The US heat dome is a warning for the 2024 elections

[westwall]

A hypothesis is a statement that can be proved or disproved. It is typically used in quantitative research and predicts the relationship between variables.

All science is questioned. All anyone will ask is "prove it".

No, climate "science" is now dogma. In other words it is a religion.

They regularly ignore the scientific method and that renders them to nothing more than a pseudo science, the same as palm reading, phrenology, and astrology.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You are referring to Mann the "Nobel Prize winner" methinks...

When you need someone to molest the data.........

 

[westwall]

When you need someone to molest the data.........

He is the expert..

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

View attachment 965864

Climate Change Indicators: High and Low Temperatures | US EPA

This indicator describes trends in unusually hot and cold temperatures across the United States.

www.epa.gov

View attachment 965865

List of weather records - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

CNN Goes ‘Mann Overboard’ on Eastern U.S. Heatwave - ClimateRealism

Editors Note: This guest essay from meteorologist Chris Martz talks about how CNN uncritically reposted statements from embattled climatologist Michael Mann in an interview discussing summer a heat wave that has been forecast for the eastern half of the United States. The media has been...

climaterealism.com

 

[Crick]

No, climate "science" is now dogma. In other words it is a religion.

AGW is a very well accepted theory and no one but the uneducated thinks or treats it otherwise

They regularly ignore the scientific method and that renders them to nothing more than a pseudo science, the same as palm reading, phrenology, and astrology.

Examples? Links? An identification of whom you mean by "they"?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

 

[CrusaderFrank]

AGW is a very well accepted theory and no one but the uneducated thinks or treats it otherwise

Examples? Links? An identification of whom you mean by "they"?

But you have to "Believe" in it because it treats the lab like Dracula greeting the morning sun while standing in a field of garlic

 

[Crick]

Let's see, on the one hand we've got six assessment reports, each thousands of pages reviewing the conclusions of thousands of published, peer-reviewed studies over 36 years and a consensus among scientists approaching statistical unanimity... and on the other hand, we've got a single panel cartoon.

 

[Crick]

But you have to "Believe" in it because it treats the lab like Dracula greeting the morning sun while standing in a field of garlic

How much lab work is involved in astronomy, oceanography, cosmology, mathematics, sociology? Do you reject all their findings?

You would think that being involved in the discussions here for as many years as you've been here might have improved your general science knowledge. But you're still making the same stupid comments you made in 2015.

 

[Rawley]

There are still some variety in the opinions of the actual experts and Fauci is certainly earned the right to hold one. Here is the latest assessment from the Director of National Intelligence and the National Intelligence Council

---

---

This assessment responds to the President’s request that the Intelligence Community (IC) update its previous judgments on the origins of COVID-19. It also identifies areas for possible additional research. Annexes include a lexicon, additional details on methodology, and comments from outside experts. This assessment is based on information through August 2021.

The IC assesses that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, probably emerged and infected humans through an initial small-scale exposure that occurred no later than November 2019 with the first known cluster of COVID-19 cases arising in Wuhan, China in December 2019. In addition, the IC was able to reach broad agreement on several other key issues. We judge the virus was not developed as a biological weapon. Most agencies also assess with low confidence that SARS-CoV-2 probably was not genetically engineered; however, two agencies believe there was not sufficient evidence to make an assessment either way. Finally, the IC assesses China’s officials did not have foreknowledge of the virus before the initial outbreak of COVID-19 emerged. After examining all available intelligence reporting and other information, though, the IC remains divided on the most likely origin of COVID-19. All agencies assess that two hypotheses are plausible: natural exposure to an infected animal and a laboratory-associated incident.
 Four IC elements and the National Intelligence Council assess with low confidence that the initial SARS-CoV-2 infection was most likely caused by natural exposure to an animal infected with it or a close progenitor virus—a virus that probably would be more than 99 percent similar to SARS-CoV-2. These analysts give weight to China’s officials’ lack of foreknowledge, the numerous vectors for natural exposure, and other factors.
 One IC element assesses with moderate confidence that the first human infection with SARS-CoV-2 most likely was the result of a laboratory-associated incident, probably involving experimentation, animal handling, or sampling by the Wuhan Institute of Virology. These analysts give weight to the inherently risky nature of work on coronaviruses.
 Analysts at three IC elements remain unable to coalesce around either explanation without additional information, with some analysts favoring natural origin, others a laboratory origin, and some seeing the hypotheses as equally likely.
 Variations in analytic views largely stem from differences in how agencies weigh intelligence reporting and scientific publications and intelligence and scientific gaps. The IC judges they will be unable to provide a more definitive explanation for the origin of COVID-19 unless new information allows them to determine the specific pathway for initial natural contact with an animal or to determine that a laboratory in Wuhan was handling SARS-CoV-2 or a close progenitor virus before COVID-19 emerged.
 The IC—and the global scientific community—lacks clinical samples or a complete understanding of epidemiological data from the earliest COVID-19 cases. If we obtain information on the earliest cases that identified a location of interest or occupational exposure, it may alter our evaluation of hypotheses.

China’s cooperation most likely would be needed to reach a conclusive assessment of the origins of COVID-19. Beijing, however, continues to hinder the global investigation, resist sharing information, and blame other countries, including the United States. These actions reflect, in part, China’s government’s own uncertainty about where an investigation could lead as well as its frustration the international community is using the issue to exert political pressure on China.

---

---

So, there is certainly no strong consensus that COVID-19 came from a lab.

No, he wasn't.

Allegations of a cover-up​

Fauci, who stepped down from his role at NIAID in December 2022 after leading the agency for almost 40 years, was the face of the US pandemic response during both the Trump and Biden administrations.

Some critics have accused Fauci of suppressing the idea early in the pandemic that China might have accidentally or intentionally released SARS-CoV-2 from a laboratory in Wuhan, the city where the first cases of COVID-19 were detected. Some have alleged that Fauci, along with Francis Collins, former director of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) — of which NIAID is a part — encouraged a group of virologists to publish an article in Nature Medicine1 concluding that a lab-leak scenario was not plausible. (Nature is editorially independent of Nature Medicine, and Nature’s news team is independent of its journals team.)

These critics also say that Fauci and Collins were motivated to suppress the lab-leak theory because, before the pandemic, the NIAID had awarded a research grant to the New York City-based non-profit organization EcoHealth Alliance, which had been partnering with the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) to study coronaviruses in bats. They have raised the possibility that the WIV used NIAID resources to conduct research that could have spawned SARS-CoV-2. At the hearing, Fauci responded that the available genetic data indicate that the viruses investigated at the WIV “could not be the precursor to SARS-CoV-2”.

Most virologists say that although a lab-leak origin is possible, the preponderance of scientific evidence points to a zoonotic origin for the COVID-19 pandemic, meaning that the virus spread to humans from wild animals. At the hearing, Fauci said he has always been open to both origin hypotheses, pointing to a February 2020 e-mail he sent to a prominent scientist who was alarmed that SARS-CoV-2 could have leaked from a lab. In the correspondence, Fauci said that any concerns should be reported to intelligence officials if they were substantiated. “It is inconceivable that anyone who reads this e-mail could conclude that I was trying to cover up the possibility of a laboratory leak,” he testified.

Raul Ruiz, a Democratic representative from California and ranking member of the subcommittee, said at the hearing that House Republicans have used the guise of investigating the pandemic’s origins to weaponize “concerns about a lab-related origin to fuel sentiment against our nation’s scientists”.

‘Preposterous’: Anthony Fauci denies cover-up of COVID origins during tense hearing

Long-awaited testimony ends in fireworks as US lawmakers spar over the former infectious-disease official’s pandemic actions.

www.nature.com

Distancing undeniably reduces transmission

Masks undeniably reduce transmission.

School closures and any action to reduce large gatherings will reduce transmission

Fauci never made that claim. It was made early in the vaccination effort by the director of the CDC, Rochelle Walansky and then retracted as more data came in.

CDC reverses statement by director that vaccinated people are no longer contagious

“We are continuing to evaluate the evidence,” a CDC spokesman said.

thehill.com

So, your contentions fail. Fauci has told no lies.

Have a blessed day.

 

[22lcidw]

Let's see, on the one hand we've got six assessment reports, each thousands of pages reviewing the conclusions of thousands of published, peer-reviewed studies over 36 years and a consensus among scientists approaching statistical unanimity... and on the other hand, we've got a single panel cartoon.

If this was true than we would have moved back from the ocean to start. And any Prog are climate change believer would not own any property near it. We have spent hundreds of billions of dollars if not trillions and we have a lot of people who became rich and a lot of companies that failed. 8 EV charging stations! In a world set to self-destruct in 2030. No rush there. To many lies. To many people predicting doom and are living the rich life.

 

[Crick]

Have a blessed day.

Thank you. Have a good day yourself.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Let's see, on the one hand we've got six assessment reports, each thousands of pages reviewing the conclusions of thousands of published, peer-reviewed studies over 36 years and a consensus among scientists approaching statistical unanimity... and on the other hand, we've got a single panel cartoon.

GIGO

If memory serves the datasets on the oceans had to been added in on subsequent IPCC reports because "Hide the decline"

There is less than zero reliable data on ocean temps before 1940, much less the "heat" in the deep oceans that accounts for so much of the current warming

 

[Crick]

If this was true than we would have moved back from the ocean to start.

We are moving away from the ocean. And what makes you think that the actions of a random collection of people refute the detailed observations and studies of hundreds and hundreds of scientists? If moths get burned by flames, you'd think they'd no longer be drawn to lights. If heroin use always has a bad outcome, you'd think there would be no addicts. If money can't buy happiness, you'd think no one would try to get rich. Do you get the point? Living on the coast is attractive to almost everyone. Sea level rise over the last 30 years has been 110 mm or 4.3 inches. It's very easy to convince one's self that there will be no real risk in one's lifetime. And trying to using uncontrolled, secondary and tertiary effects to refute direct observation is about as stupid as stupid can get.

And any Prog are climate change believer would not own any property near it.

Stupid.

We have spent hundreds of billions of dollars if not trillions

On what?

and we have a lot of people who became rich and a lot of companies that failed.

If many companies failed we should not have had people getting rich. If many people got rich, we should not have seen many companies fail. And it would be a nice idea if, beside not contradicting yourself inside a single sentence, you were able to draw some connection between AGW mitigation measures and the maleffects you are attempting to claim.

8 EV charging stations!

By the first quarter of 2023, there were 161,562 EV charging stations in the US.

In a world set to self-destruct in 2030.

Are you being hyperbolic or are you claiming that mainstream climate science is making such a claim? Because, they are not.

No rush there.

No rush where?

To many lies.

You meant "TOO many lies". So far, you seem to be the only one here spouting falsehoods.

To many people predicting doom and are living the rich life.

So, that makes you suspect that the conclusions of mainstream science are not true? How many of those thousands of scientists have gotten rich by reporting that AGW is valid? I'm no fan of the uber-wealthy but being or becoming rich does not increase anyone's propensity to lie and the warnings about the harm that global warming will do to us are not coming from the rich. They're coming from thousands of mainstream scientists who have mountains of evidence supporting their conclusions.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How much lab work is involved in astronomy, oceanography, cosmology, mathematics, sociology? Do you reject all their findings?

You would think that being involved in the discussions here for as many years as you've been here might have improved your general science knowledge. But you're still making the same stupid comments you made in 2015.

No, not at all. First there is a massive amount of lab work in real science. Second, the fundamental theory of AGW: 120PPM additional CO2 causes catastrophic temperature can easily and readily be demonstrated in a lab, but it never is.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

 

[leftwinger]

How many new nuclear reactors should we build?

None. Too much hazardous waste to deal with. Build Natural Gas power plants. Plentiful and clean. Build now.

 

[leftwinger]

What are these other predictions you claim have been mocked?

Only every prediction since algore to stupid AOC types (yours too).

 

[leftwinger]

Over 1000s’ of year periods, i am certain you can find Hot and Cold periods. Not anything you can do about it but power thru it. //

 

[Dagosa]

The U.S. heat dome is a warning about the 2024 election

And there may be no policy area with a clearer divide between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump.

www.msnbc.com

No one would describe Saudi Arabia in the summer as chilly, but pilgrims at this year’s Hajj experienced something unusual even for this largely desert nation. According to the Saudi weather service, temperatures at the Grand Mosque in Mecca reached an astonishing 125 degrees Fahrenheit on Monday; 2,700 people reportedly were overcome by heat exhaustion, and dozens of pilgrims died from the temperatures.

If you have grandchildren and you want them to see a bright future, you will not vote for trump. He has vowed to roll back all environmental efforts to battle climate change. His view into the future extends no farther than the end of his orange nose. With trump is is all about power and money. He is thinking of his Saudi friends and their dependence on fossil fuel revenue.

Within five years, we may be seeing 120+ degrees temperature in the US, on a regular basis. Then the repubs will come up with another excuse to deny climate change.

The deniers are caught in a conundrum. They deny climate change while rebuking the mass immigration problems caused by those moving into temperate zones. Areas of the earth are becoming uninhabitable at a rate faster than we can adapt or assimilate the population shits. This inability to understand what is happening is directly related to their ignorance of science.