Climate Change, definitions and refutation of the fairy tale.

[robosmith]

31 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Denigrate the source when you can't refute the findings?

If the source is not credible, then neither are the "findings" it reports.

31 minutes ago, Goddess said:

This is being done waaaaaaaay too much lately.

Because too many sources that lack credibility and only report what a certain audience wants to hear.

FOS LIES had to pay $800M for libel based on doing just that.

31 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Is the information false?  Did they NOT throw out real data in favour of "models"?

How does the data based on "models" differ from the "real data" and WHY was it substituted?

Your source doesn't mention EITHER.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

Very true.

Peer-review is not the pinnacle of science.

Reproducibility is.

Yes, that's accurate but also prediction. Or more correctly Accurate prediction.  If the science is solid then it should be possible to make very accurate predictions about for both the short and long term. 

But we don't see that.  We see at best massive 'ranges' that suggest we'll be anywhere between mildly inconvenienced to all dead. We get this general statements like "there will be more "severe" weather events" without any real indication of how much more severe, how they're measuring that or what events specifically will show up and when. 

And what we're left with is trudeau standing in a puddle after the flood in Toronto pointing and saying "CLIMATE CHANGE!!!"   Ok - so why didn't we know that was coming if the science is that solid?

I'm sure there is climate change - the climate has been changing since the earth formed 4billion years ago and i see no reason to assume that's going to stop now.  They say it's getting warmer and that will mean more 'severe' weather from time to time and that seems plausible, if you put more energy into a system it tends to become more energetic.   

But i don't see 'Crisis" or "end of humanity" or anything. 

And what REALLY cheezes my crackers is this idea that "the oceans will rise and millions will die" crap ....  can't they just move back when that happens? Its not like the ocean is going to lunge at them, this is supposed to be over 100 years, that's plenty of time to either walk inland or find a life preserver or floaties!

[Goddess]

39 minutes ago, robosmith said:

How does the data based on "models" differ from the "real data" and WHY was it substituted?

Your source doesn't mention EITHER.

Actually, it DOES answer those questions in the article.

39 minutes ago, robosmith said:

How does the data based on "models" differ from the "real data"

This means that several important readings were omitted from the models including the fact that Toronto was hotter in 1852 than in 2017, while Vancouver experienced warmer weather in 1910 than it did in 2017. It also excluded the fact that the hottest temperature ever observed in Canada took place on September 15, 1935. 

41 minutes ago, robosmith said:

WHY was it substituted?

 .....to produce dramatic weather diagrams and maps for their climate change website.

.....as a means to illustrate the threat of climate change.

 

They fabricated the data to support their preferred narrative because the real data didn't support it.

I guess you didn't read the article, which kinds proves my thought that climate change catastrophizers refuse to consider any information that doesn't agree with the preferred narrative.

Let's face it - if the non-catastrophizers were substituting real data for fake data, you'd be having a fit.

[Rebound]

On 7/13/2024 at 3:05 PM, Nationalist said:

Well you would be, what is commonly known as...wrong.

So much so that Brandon is draining the US strategic reserves.

Based on what?

"AHHH!!! WE ALL GONNA DIIIEEE!!!"

It's all one gross lie.!

Oh BTW: Strike one...

No, you nationalist liar, the U.S. is refilling the strategic petroleum reserve. So vote for Biden  

https://www.npr.org/2024/05/12/1250805113/the-u-s-is-refilling-the-strategic-petroleum-reserves-what-purpose-can-they-serv

Edited July 18 by Rebound

[robosmith]

57 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Actually, it DOES answer those questions in the article.

This means that several important readings were omitted from the models including the fact that Toronto was hotter in 1852 than in 2017, while Vancouver experienced warmer weather in 1910 than it did in 2017. It also excluded the fact that the hottest temperature ever observed in Canada took place on September 15, 1935. 

 .....to produce dramatic weather diagrams and maps for their climate change website.

.....as a means to illustrate the threat of climate change.

 

They fabricated the data to support their preferred narrative because the real data didn't support it.

I guess you didn't read the article, which kinds proves my thought that climate change catastrophizers refuse to consider any information that doesn't agree with the preferred narrative.

Let's face it - if the non-catastrophizers were substituting real data for fake data, you'd be having a fit.

The FACT is, individual data points are WEATHER and irrelevant to a discussion about CLIMATE which is AVERAGE weather over 30 YEARS. AKA, NOT "to produce drama" of ANY KIND.

[Nationalist]

22 minutes ago, Rebound said:

No, you nationalist liar, the U.S. is refilling the strategic petroleum reserve. So vote for Biden  

https://www.npr.org/2024/05/12/1250805113/the-u-s-is-refilling-the-strategic-petroleum-reserves-what-purpose-can-they-serv

The SPR has a capacity of 714 million barrels. It is currently less than half full.

Brandon's sell-off of it to stabilize US oil costs was a direct result of his own stupid policies.

[robosmith]

1 minute ago, Nationalist said:

The SPR has a capacity of 714 million barrels. It is currently less than half full.

Brandon's sell-off of it to stabilize US oil costs was a direct result of his own stupid policies.

You mean allowing Ukraine the FREEDOM to make deals with Western nations?

The SPR was CREATED to stabilize US oil costs when OPEC created chaos in the markets. Duh

You're not very bright, are ya.

[Nationalist]

4 minutes ago, robosmith said:

You mean allowing Ukraine the FREEDOM to make deals with Western nations?

The SPR was CREATED to stabilize US oil costs when OPEC created chaos in the markets. Duh

You're not very bright, are ya.

From the link @Rebound posted...

Quote

Historically speaking, the U.S. was a very big oil importer. And so the Strategic Petroleum Reserve was this almost, like, geopolitical hedge. Like if the U.S. gets cut off from oil for some reason, then, OK, we have this stockpile so that we can continue to consume oil and keep the economy functioning.

Twit.

[Goddess]

33 minutes ago, robosmith said:

The FACT is, individual data points are WEATHER and irrelevant to a discussion about CLIMATE which is AVERAGE weather over 30 YEARS. AKA, NOT "to produce drama" of ANY KIND.

Weird.

Because Trudeau and Guilbeault say the flooding in Toronto is caused by "climate change", even though Toronto has flooded quite a lot over the years from improper infrastructure and lack of upkeep.

[robosmith]

4 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Weird.

Because Trudeau and Guilbeault say the flooding in Toronto is caused by "climate change", even though Toronto has flooded quite a lot over the years from improper infrastructure and lack of upkeep.

Climate change does AFFECT weather. Long term trends like HUGE fossil fuel CO2 emissions AFFECT BOTH.

Of course it is difficult and costly for infrastructure to keep pace with changes in climate.

Like the HUGE retractable levees for the lagoons around Venice cost hundreds of $M to mitigate sea rise.

[Goddess]

4 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Climate change does AFFECT weather.

You just said weather was irrelevant to discussion on climate in the other post.....

I find it hard to keep track of what we ARE and AREN'T allowed to talk about in a discussion on climate change.  Harder has a lot of rules on what can be part of the discussion, too.

Edited July 18 by Goddess

[robosmith]

21 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

From the link @Rebound posted...

Twit.

Thanks for pointing out the evidence for what I SAID. The SPR gave us an economic hedge to compensate for the sanctions against Russia for the INVASION.

That's what IT'S FOR. So we're NOT FORCED to capitulate to foreign oil manipulation. Duh

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, Goddess said:

You check who is funding them and the level of censorship in the scientific discussion.

And who checked your work.

3 hours ago, Goddess said:

Duh

Fu ck you too 

3 hours ago, Goddess said:

Can either you or @Michael Hardnerexplain why you believe in censorship of scientific discussion?

Speaking for myself, no I can't, because I don't believe in censorship.

3 hours ago, Goddess said:

Very true

review is not the pinnacle of science.

Reproducibility is.

Nice try but that's bullshit. Peer review is necessary, key, standard and integral.

The peer-review process subjects an author's scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field (peers) and is considered  necessary to ensure academic scientific quality.

The three most common types of peer review are single-anonymized, double-anonymized, and open peer review. Over time, new models have developed such as transparent, collaborative, and post publication peer review, which are key variations from the standard approach.

Peer review is integral to ensuring that robust, high quality research is published. In essence, it's the independent assessment of a research paper by experts in that field. Its purpose is to evaluate a manuscript's quality and suitability for publication.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Peer-review&oq=Peer-review&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCDE0NjFqMGo3qAIPsAIB&client=ms-android-telus-ca-revc&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

 

Edited July 18 by eyeball

[robosmith]

1 minute ago, Goddess said:

You just said weather was irrelevant to discussion on climate in the other post.....

It is irrelevant as evidence for/against the existence of climate change.

AKA, one or a couple of data points can be outliers not indicative of a trend.

When the trend has been established, along with the cause, it becomes a valid explanation for greater extremes.

But past extremes may be for other reasons such as the natural mere chaos of the chaotic weather process.

Ever heard of a rogue wave? When the ocean is generally more active due to a violent storm, the chaotic process sometimes produces a wave which is much more extreme than the average. Much like is weather in the rising activity of climate change. 

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, eyeball said:

And who checked your work.

Fu ck you too 

Speaking for myself, no I can't, because I don't believe in censorship.

Nice try but that's bullshit. Peer review is necessary, key, standard and integral.

The peer-review process subjects an author's scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field (peers) and is considered  necessary to ensure academic scientific quality.

The three most common types of peer review are single-anonymized, double-anonymized, and open peer review. Over time, new models have developed such as transparent, collaborative, and post publication peer review, which are key variations from the standard approach.

Peer review is integral to ensuring that robust, high quality research is published. In essence, it's the independent assessment of a research paper by experts in that field. Its purpose is to evaluate a manuscript's quality and suitability for publication.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Peer-review&oq=Peer-review&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCDE0NjFqMGo3qAIPsAIB&client=ms-android-telus-ca-revc&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

 

Ahem. 

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals - PMC (nih.gov)

At the BMJ we did several studies where we inserted major errors into papers that we then sent to many reviewers.3,4 Nobody ever spotted all of the errors. Some reviewers did not spot any, and most reviewers spotted only about a quarter. Peer review sometimes picks up fraud by chance, but generally it is not a reliable method for detecting fraud because it works on trust. 

So we have little evidence on the effectiveness of peer review, but we have considerable evidence on its defects. In addition to being poor at detecting gross defects and almost useless for detecting fraud it is slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias, and easily abused.

 

Seems like scientists don't think it's key or necessary.  Standard maybe. 

Peer review means nothing.

[Goddess]

6 minutes ago, eyeball said:

And who checked your work.

Feel free.  It's usually listed in the conflicts of interest section of a study.

7 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I don't believe in censorship.

Weird, given how much you support it.

7 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Peer review is necessary, key, standard and integral.

I didn't say it wasn't necessary or integral.

But if a study's hypothesis cannot be reproduced by other independent scientists, then the peer reviewing is moot.

For example, the first scientist to discover and publish a study on the DNA contamination in the jabs- he was mocked at first until about 5  other independent scientists reproduced the work.

[Goddess]

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Ahem. 

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals - PMC (nih.gov)

At the BMJ we did several studies where we inserted major errors into papers that we then sent to many reviewers.3,4 Nobody ever spotted all of the errors. Some reviewers did not spot any, and most reviewers spotted only about a quarter. Peer review sometimes picks up fraud by chance, but generally it is not a reliable method for detecting fraud because it works on trust. 

So we have little evidence on the effectiveness of peer review, but we have considerable evidence on its defects. In addition to being poor at detecting gross defects and almost useless for detecting fraud it is slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias, and easily abused.

 

Seems like scientists don't think it's key or necessary.  Standard maybe. 

Peer review means nothing.

Eyeball always does a quick google without thinking things through or considering various facets of an argument. 🤣

[robosmith]

3 minutes ago, Goddess said:

For example, the first scientist to discover and publish a study on the DNA contamination in the jabs- he was mocked at first until about 5  other independent scientists reproduced the work.

You mean this:

The Pfizer mRNA vaccine is contaminated with the plasmid ...

South Carolina Legislature (.gov)

https://www.scstatehouse.gov › CommitteeInfo › P...

 

PDF

 

the pieces of DNA are small and are likely to damage the human genome by integrating and becoming permanent mutations (like shotgun pellets hitting a ...

No, COVID mRNA Vaccines Won't Damage Your DNA

Scientific American

https://www.scientificamerican.com › article › no-covid...

 

Jan 4, 2024 — You have a “better chance of becoming Spider-Man” than being harmed by DNA from COVID vaccines.

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Eyeball always does a quick google without thinking things through or considering various facets of an argument. 🤣

He's been saying that for decades now    (inside joke. He'll get it. )

1 minute ago, robosmith said:

You mean this:

The Pfizer mRNA vaccine is contaminated with the plasmid ...

South Carolina Legislature (.gov)

https://www.scstatehouse.gov › CommitteeInfo › P...

 

PDF

 

the pieces of DNA are small and are likely to damage the human genome by integrating and becoming permanent mutations (like shotgun pellets hitting a ...

No, COVID mRNA Vaccines Won't Damage Your DNA

Scientific American

https://www.scientificamerican.com › article › no-covid...

 

Jan 4, 2024 — You have a “better chance of becoming Spider-Man” than being harmed by DNA from COVID vaccines.

WtF is wrong with your cut and paste stuff these days anyway? I've meant to ask. 

[Goddess]

1 minute ago, robosmith said:

You mean this:

The Pfizer mRNA vaccine is contaminated with the plasmid ...

South Carolina Legislature (.gov)

https://www.scstatehouse.gov › CommitteeInfo › P...

 

PDF

 

the pieces of DNA are small and are likely to damage the human genome by integrating and becoming permanent mutations (like shotgun pellets hitting a ...

No, COVID mRNA Vaccines Won't Damage Your DNA

Scientific American

https://www.scientificamerican.com › article › no-covid...

 

Jan 4, 2024 — You have a “better chance of becoming Spider-Man” than being harmed by DNA from COVID vaccines.

I guess if you want to go with Opinion articles over the actual studies that show the evidence and the other studies that explain the mechanisms for the damage......

Did you see the post where Moderna acknowledged in their patents, years before these jabs, that DNA contamination would be a huge problem and that it needed to be removed from injections, especially if they are given repeatedly?

[Goddess]

6 minutes ago, robosmith said:

You mean this:

At least you're admitting that it was a lie that the injections "stay in the arm"......

I wonder why they felt the need to lie about them in the first place staying in the arm, if it never mattered if DNA fragments went all over your body and integrated into your genome?

I think it was because they knew they DIDN'T stay in the arm, AND they knew what that meant.

There are no links to your screenshots, so I can't tell if those opinion pieces were written before or after the contamination was confirmed.....

[robosmith]

12 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I guess if you want to go with Opinion articles over the actual studies that show the evidence and the other studies that explain the mechanisms for the damage......

The OPINIONS OF EXPERTS are generally more valid than mere general opinion.

From Scientific American cite:

Quote

Many scientists have dismissed the risks Ladapo asserted. They include Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, who serves on an FDA advisory committee for the COVID vaccines. The way mRNA vaccines are made does result in  small amounts of DNA in the final product, Offit says—but that’s true of any vaccine grown in cells, including the measles and chickenpox vaccines. “There are trace quantities” of DNA (billionths to trillionths of a gram) per vaccine dose, “which is utterly and completely harmless for several reasons,” he says.

To make an mRNA vaccine against COVID, scientists start with circular pieces of DNA called plasmids that contain a gene for the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes the disease. The plasmids are amplified into billions of copies inside of bacteria, and chemicals are then added to release them from the bacteria. Enzymes are used to cut the plasmids into linear pieces of DNA that encode the spike protein, and a different enzyme converts that DNA into mRNA. Another enzyme is added to chop any remaining DNA into tiny harmless fragments.

 

 

12 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Did you see the post where Moderna acknowledged in their patents, years before these jabs, that DNA contamination would be a huge problem and that it needed to be removed from injections, especially if they are given repeatedly?

No, didn't see that. So is Moderna scrubbing THEIR vaccines for DNA fragments?

I had Pfizer, so when will I sprout a new arm? LMAO

Edited July 18 by robosmith

[robosmith]

6 minutes ago, Goddess said:

At least you're admitting that it was a lie that the injections "stay in the arm"......

I said nothing about that. Did you forget to quote the cite I posted from SA?

6 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I wonder why they felt the need to lie about them in the first place staying in the arm, if it never mattered if DNA fragments went all over your body and integrated into your genome?

I think it was because they knew they DIDN'T stay in the arm, AND they knew what that meant.

There are no links to your screenshots, so I can't tell if those opinion pieces were written before or after the contamination was confirmed.....

There are links. Click on the titles in red. The underlining didn't get color changed.

Edited July 18 by robosmith

[eyeball]

6 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I guess if you want to go with Opinion articles over the actual studies that show the evidence and the other studies that explain the mechanisms for the damage......

Have it your way I guess. It's merely your own opinion that everything you've posted as evidence is also called science.

[Goddess]

3 minutes ago, robosmith said:

So is Moderna scrubbing THEIR vaccines for DNA fragments?

Obviously not.  There's hundreds of billions of fragments in them.

4 minutes ago, robosmith said:

I had Pfizer, so when will I sprout a new arm?

Heart issues, immunological or neurological conditions are more likely.

There's a new database study using data from VAERS showing that Moderna has  30% higher rate of death than Pfizer.  So....good for you?