a day?

 

[ding]

Oh, I would truly love to talk cosmology and abiogenesis with you. Those used to be some of my favorite topics. But this is the ENVIRONMENT forum and those are not ENVIRONMENT topics. And I may not know what JohnDB was trying to say but I am abso-lutely certain it had nothing to do with abiogenesis or cosmology. I have to ask: how much weed do you smoke in a day?

Fire away. Fire away. I am titanium. You have no idea what you would be getting yourself into.

Just enough to serve a medicinal purpose.