Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
2) Being in pharm research, then I suppose you 're well aware of the "cholesterol problem" fraud-- Statins only shown to improve primary outcomes when results are held to a disingenuous p = 0.10 standard, yet forced upon a naive public, and for secondary outcomes fraudulently reported as 33% improvement (RRR) when it's more accurately described as a 2% improvement (ARR)...And tell us about Aricept...There are a plethora of other examples without even getting into the CoV vax profits scandal.
Yes I know, and the Apollo program never landed on the moon, and 9/11 was an inside job, and Covid-19 is a hoax, and Elvis was just seen at a 7-11 in Texas... how clever you are, not to accept conventional understanding, but to look always for alternative explanations for reality... brilliant. I'm going to put you on ignore now - you're joining an elite list of users here.
Yes I know, and the Apollo program never landed on the moon, and 9/11 was an inside job, and Covid-19 is a hoax, and Elvis was just seen at a 7-11 in Texas... how clever you are, not to accept conventional understanding, but to look always for alternative explanations for reality... brilliant. I'm going to put you on ignore now - you're joining an elite list of users here.
Tell us, Mr. Science-- what evidence do you have that I believe in any of those other things you just mentioned? ...I'd say you've illustrated without a doubt that you form opinions based on fantasies, not evidence. Quod est demonstratum. Thank you.
Yes I know, and the Apollo program never landed on the moon, and 9/11 was an inside job, and Covid-19 is a hoax, and Elvis was just seen at a 7-11 in Texas... how clever you are, not to accept conventional understanding, but to look always for alternative explanations for reality... brilliant. I'm going to put you on ignore now - you're joining an elite list of users here.
Well, it isn’t a factual scientific rebuttal - from a person who is an alleged scientist - you are resorting to practically name calling - often happens when people have no real arguments left in a discussion.
Tellingly though - you have used the words “not to accept conventional understanding”
If everyone always would accept “conventional” - we would still believe that the Sun revolves around the flat Earth.
This is what is known for a fact: the climate is always changing - I don’t think anyone disputes this fact - it is a “conventional” axiom.
The Sahara desert was lush and vibrantly green once upon a time and there was warm tropical seas in a current upstate New York.
There is data available from the earth core/ice core drilling - that hundreds of years ago the CO2 was much higher than it is now.
There is a theory that a lot of climate changes are a result of oceans currents speeds, temperatures changes, reflectivity, other conditions, etc.
It could be a prudent hypothesis - after all the Earth is mostly covered with the oceans. Why not explore it? Do more research and studies?
When did it become intolerable to question in the science?
Why the idea that CO2 is the reason for climate change is prudent and others are not?
Is the climate change just a natural fluctuations in the life of Earth? And the humans have to adjust?
Our life span is so short, that our anecdotal perceptions and experiences - are just a blimp in the millions of years the life existed on Earth.
Does human activities affect the climate - perhaps; most likely, for sure - like everything else
Is it crucially significant? It is uncertain…most likely not.
If it would be so tragically significant as “millions of scientists” according to you think - then we would be ordered to move out of our comfortable homes, turn off all electricity worldwide on the way out and try to survive by gathering dandelions and hunting with bows and arrows
Paying businesses to cover the Earth with solar panels, banning coal and gas heating, ICE vehicles looks like just creating another set of problems with nearly a religious fervor in a rush.
Do I think that it is a good idea to stop using coal and gas?
Yes - it could be nice - but only because it could be an indispensable resources later on in humankind development- when we acquire higher technologies to use them for more sophisticated purposes than simply getting from A to B for a loaf of bread or simply heating the environment through the drafty walls of our primitively constructed buildings …
However, we are where we are with technology
The fact that the majority simply accepts certain postulates without questioning or applying a critical thinking makes it really scary.
Thank Universe that inquisition went away: or at least we don’t kill people for questioning “the conventional truths” anymore..
Last edited by L00k4ward; 10-02-2022 at 05:54 PM..
Human induced CO2 is having an impact. I debated a climate scientist from Notre Dame on a flight home and she made a good point, it isn't whether humans are adding CO2 (which we are), it is the logistical cost of uprooting production to other areas (crops) because of it. In the end, we need to learn to manage our environment if we are to survive - whether global freeze or global warming. We need to respect the finite resources we have right now - not some time far off.
Human induced CO2 is having an impact. I debated a climate scientist from Notre Dame on a flight home and she made a good point, it isn't whether humans are adding CO2 (which we are), it is the logistical cost of uprooting production to other areas (crops) because of it. In the end, we need to learn to manage our environment if we are to survive - whether global freeze or global warming. We need to respect the finite resources we have right now - not some time far off.
Great idealism -- as long as someone else is writing the check, making the sacrifices. The fact that your plane on which you were flying was probably not a "green" vehicle says it all.
That's really funny. You look for credibility from the very people with the most to gain (other than the politicians) from perpetuating the lies. A fact of life in the research world-- You get no more research money when you prove something is NOT a problem.
The dissipation of ethics among the scientific community has reached criminal levels in recent decades. In climatology specifically, I deduce you are not familiar with "Climategate?" https://intellectualtakeout.org/2019...n-years-later/
...And it seems Jane Lubchenco, deputy director of Biden's climate & enviro- advisory committee, former head of NOAA under BO, was sanctioned by the Ntl Ac of Sci for ethics & peer review violations in 2010. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...on/ar-AA10LYdO
I agree that when the most vocal about the dangers and need for "Change" don't change their behavior, their credibility is null. They should not be given a pass on this behavior respective of political party, especially when they are the proponents of policy impacting everyone else's lives but they continue living extravagantly.
Reminds me of the great response the Italian leader had a few years back to Richard Gere when he media postured about advocating for concerns of illegal immigrants turned away. The Italian leader suggested Mr Gere take them to his residence in Hollywood and vacation homes. THIS is the type of response that needs to consistently be applied to these media spotlight seeking elitists. See reaction when the bus dropped them off by VP Harris residence. NOW it becomes an issue. LOL
In regards to conventional truths, some may find the following scientific research of interest. This was post WW2 government findings from studies of Arctic and has no political agenda.
The pertinent chapters to listen to are Ch 27 through Ch 30. When the results were leaked in early 1950s, it went unnoticed by most of the public. It shows that even when findings are released they often are overlooked or outright ignored.
I add it to this thread as it may help understand theearth's natural cycles.
I am for being good stewards and pro responsible environment. Too many Industries (and potential Indu$trie$) have an undo influence both ways. And the posturing elitists need to be exposed like the "Emperor with no clothes".
#1 -- Project A119. Project A119, also known as A Study of Lunar Research Flights, was a top-secret plan developed in 1958 by the United States Air Force. The aim of the project was to detonate a nuclear bomb on the Moon, which would help in answering some of the mysteries in planetary astronomy and astrogeology. If the explosive device detonated on ...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_A119
#2 Hydrogen bombs in space --we would like to offer this humbling bit of history. Back in the summer of 1962, the U.S. blew up a hydrogen bomb in outer space, some 250 miles above the Pacific Ocean https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwic...bombs-in-space
#3 -- The jets ‘would release a cloud of microscopic sulfur dioxide particles, which at an altitude of 43,000 feet (13 kilometers) and latitude of 60 degrees north and south- could loft a payload sufficient to cool the regions by two degrees per year. http://https://winepressnews.com/202...eze-the-poles/
#4 -- President Lyndon Johnson Approves Weather Warfare
May 27, 1962 - 1969. " It lays the predicate and foundation for the development of a weather satellite that will permit man to determine the world's cloud layer and ultimately to control the weather; and he who controls the weather will control the world " - Vice President Johnson at Southwest Texas State University (1962) [1] "In his subcommittee's detailed summary statement Johnson proclaimed that our very future depended on being the ones who first seized ownership of space.
{ “Control of space means control of the world,” Johnson declared.
“From space, the masters of infinity would have the power to control the earth’s weather, to cause drought and flood, to change the tides and raise the levels of the sea, to divert the gulf stream and change temperate climates to frigid.”}
“From space, the masters of infinity would have the power to control the earth’s weather, to cause drought and flood, to change the tides and raise the levels of the sea, to divert the gulf stream and change temperate climates to frigid.”}
They made a major error in thinking they could "control" the weather, but that was before Lorenz published his work on chaos theory and The Butterfly Effect....You can't control the weather, but you can influence it. The problem is, you don't know what the effect of your influence will be. Look up "chaos theory & bifurcations." ...An intuitive analogy-- a problem may have a solution including the sq root of 4, which is not only "2" but also "-2"-- You chose the one that applies to your case, but in chaos theory, you don't get to chose. It just happens randomly.
Cloud seeding was originally experimented with by the US military, not in order to improve rain for ag purposes as advertised, but to potentially cause huge storms that could disrupt things for our enemies.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
