Finally, an Unbiased and Objective Climate Science Report
- Thread starter Sunsettommy
- Start date
My wife got the jab, had to because her work demanded it. I did not. We both caught Covid at the same time. Though we are in the "senior" bracket for potential severe affects, we've had worse flu.
Meanwhile I've seen the data on increased heart issues and other health side effects that were worse than the disease would have been.
Not at all off topic if you're providing an illustration of how science can be abused and misused by the politically motivated and ethically challenged or, in that example, the biologically ignorant. Which I believe the member was providing just such an illustration.
MAGAs can discern the value in metaphor, allegory, symbolism and such to illustrate or explain a point made.
It seems like leftists have lost most of their ability to do that.
Science is what it is. How most leftists define it is neither scientific nor accurate. It is important to understand that in order to honestly appraise what we know and don't know about climate change.
Last edited:
Bingo !
When not warming it is cooling.
On scale of average global activity that is.
On regional climate zones it is more irregular.
Last edited:
Never sent packing on "climate change question(s)".
Been responding to such ever since joining this board.
See posts # 200-204 for examples, which hopefully aren't beyond your limited capacity to understand.
I've industrial and science experience with some of the facets relating to the "question". It appears you don't since you only cite "experts" and haven't a clue what is said by either side.
You are the type who would mix Clorox and ammonia to make a better cleaning solution.
And the dishonesty or perhaps irrational thinking marches on. If we point out that the weather is abnormally cold in a given area, we are told by the AGW religionists that weather and climate are two different things.
If we point out that the weather is abnormally hot in a given area, we are told that is because of climate change.
Last edited:
Exactly !
The pro-ACC/AGW hucksters lie out of both sides of their mouths and clearly most don't understand science. The rest just say what they are told to say.
What can I say to convince you ass-clowns? I'm not an expert so how about this?
It’s warming. The warming is caused by us. Warming is dangerous. We need to urgently transition to renewable energy to stop the warming. Once we do that, sea-level rise will stop and the weather won’t be so extreme.
That's my honest opinion on the matter and I'm humbly offering it to you'all as my best answer.
Wait!!
Coincidentally, the world's most educated denialist expert has said nearly the same thing:
Go finger?
Which is why I say they don't have a clue what is science or scientific.
And they love to use the phrase 'peer reviewed.' Well when the peers are all chosen because they already agree with the subject, 'peer review' is pretty worthless to establish credibility of a 'scientific' opinion. And those of us who have participated in peer reviewed studies know that the peers for the most part are not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with the study or the conclusions reached but rather are giving their opinion that the study was scientifically conducted.
I am reminded of the Phlogiston Theory popular in the late 17th and early 18th centuries. The scientists concluded there was an invisible component called phlogiston in combustible materials that made combustion possible.
Wiki's definition is pretty good so I'll use it for convenience here:
". . .In general, substances that burned in the air were said to be rich in phlogiston; the fact that combustion soon ceased in an enclosed space was taken as clear-cut evidence that air had the capacity to absorb only a finite amount of phlogiston. When the air had become completely phlogisticated it would no longer serve to support the combustion of any material, nor would a metal heated in it yield a calx; nor could phlogisticated air support life. Breathing was thought to take phlogiston out of the body. . ."
By the mid to late 18th Century, other and far more accurate scientific theories had completely replaced that one. But while it was popular, any scientific studies conducted would almost certainly claim peer reviews by most or all scientists of that time.
I'm quite certain that a far smaller percentage of modern day scientists agree with the IPCC and/or leftist AGW religionists re climate change. But while scientists in the 17th and 18th centuries might have fudged opinions a bit to conform to religious demands, scientific opinion was not heavily influenced by who was doling out the grant money.
Last edited:
I really don't give a shit what anyone says. This graph is 100% science. No one can say man is causing the warming when it is evident it is natural for it to do so.
I lost three precious family members and one close friend due to complications of COVID. Three of those were unvaccinated, all fairly young, all in very good health before they became ill with the virus. My sister was vaccinated but already in serious physical decline due to congestive heart failure. But she almost certainly would have lived far longer with fair quality of life if she had not gotten COVID.
Most of us got mild to more severe cases of the virus and sailed right through it, even some with underlying medical problems that could have made it more serous.
But I have several other family members and friends who were were unvaccinated who experienced long lasting ugly side effects, some never recovered from those. None of the family members/friends who were fully vaccinated and contracted the virus experienced that even though some were pretty ill for a few days. Some of the unvaccinated had to be hospitalized. None of the vaccinated had to be hospitalized including my then 97-yr-old fully vaccinated aunt who was quarantined and treated because she was positive but developed no symptoms.
I am well aware of the incidents of severe side effects from the vaccine. But the data is pretty clear that adverse effects of the disease for the unvaccinated are far far worse for far many more people.
For that reason I think it very wrong to try to talk or scare people into not getting the vaccine. I won't fault or judge those who choose not to get vaccinated and do strongly believe they should be allowed full choice in the matter.
Honest science has learned much since the virus first appeared--it can be forgiven for getting a lot of it wrong in the trial and error period on how to best deal with it--but honest science also acknowledges there is still a lot we don't know.
Honest science also acknowledges that there is a lot we don't know about climate science and doesn't try to push political or financial motives as science.
Last edited:
In fairness to all ass-clowns, we'll take into consideration your credentials as an expert.
Start below:
1. Duhhhhhh!
Signature:
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sunsettommy
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2018
- 16,284
- 14,001
- 2,400
- Thread starter
- #253
The URL of that chart you are idiotically mocking takes you directly to the data that was used to build the chart.
You that blind little child.......
Neither I nor Judith Curry are mocking the chart. We just take it to another level.
Which is about a dozen levels above the level of denialist ass-clowns! with charts.
How can you convince me?
1. Show me evidence from any credible, verifiable source that all the trillions of dollars spent so far on green energy projects, all the rules, regulations, control, mandates have reduced the CO2 in the atmosphere by a single particle.
2. Show me that the predictions made by the so-called climate scientists over the last 50 years have actually happened. That they have not just kept moving the goal posts on down the road as each one comes up, passes, and none of the catastrophe predicted has happened.
3. Show me that the so-called climate scientists and others pushing the AGW theories and agenda are living their lives as if they believe what they are pushing.
4. Show me that warming is dangerous when the planet has flourished just fine in warmer periods than now. That plants and animal life on Planet Earth do not prosper more in warm periods than cold ones.
5. Show me that all the trillions spent trying to control the climate--expenditures that appear to be futile--could not have been spent more efficiently, effectively, and profitably in helping humankind adapt construcively to inevitable climate change.
Me: It’s warming. The warming is caused by us. Warming is dangerous. We need to urgently transition to renewable energy to stop the warming. Once we do that, sea-level rise will stop and the weather won’t be so extreme.
And if you don't like what I said then tell Ms. Curry. She's the denialists' credible, verifiable source.
100% of the climate scientists agree with their funders.
I don't need credentials to look at a graph and see the truth.
Then you or her should be able to tell us why humans are affecting the climate when the graph clearly shows
that to be a lie.
Hold on now. Shirley you're not such an ass-clown who would try to say that AGW isn't real, surely?
You're a climate change genius!
Why didn't anybody else in the world just look at that graph?
Similar threads
New Topics
-
BREAKING: Trump Says The Iran War “Very Much Complete” - Press Conference Tonight- Started by RhodyPatriot
- Replies: 15
-
President Trump Will Soon Present A Press Conference- Started by OhPleaseJustQuit
- Replies: 4
-
-
Thankfully, the Two Mohammedan Terrorists in NYC Were Bad at Building IEDs- Started by excalibur
- Replies: 3
-
