Climate and the number of deniers

[The_Doc_Man]

A little more in the atmosphere makes plants happy. A little more warming expands the growing area for food crops.

Based on the increased warmth and increased rainfall attributed to climate change, and based on my observation of how high the grass is growing in some areas where I take my daily walk, the plants are VERY happy. Ecstatic, perhaps.

But seriously, it is part of the balance of nature. Where there is extra warmth there is extra energy, which increases evaporation and atmospheric currents that lead to more rain. That evaporation and the rain storms bleed off extra energy so that we don't become a desert everywhere. Right now, south Louisiana and (in fact many of the the Gulf Coast and East Coast states) have enough afternoon storms and remnants of tropical storms that we have no chance of becoming a desert anytime soon.

Insisting that reducing CO2 is the ONLY solution is downright idiotic.

You're singin' my song, sister.

 

[Isaac]

They just came out with a new fear and intimidation tactic to grab power: That humans are destroying the planet by breathing.

Once they make you think your very existence is the threat, you are more willing to do anything they say.

But let's allow Covid to be our teacher. Let's glean something from it and never forget. They exagerated something in a massive way to grab power and held on as long and hard as they could. Climate change is the never-ending covid, justifying anti-democratic and authoritarian things to give them more power.

 

[DickyP]

Do you believe dairy cows play a part in climate change do to flatulence?

Yes and no! Grass fed cattle produce minimal flatulence, whereas feed fed cattle produce masses.

 

[jpl458]

That 97% report has been debunked endlessly. In fact the author even assumed positions that scientists took when they never explicitly stated those positions themselves. Scientists have come out and said they never said what the author claimed. But the politicians still ran with it. Why use fake reports if the arguments are so good?

Jon, I was qurious and found this. I hope youe read it and give me yoyr thoughts. It's lengthy, but it is worth it. Some interesting graphs.

Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

In the past 60 years, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased 100 times faster than it did during the end of the last ice age.

www.climate.gov

 

[AccessBlaster]

Yes and no! Grass fed cattle produce minimal flatulence, whereas feed fed cattle produce masses.

I love a good grass fed steak as well as anyone, but you have to twist the facts into a pretzel to believe cows play any part in climate change. It's a money grab, it's a way to stimulate stagnant money in a different direction i.e. green jobs.

 

[jpl458]

They just came out with a new fear and intimidation tactic to grab power: That humans are destroying the planet by breathing.

Once they make you think your very existence is the threat, you are more willing to do anything they say.

But let's allow Covid to be our teacher. Let's glean something from it and never forget. They exagerated something in a massive way to grab power and held on as long and hard as they could. Climate change is the never-ending covid, justifying anti-democratic and authoritarian things to give them more power.

What power, over what. I think that 1,219,847 deaths from covid is pretty serious. That number is not an exageration. And covid 19 still exists.

 

[Jon]

Jon, I was qurious and found this. I hope youe read it and give me yoyr thoughts. It's lengthy, but it is worth it. Some interesting graphs.

Regretfully, I am short of time nowadays so will have to pass. I did look into all this sort of stuff in the past, and came to the conclusion this stuff is a lot more uncertain than it is made out to be.

Consider this perspective. None of us here are scientists with deep understanding of an extremely complex set of cause and effect variables that make up the earths climate variability. Bit of a mouthful that, but hope it made sense. Ultimately, we rely on those individuals who might have some expertise in their specific area. However, people are full of shit. They are full of biases, political perspectives, financial motivations, social pressures and a whole bunch of other things. These all influence what they say, or how they perceive data. Just look at he placebo effect and how rational people can get a drug benefit when it is just a sugar pill.

I would wager that I can predict someones views on the climate change argument with over 80% accuracy give just one bit of information: Biden or Trump. And since the science and arguments behind climate change should have nothing to do with politics, the fact that I can make a good prediction like this just shows that politics has inserted itself between science and reality.

Or in other words, most peoples perspectives on climate change have nothing to do with the science, and all to do with the politics.

 

[Isaac]

What power, over what. I think that 1,219,847 deaths from covid is pretty serious. That number is not an exageration. And covid 19 still exists.

Okay, for starters, we found out the death rate from Covid was about 50% of what it was originally reported to be. that IS an exaggeration

 

[jpl458]

Regretfully, I am short of time nowadays so will have to pass. I did look into all this sort of stuff in the past, and came to the conclusion this stuff is a lot more uncertain than it is made out to be.

Consider this perspective. None of us here are scientists with deep understanding of an extremely complex set of cause and effect variables that make up the earths climate variability. Bit of a mouthful that, but hope it made sense. Ultimately, we rely on those individuals who might have some expertise in their specific area. However, people are full of shit. They are full of biases, political perspectives, financial motivations, social pressures and a whole bunch of other things. These all influence what they say, or how they perceive data. Just look at he placebo effect and how rational people can get a drug benefit when it is just a sugar pill.

I would wager that I can predict someones views on the climate change argument with over 80% accuracy give just one bit of information: Biden or Trump. And since the science and arguments behind climate change should have nothing to do with politics, the fact that I can make a good prediction like this just shows that politics has inserted itself between science and reality.

Or in other words, most peoples perspectives on climate change have nothing to do with the science, and all to do with the politics.

Thanks for the response. The thing I liked in the link I sent was that charts and graphs were based on empericle onservations, at a specific site and, they correlated the rise in fossil fuel use to the rise in CO2, using actual measurments of parts per million since 1958. There was a lot of text, and for the most part, it made sense. I took a lot of science in school, and learned that sciense is not a belief system, it is based on empericle observation, and observation can lead to inferencing, if you can't explain what you measure. In the video you sent, which I have viewed more than once, the speaker, and the charts end at a specific point. What if it keeps going beyond that point? Thanks again for the info.

 

[jpl458]

Okay, for starters, we found out the death rate from Covid was about 50% of what it was originally reported to be. that IS an exaggeration

Do you have proof of that? Who is we? Is there documentation?

 

[Isaac]

Do you have proof of that? Who is we? Is there documentation?

I'm not going to take the time to find it right now, but it was on all news channels and wasn't in dispute. Many states ended up correcting their death statistics down by about half. You can research it to see the 'sources', which were mostly state health departments (who had been reporting every person who died-and-also-had-had-covid as a "covid death", which conservatives were saying from the beginning was obviously untrue.

 

[jpl458]

I'm not going to take the time to find it right now, but it was on all news channels and wasn't in dispute. Many states ended up correcting their death statistics down by about half. You can research it to see the 'sources', which were mostly state health departments (who had been reporting every person who died-and-also-had-had-covid as a "covid death", which conservatives were saying from the beginning was obviously untrue.

Yeah,I understand, you don't have the time to back up what you claim.

 

[Isaac]

Yeah,I understand, you don't have the time to back up what you claim.

Right. Especially when you're the type that just asks that for everything everybody says - even the things you know full well are widely known already, such as covid deaths being overreported by about 100%. You like to try to drown people in the Process of citing sources but by over-doing it to include the things widely agreed upon and already widely reported, you show your true colors.

Someone will probably come along behind me and post a source who has more patience with you than I.

 

[AccessBlaster]

You like to try to drown people in the Process of citing sources but by over-doing it to include the things widely agreed upon and already widely reported, you show your true colors.

 

[moke123]

Someone will probably come along behind me and post a source who has more patience with you than I.

I hope so . I couldn't readily find anything.

I googled "were covid deaths over reported"

CDC data does not show that 99% of COVID-19 deaths were due to other causes

THE FACTS: A misrepresentation of CDC figures has led to accusations online that COVID-19 deaths are being overstated.

apnews.com

COVID-19 deaths during core pandemic years were likely under-counted

The number of COVID-19 deaths in the U.S. may have been under-counted during the first two years of the pandemic. A new study from the University of Minnesota College of Liberal Arts, Boston University and University of Pennsylvania, published in the Proceedings of the National Academies of...

twin-cities.umn.edu

New Analysis Reveals Many Excess Deaths Attributed to Natural Causes Are Actually Uncounted COVID-19 Deaths

The new study provides the most compelling data yet to suggest that excess mortality rates from chronic illnesses and other natural causes were actually driven by COVID-19 infections.

www.bu.edu

 

[jpl458]

Right. Especially when you're the type that just asks that for everything everybody says - even the things you know full well are widely known already, such as covid deaths being overreported by about 100%. You like to try to drown people in the Process of citing sources but by over-doing it to include the things widely agreed upon and already widely reported, you show your true colors.

Someone will probably come along behind me and post a source who has more patience with you than I.

Where is it widely known? It's not known in my house, and I read a lot. When I pose a question, all I get is "it's widely known", which makes me guess that there is no proof. Just for fun I asked the new Chat, and got this:

As of July 2024, the total number of COVID-19 related deaths in the United States has surpassed 1.1 million. This data is based on reports from various health agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Johns Hopkins University Coronavirus Resource Center.

The CDC provides updated information regularly and includes detailed breakdowns of deaths by week and state. These provisional counts are derived from death certificates, which are considered the most reliable source of mortality data (CDC COVID-19 Data Tracker) (CDC).

Johns Hopkins University also tracks COVID-19 data and reports that the U.S. continues to have one of the highest death tolls globally, emphasizing the ongoing impact of the pandemic (JH Covid Dashboard).

For more detailed and current information, you can visit the CDC's COVID Data Tracker and the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center.

You are saying that the number was inflated by 100%. I looked and found this:

CLAIM: Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that 99% of deaths attributed to COVID-19 were actually caused by something else.

AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. The percentage misrepresents CDC data. The agency’s most recent numbers show that for the week ending Aug. 19, 1.7% of all deaths in the U.S. were due to COVID-19.

THE FACTS: A misrepresentation of CDC figures has led to accusations online that COVID-19 deaths are being overstated.

Many online posts cite as proof a Daily Mail article published on Tuesday with the headline, “99% of ‘Covid deaths’ not primarily caused by the virus, CDC data shows.” These posts received tens of thousands of likes and shares on Facebook, Instagram and X, formerly known as Twitter.

“Good morning - it’s time for a bunch of people to go to prison for life,” reads one popular tweet that included a link to the article. “We tried to warn you.”

But the information being shared is based on a faulty interpretation of the data. The Daily Mail has corrected its article to reflect what the numbers actually show.

Enjoy

 

[Galaxiom]

You like to try to drown people in the Process of citing sources but by over-doing it to include the things widely agreed upon and already widely reported, you show your true colors.

Meanwhile you are satisfied with anything that matches your prejudices. It is called Confirmation Bias.

 

[jpl458]

Meanwhile you are satisfied with anything that matches your prejudices. It is called Confirmation Bias.

Well Said.

 

[moke123]

Our politicians caused NEEDLESS deaths by preventing the elderly access to old drugs that worked to mitigate the symptoms of COVID and they did this because it was necessary to allow the FDA to authorize the "emergency use" drugs we ended up with.

I take it you haven't looked at the recent results of all the clinical trials.

 

[moke123]

They've already done them. They don't work.