global warming

[rawlus]

i’ll try to break it down one more time in more simple terms.

if you believe that any of the hot topic cocktails you read about wherever are effective, then why don’t you think that the vax works?

what makes you believe in the other drug therapies (i‘m not making a statement on whether they work or not), i’m just curious in how you source clinical and biomedical information and data…. is it shared to you, do you have specific sources you trust for this kind of information and what makes you trust them? specifically for clinical and scientific data and information.

maybe the reason cdc info isn’t valid is because some people don’t trust the integrity of the source, that there’s an angle being played or some ulterior motive to create the possibility they are manipulating the data. some people would have their own idea of who is manipulating what and why.

what makes for a trusted source with integrity? One that wouldn’t have any ulterior motive other than serving every citizen equally, one that wouldn’t stand anything additional to gain…. one without an ulterior motive.

what are some of those sources, that in your view meet the above criteria, and are validating the claims you’re making. not as a way of judging the veracity of those claims, i don’t care what you do vax or not. i’m just curious about the mental model, the thought process of determining what to believe and not, what is true and not, and if you ever challenge yourself by taking the opponents view and debating yourself through their case and arguments and see where the argument and case you hold still stands up. like a lawyer would do preparing for a trial.

some people are so assertive in their beliefs, there is no possibility of changing their mind. they won’t accept any alternative explanations, no evidence will pass muster, with any volley they will hit back with an explanation or excuse ss to why the alternate theory is not acceptable.

they simply believe what they believe.

aka. faith.

 

[Handlebars]

i’ll try to break it down one more time in more simple terms.

if you believe that any of the hot topic cocktails you read about wherever are effective, then why don’t you think that the vax works?

Where was that claimed?

what makes you believe in the other drug therapies (i‘m not making a statement on whether they work or not), i’m just curious in how you source clinical and biomedical information and data…. is it shared to you, do you have specific sources you trust for this kind of information and what makes you trust them? specifically for clinical and scientific data and information.

I source ONLY through scientific literature.

maybe the reason cdc info isn’t valid is because some people don’t trust the integrity of the source, that there’s an angle being played or some ulterior motive to create the possibility they are manipulating the data. some people would have their own idea of who is manipulating what and why.

I didn't say all their info isn't valid. I answer for myself, not others.

what makes for a trusted source with integrity?

A start is not to have any obvious lies on record.

One that wouldn’t have any ulterior motive other than serving every citizen equally, one that wouldn’t stand anything additional to gain…. one without an ulterior motive.

There is no such thing.

what are some of those sources, that in your view meet the above criteria, and are validating the claims you’re making.

Quote the claim and I can tell you.

some people are so assertive in their beliefs, there is no possibility of changing their mind. they won’t accept any alternative explanations, no evidence will pass muster, with any volley they will hit back with an explanation or excuse ss to why the alternate theory is not acceptable.

they simply believe what they believe.

aka. faith.

Absolutely. On both sides. Haven't you chosen here to look at one side for weakness and not the other? That is what I call political. "Politics is the set of activities that are associated with making decisions in groups, or other forms of power relations between individuals..."

aka. faith.

We all operate on faith in every way. You seem to want it to be a dirty word in this context.
You have to have some degree of faith to believe anything at all.
You might think it's a fact that a certain town exists, but in reality it could have been swallowed up in an earthquake 1 minute ago. We do not stop living simply because we do not really know.

 

[ActionJackson]

Very fitting, since its discovery came from Japanese soil.

Maybe that’s why Japan has so few fatalities from Covid? Yesterday in the Tokyo region, 19 people died from Covid. Out of 38 million people, and a much lower vaccination rate. Shouldn’t that make people wonder what’s wrong with America? Just saying ….

 

[rawlus]

put another way.

it’s not the science you believe, it’s the source you trust. i’m not sure everyone spends enough time evaluating the source and asking themselves what makes them trustworthy.

they see something they like, coming from someone they like, and they grab it and start sharing it as their own personal endorsement of an idea or concept. now they are the influencer too - they are riding alongside the ones they believe in, into battle, against the naysayers.

there‘s zero critical thinking in that scenario, the use of “science as my source” is really just a misdirection to wrap your belief in the appearance of objective fact. why you believe something is more important than what. but all everyone does is post cut and pastes or recitations of the what. it’s hilarious.

 

[Handlebars]

put another way.

it’s not the science you believe, it’s the source you trust.

Not really sure of what you mean by that. "The science" entails much more than is ordinarily spoken of or even thought of. It entails recording and transmitting and storage and re-transmission and symbolification and more...a wedding ring is much more than a band of gold.

i’m not sure everyone spends enough time evaluating the source and asking themselves what makes them trustworthy.

I'm sure most don't.

they see something they like, coming from someone they like, and they grab it and start sharing it as their own personal endorsement of an idea or concept. now they are the influencer too - they are riding alongside the ones they believe in, into battle, against the naysayers.

That's politics for ya. It's what humans do.

there‘s zero critical thinking in that scenario, the use of “science as my source” is really just a misdirection to wrap your belief in the appearance of objective fact. why you believe something is more important than what. but all everyone does is post cut and pastes or recitations of the what. it’s hilarious.

Not necessarily. When I mean it, that meaning is "scientific works", such as peer reviewed published research. Even then it's mostly not what people think it is. Real checking is rarely done and in some sciences, never done even once in a decade.

 

[Handlebars]

put another way.

it’s not the science you believe, it’s the source you trust. i’m not sure everyone spends enough time evaluating the source and asking themselves what makes them trustworthy.

they see something they like, coming from someone they like, and they grab it and start sharing it as their own personal endorsement of an idea or concept. now they are the influencer too - they are riding alongside the ones they believe in, into battle, against the naysayers.

there‘s zero critical thinking in that scenario, the use of “science as my source” is really just a misdirection to wrap your belief in the appearance of objective fact. why you believe something is more important than what. but all everyone does is post cut and pastes or recitations of the what. it’s hilarious.

One of the very top climate scientists, Phil Jones, testified during his own defense for making his purposefully misleading global warming graph and his other misbehaviours, that in his 30 years of high productivity in creating scientific articles, in peer review, he never once was asked to show his homework, the data.
That is entirely typical of that science.

Hey, we're back on topic
if you want to see a glimpse of the seamy underbelly of the dirtiest science ever... read some of this https://electricbikereview.com/forums/threads/greta-thunberg-day-in-nyc.29468/

I tried but they became pretty vicious when the politics were exposed to some light. Start with MrCoffee's response to my question and follow it a bit

For Mr Coffee's concern, melting glaciers, this is what "The Science" actually, not figuratively, rests on, in the hockey stick graph: the proxy evidence turned upside down in orientation from the scientifically accepted, and then fiercely defended with lies.

Upside-Side Down Mann and the “peerreviewedliterature”

In Andrew Revkin’s recent blog posting, he made the following observation about blogs, referring in particular to Climate Audit: What is novel about all of this is how the blog discussions ha…

climateaudit.org

This wasn’t the only proxy used upside down in Mann et al 2008. In our discussion of Trouet et al 2009 in the spring, Andy Baker commented at CA and it turned out that Mann had used one of Baker’s series upside down – as discussed here.


Mann’s failure to concede that they had used the Tiljander proxies upside down resulted in Kaufman et al 2009 also using them upside down. Kaufman said that he was unaware of our comment on this point, but was sufficiently attuned to the controversy that he truncated the data at 1800. As a result, the big HS blade isn’t used, but the Little Ice Age and MWP are flipped over, a point made at CA here Kaufman and Upside Down Mann. Two other Finnish paleolimnology series also appear to have been used upside down by Kaufman.


Atte Korhola, a prominent Finnish paleolimnologist, familiar with the Tiljander and other sediments, recently commented on the upside down use of Finnish proxy data, as follows (Jean S’s translation) (Google translation here):

data collected from Finland in the past by my own colleagues has even been turned upside down such that the warm periods become cold and vice versa.

And yet at realclimate, Mann and others not only deny the undeniable, but accuse anyone saying otherwise of being “dishonest”.

For the hockey stick graphs, using tree ring proxy, it's a case of deleting what doesn't fit the narrative and inserting thermometer and radar measured temps going up, to replace the secretly deleted proxy line going down...that was what really happened in the "hide the decline" furor. They cheated and got caught. The decline was in the proxy modern temperature, and it couldn't be shown or it would destroy the narrative idea that the tree ring proxy can tell temperature very accurately over thousands of years for periods such as a decade.
They then claimed they removed it because it was bad data. Asked why it was bad, they had no answer...it was bad because it didn't show what they wished it would show. so they deleted it and secretly replaced it with what did agree..their own thermometer temperature records adjusted to their own liking. and labeled it and coloured it as tree ring proxy.
Totally corrupt.
Michael Mann by himself was more sophisticated in the cheating and lying. Phil Jones brought them down. Here he is describing to Michael Mann the crude trick he used - just deleting the inconvenient data and adding in his own in its place and then falsely labeling it as tree ring data. Mann had used end padding of real temps to drag the truncated proxy line upwards...a much more sophisticated trick for his Nature Journal hockey stick paper. Keith is the tree ring proxy provider guy.

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

 

[tomjasz]

put another way.

it’s not the science you believe, it’s the source you trust. i’m not sure everyone spends enough time evaluating the source and asking themselves what makes them trustworthy.

they see something they like, coming from someone they like, and they grab it and start sharing it as their own personal endorsement of an idea or concept. now they are the influencer too - they are riding alongside the ones they believe in, into battle, against the naysayers.

there‘s zero critical thinking in that scenario, the use of “science as my source” is really just a misdirection to wrap your belief in the appearance of objective fact. why you believe something is more important than what. but all everyone does is post cut and pastes or recitations of the what. it’s hilarious.

Best of thread post!

 

[Handlebars]

put another way.

it’s not the science you believe, it’s the source you trust. i’m not sure everyone spends enough time evaluating the source and asking themselves what makes them trustworthy.

they see something they like, coming from someone they like, and they grab it and start sharing it as their own personal endorsement of an idea or concept. now they are the influencer too - they are riding alongside the ones they believe in, into battle, against the naysayers.

there‘s zero critical thinking in that scenario, the use of “science as my source” is really just a misdirection to wrap your belief in the appearance of objective fact. why you believe something is more important than what. but all everyone does is post cut and pastes or recitations of the what. it’s hilarious.

And there are those who believe that they can actually see climate change happening because their favorite ski slope is gone or their favorite animal has disappeared. It doesn't matter to them if that ski slope only grew to there in 1850 in the tail end of the Little Ice Age, or if the local animal species is being ravaged by a disease. They just don't know or even care when shown, because "seeing is believing". Same with the ski slopes. Glacier National Park glacier good growth happened not that long ago, and also receded very quickly before AGW could be blamed, around the turn of the century... and there is photographic evidence of it...but Michael Mann used even that poor example to lie about.
Look back in this thread to see the no-response when the wipeout amphibian fungal disease was explained. https://electricbikereview.com/forums/threads/global-warming.44798/post-461942

 

[Handlebars]

Bullshit. There's absolutely no science to support your nutty anecdotal blather. An animal wormer untested is safer than a now approved inoculation? Seriously? Your kids? And you support them using an animal wormer? Seriously? I should feel guilty for calling out this EVIL misinformation?

You are putting out disinformation. There is science to support it...and...
nearly 4 billion doses in humans have been administered. It's a very well-accepted human med. Show the ivermectin death toll. Show the vaccine death toll. Show the adverse effects reports for ivermectin. Show the adverse effects from the vaccines. Destroyed your grotesque little game of smears, dude.

 

[DavidRvR]

Dewormer? HAAAAAAA.... It actually comes in a tablet .. If you need to see it I will post a pic of it tonight.. Hard to take those serious that think its just a dewormer and keep repeating it..

Ivermectin has Nearly ZERO side affects .. Slightly Zero... Cant keep repeating the talking points.. I posted a few of its uses above.. Obviously some are not following the thread Or are Repeating things like this for gain (posts)

 

[Handlebars]

Discovery of a mechanism

How Spike Protein Causes Acute Lung Injury​

The interviewer is a censored medical doctor and the discovering researcher is a renowned and censored clinic doctor along with his censored colleagues.

 

[Handlebars]

Argentinian ivermectin prophylaxis study doubtful

New information on Argentinean prophylactic study (from Livestream #94)

Clip taken from DarkHorse Podcast Livestream #94 (originally streamed live on August 28, 2021): https://odysee.com/@BretWeinstein:f/EvoLens94:b

odysee.com

 

[DavidRvR]

I have al sorts of Data.. But one would need to read it.. Comes in colors..
And Pictures ..63 studies.. maybe not enough paste? Not sure. But has a list of who what why and when.. All the basic questions I usually ask.

https://ivmmeta.com/

 

[rawlus]

I have al sorts of Data.. But one would need to read it.. Comes in colors..
And Pictures ..63 studies.. maybe not enough paste? Not sure. But has a list of who what why and when.. All the basic questions I usually ask.

https://ivmmeta.com/

first of all that report is not peer reviewed and it comes from doctors with a background in promoting vitamin C based therapies.

that being said. my question is.
WHY would someone read this and think, okay to take the drugs recommended and then ALSO say NO to a vaccine.

it seems people believe “selective” science or science only when it fits within their previously determined beliefs.

when this happens, it makes people NOT look for contrary science. it makes them NOT look for further validation. they just stop and say “i’ve found evidence i can use to prove what i believe on the internet”

 

[DavidRvR]

I think to answer your own question.. You can back up in this thread on my posts.. I listed 10-15 links on the subject.. So the question can was answered and I wasnt the only one to post something to help "expand" the conversation from Paste to an actual Conversation with substance.

Take a day and read the links posted.. I have more but I believe enough was and has been posted to make your own determination... I am not an Anti Vaxxer but I am against any mandate regardless ... I am an American who believes in individual rights and we are big enough boys and girls to take the punishment if it wasnt the so called right decision ..

I have mentioned the VAERS Data which is the own GOVT data and see the 13 THOUSAND that have died from the shot.... and the 600 THOUSAND side affects.. that alone is enough for me to question it... I also left the date for ISRAEL as they have had most of their population vaccinated and had 11k THOUSAND New cases yesterday and 10k THOUSAND new cases today... Leaker or shedders (however you label it).
The answers are above in this discussion ..

BTW Vaers data only represents 1% of the totals (on average) as not all the doctors report to it.

 

[rawlus]

I think to answer your own question.. You can back up in this thread on my posts.. I listed 10-15 links on the subject.. So the question can was answered and I wasnt the only one to post something to help "expand" the conversation from Paste to an actual Conversation with substance.

Take a day and read the links posted.. I have more but I believe enough was and has been posted to make your own determination... I am not an Anti Vaxxer but I am against any mandate regardless ... I am an American who believes in individual rights and we are big enough boys and girls to take the punishment if it wasnt the so called right decision ..

I have mentioned the VAERS Data which is the own GOVT data and see the 13 THOUSAND that have died from the shot.... and the 600 THOUSAND side affects.. that alone is enough for me to question it... I also left the date for ISRAEL as they have had most of their population vaccinated and had 11k THOUSAND New cases yesterday and 10k THOUSAND new cases today... Leaker or shedders (however you label it).
The answers are above in this discussion ..

BTW Vaers data only represents 1% of the totals (on average) as not all the doctors report to it.

so i just read a report that says approx 15 million does of vaccine have been wasted since it became available, most due to expiring because nobody came to get them.

would you advocate ending the vaccine distribution program in the USA at this point for the general population? (kids and others who may have not previously qualified being the exception).

sort of a ”if you snoozed, you lose” approach. initially it’ll cost us a lot in emergency healthcare to try and save the unvaccinated, but eventually their numbers will dwindle as the mortality rates rise in that population, ERs and ICUs would be most impacted initially but it may be worth it in the long run by eliminating he self-elected vulnerable from population.

this would allow us to divert those important does to other countries who want and need the vax.

i sort of feel if anyone wanted the vax, they’ve had a few months now to obtain that at no cost to themselves.

so anyone not vaxed yet, probably isn’t going to be. time to cut our losses, reduce population and strengthen the gene pool right? instead of forcing people to get the vax, just let them die on their own terms?

although, i’m also fine for private establishments to bar entry to anyone without the vax. their business their rules.

 

[Handlebars]

although, i’m also fine for private establishments to bar entry to anyone without the vax. their business their rules.

If that is so then you would presumably be fine if anyone could bar cutomers based on skin color, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability or anything else.
Is that what you think would be fine?
Their business, their rules.

 

[rawlus]

If that is so then you would presumably be fine if anyone could bar cutomers based on skin color, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability or anything else.
Is that what you think would be fine?
Their business, their rules.

apples and oranges. protected statuses which we already have laws about i’m not challenging. banning because of skin color? lame.

vax status isn’t protected.
plus unvaxed are a threat to public health.

 

[rawlus]

it’s still weird that the same people who don’t trust the vax, trust the drug therapies used to treat covid disease.

like it’s better to get it and treat it than not get it at all.

funny logic.

 

[Handlebars]

apples and oranges. protected statuses which we already have laws about i’m not challenging. banning because of skin color? lame.

vax status isn’t protected.
plus unvaxed are a threat to public health.

So it's not actually a principle or maxim you believe in, "your business, your rules"?