|
French Cognac vs. other Cognac
On 2021-05-30, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
> Climate change: a long-term change in the Earths climate, or of a > region on Earth. > > Within scientific journals, this is still how the two terms are used. > Global warming refers to surface temperature increases, while climate > change includes global warming and everything else that increasing > greenhouse gas amounts will affect. There are no "scientific climatologists". Climatology is a scam science that makes a lot of money for politicians and Universities that buy into the "idea" for money and power. One might as well shake a magic eight ball or visit that machine on the boardwalk. I lost my career to the same ilk of climatologists in the seventies. Back then, we were going to enter a new ice age. More data means more confusion,but fake climatology jobs are on the line. Gotta say whatever the politicians want to be presented as the truth. Look at the politics of Covid for a comparison. They don't know sh*t. But kudos to the virologists that created the vaccine. They did know and practiced the true meaning of science. I ask again, why is Bikini Atoll still above sea level? leo |
French Cognac vs. other Cognac
On 1 Jun 2021 04:41:44 GMT, Leonard Blaisdell
> wrote: >On 2021-05-30, Ed Pawlowski > wrote: > >> Climate change: a long-term change in the Earths climate, or of a >> region on Earth. >> >> Within scientific journals, this is still how the two terms are used. >> Global warming refers to surface temperature increases, while climate >> change includes global warming and everything else that increasing >> greenhouse gas amounts will affect. > >There are no "scientific climatologists". Climatology is a scam science >that makes a lot of money for politicians and Universities that buy into >the "idea" for money and power. >One might as well shake a magic eight ball or visit that machine on >the boardwalk. >I lost my career to the same ilk of climatologists in the seventies. >Back then, we were going to enter a new ice age. More data means >more confusion,but fake climatology jobs are on the line. Gotta say >whatever the politicians want to be presented as the truth. >Look at the politics of Covid for a comparison. They don't know sh*t. >But kudos to the virologists that created the vaccine. They did know and >practiced the true meaning of science. >I ask again, why is Bikini Atoll still above sea level? Maybe because you don't flush the toilet often enough. -- The other Dave Smith. |
French Cognac vs. other Cognac
On Monday, May 31, 2021 at 11:41:50 PM UTC-5, Leonard Blaisdell wrote:
> On 2021-05-30, Ed Pawlowski > wrote: > > > Climate change: a long-term change in the Earths climate, or of a > > region on Earth. > > > > Within scientific journals, this is still how the two terms are used. > > Global warming refers to surface temperature increases, while climate > > change includes global warming and everything else that increasing > > greenhouse gas amounts will affect. > > There are no "scientific climatologists". Climatology is a scam science > that makes a lot of money for politicians and Universities that buy into > the "idea" for money and power. > One might as well shake a magic eight ball or visit that machine on > the boardwalk. > I lost my career to the same ilk of climatologists in the seventies. > Back then, we were going to enter a new ice age. More data means > more confusion,but fake climatology jobs are on the line. Gotta say > whatever the politicians want to be presented as the truth. > Look at the politics of Covid for a comparison. They don't know sh*t. > But kudos to the virologists that created the vaccine. They did know and > practiced the true meaning of science. > I ask again, why is Bikini Atoll still above sea level? > > leo Thank you, Leo...we are regressing to an age of "junk science" scamming, which is super - propelled by liberal political correctness. The Covid crisis is the latest cringable example - not to mention the totally manufactured "climate crisis " ... And don't get me started on the EV trend... Remember the looming polar bear ""extinction"? By most estimates there are many more polar bears today than decades ago...a quick goog brings up much stuff... Etcetera... -- Best Greg |
French Cognac vs. other Cognac
On Tue, 01 Jun 2021 14:56:09 +1000, Dave Smith
> wrote: >On 1 Jun 2021 04:41:44 GMT, Leonard Blaisdell > wrote: > >>On 2021-05-30, Ed Pawlowski > wrote: >> >>> Climate change: a long-term change in the Earths climate, or of a >>> region on Earth. >>> >>> Within scientific journals, this is still how the two terms are used. >>> Global warming refers to surface temperature increases, while climate >>> change includes global warming and everything else that increasing >>> greenhouse gas amounts will affect. >> >>There are no "scientific climatologists". Climatology is a scam science >>that makes a lot of money for politicians and Universities that buy into >>the "idea" for money and power. >>One might as well shake a magic eight ball or visit that machine on >>the boardwalk. >>I lost my career to the same ilk of climatologists in the seventies. >>Back then, we were going to enter a new ice age. More data means >>more confusion,but fake climatology jobs are on the line. Gotta say >>whatever the politicians want to be presented as the truth. >>Look at the politics of Covid for a comparison. They don't know sh*t. >>But kudos to the virologists that created the vaccine. They did know and >>practiced the true meaning of science. >>I ask again, why is Bikini Atoll still above sea level? > >Maybe because you don't flush the toilet often enough. Ask them, theyre here. "You can stop saying that now. Thank you." -- The other Dave Smith. |
French Cognac vs. other Cognac
On 5/31/2021 11:21 PM, GM wrote:
> On Monday, May 31, 2021 at 11:41:50 PM UTC-5, Leonard Blaisdell wrote: >> On 2021-05-30, Ed Pawlowski > wrote: >> >>> Climate change: a long-term change in the Earths climate, or of a >>> region on Earth. >>> >>> Within scientific journals, this is still how the two terms are used. >>> Global warming refers to surface temperature increases, while climate >>> change includes global warming and everything else that increasing >>> greenhouse gas amounts will affect. >> >> There are no "scientific climatologists". Climatology is a scam science >> that makes a lot of money for politicians and Universities that buy into >> the "idea" for money and power. >> One might as well shake a magic eight ball or visit that machine on >> the boardwalk. >> I lost my career to the same ilk of climatologists in the seventies. >> Back then, we were going to enter a new ice age. More data means >> more confusion,but fake climatology jobs are on the line. Gotta say >> whatever the politicians want to be presented as the truth. >> Look at the politics of Covid for a comparison. They don't know sh*t. >> But kudos to the virologists that created the vaccine. They did know and >> practiced the true meaning of science. >> I ask again, why is Bikini Atoll still above sea level? >> >> leo > > > Thank you, Leo...we are regressing to an age of "junk science" scamming, which is super - propelled by liberal political correctness. The Covid crisis is the latest cringable example - not to mention the totally manufactured "climate crisis " ... > > And don't get me started on the EV trend... > > Remember the looming polar bear ""extinction"? By most estimates there are many more polar bears today than decades ago...a quick goog brings up much stuff... > > Etcetera... > "science" is the new "racism". The mere mention of either word out of the mouth of a woke, and all discussion must cease. |
French Cognac vs. other Cognac
On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 05:24:53 -0700, Taxed and Spent
> wrote: >On 5/31/2021 11:21 PM, GM wrote: >> On Monday, May 31, 2021 at 11:41:50 PM UTC-5, Leonard Blaisdell wrote: >>> On 2021-05-30, Ed Pawlowski > wrote: >>> >>>> Climate change: a long-term change in the Earths climate, or of a >>>> region on Earth. >>>> >>>> Within scientific journals, this is still how the two terms are used. >>>> Global warming refers to surface temperature increases, while climate >>>> change includes global warming and everything else that increasing >>>> greenhouse gas amounts will affect. >>> >>> There are no "scientific climatologists". Climatology is a scam science >>> that makes a lot of money for politicians and Universities that buy into >>> the "idea" for money and power. >>> One might as well shake a magic eight ball or visit that machine on >>> the boardwalk. >>> I lost my career to the same ilk of climatologists in the seventies. >>> Back then, we were going to enter a new ice age. More data means >>> more confusion,but fake climatology jobs are on the line. Gotta say >>> whatever the politicians want to be presented as the truth. >>> Look at the politics of Covid for a comparison. They don't know sh*t. >>> But kudos to the virologists that created the vaccine. They did know and >>> practiced the true meaning of science. >>> I ask again, why is Bikini Atoll still above sea level? >>> >>> leo >> >> >> Thank you, Leo...we are regressing to an age of "junk science" scamming, which is super - propelled by liberal political correctness. The Covid crisis is the latest cringable example - not to mention the totally manufactured "climate crisis " ... >> >> And don't get me started on the EV trend... >> >> Remember the looming polar bear ""extinction"? By most estimates there are many more polar bears today than decades ago...a quick goog brings up much stuff... >> >> Etcetera... >> > > >"science" is the new "racism". The mere mention of either word out of >the mouth of a woke, and all discussion must cease. Ask them, theyre here. "You can stop saying that now. Thank you." -- The other Dave Smith. |
French Cognac vs. other Cognac
On 1 Jun 2021 04:41:44 GMT, Leonard Blaisdell
> wrote: >On 2021-05-30, Ed Pawlowski > wrote: > >> Climate change: a long-term change in the Earths climate, or of a >> region on Earth. >> >> Within scientific journals, this is still how the two terms are used. >> Global warming refers to surface temperature increases, while climate >> change includes global warming and everything else that increasing >> greenhouse gas amounts will affect. > >There are no "scientific climatologists". Climatology is a scam science >that makes a lot of money for politicians and Universities that buy into >the "idea" for money and power. >One might as well shake a magic eight ball or visit that machine on >the boardwalk. >I lost my career to the same ilk of climatologists in the seventies. >Back then, we were going to enter a new ice age. More data means >more confusion,but fake climatology jobs are on the line. Gotta say >whatever the politicians want to be presented as the truth. >Look at the politics of Covid for a comparison. They don't know sh*t. >But kudos to the virologists that created the vaccine. They did know and >practiced the true meaning of science. >I ask again, why is Bikini Atoll still above sea level? > >leo Ask them, theyre here. "You can stop saying that now. Thank you." -- The other Dave Smith. |
French Cognac vs. other Cognac
On 2021-06-01 8:24 a.m., Taxed and Spent wrote:
> On 5/31/2021 11:21 PM, GM wrote: >> Remember the looming polar bear ""extinction"?Β* By most estimates >> there are many more polar bears today than decades ago...a quick goog >> brings up much stuff... >> >> Etcetera... >> > > > "science" is the new "racism".Β* The mere mention of either word out of > the mouth of a woke, and all discussion must cease. > There appears to be a new definition to the word "science". It used to involve empirical observations, and results could be replicated. There have been a number of issues with the Covid19 pandemic where people have talked about following the science, but those scientific facts seem to be based more on anecdotes than on empirical studies. Look at the controversy on masks. No, we don't need them, but we have to sterilize every surface, don't touch anyone or anything they have touched. A couple months later we were told to wear masks, and anyone who objected was scorned and and told to follow the science. I realize that science gets more involved over time, but this thing has been way to inconsistent to be referred to as science. |
French Cognac vs. other Cognac
On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 09:38:56 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote: >On 2021-06-01 8:24 a.m., Taxed and Spent wrote: >> On 5/31/2021 11:21 PM, GM wrote: > >>> Remember the looming polar bear ""extinction"?* By most estimates >>> there are many more polar bears today than decades ago...a quick goog >>> brings up much stuff... >>> >>> Etcetera... >>> >> >> >> "science" is the new "racism".* The mere mention of either word out of >> the mouth of a woke, and all discussion must cease. >> > > >There appears to be a new definition to the word "science". It used to >involve empirical observations, and results could be replicated. There >have been a number of issues with the Covid19 pandemic where people have >talked about following the science, but those scientific facts seem to >be based more on anecdotes than on empirical studies. Look at the >controversy on masks. No, we don't need them, but we have to sterilize >every surface, don't touch anyone or anything they have touched. A >couple months later we were told to wear masks, and anyone who objected >was scorned and and told to follow the science. I realize that science > gets more involved over time, but this thing has been way to >inconsistent to be referred to as science. Ask them, theyre here. "You can stop saying that now. Thank you." -- The other Dave Smith. |
French Cognac vs. other Cognac
On 6/1/2021 6:38 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2021-06-01 8:24 a.m., Taxed and Spent wrote: >> On 5/31/2021 11:21 PM, GM wrote: > >>> Remember the looming polar bear ""extinction"?Β* By most estimates >>> there are many more polar bears today than decades ago...a quick goog >>> brings up much stuff... >>> >>> Etcetera... >>> >> >> >> "science" is the new "racism".Β* The mere mention of either word out of >> the mouth of a woke, and all discussion must cease. >> > > > There appears to be a new definition to the word "science". It used to > involve empirical observations, and results could be replicated. There > have been a number of issues with the Covid19 pandemic where people have > talked about following the science, but those scientific facts seem to > be based more on anecdotes than on empirical studies. Look at the > controversy on masks. No, we don't need them, but we have to sterilize > every surface, don't touch anyone or anything they have touched. A > couple months later we were told to wear masks, and anyone who objected > was scorned and and told to follow the science. I realize that science > gets more involved over time, but this thing has been way to > inconsistent to be referred to as science. > Fauci keeps saying things like "there is no scientific evidence for . . .". What he doesn't say is "there is also no scientific evidence for the opposite." So let front line doctors try treatments, even if not blessed by St. Fauci. And, when it suits him, Fauci makes proclamations without scientific evidence to support him. He is the wrong guy for the job. |
French Cognac vs. other Cognac
Taxed and Spent wrote:
> On 5/31/2021 11:21 PM, GM wrote: > > On Monday, May 31, 2021 at 11:41:50 PM UTC-5, Leonard Blaisdell wrote: > >> On 2021-05-30, Ed Pawlowski > wrote: > >> > >>> Climate change: a long-term change in the Earths climate, or of a > >>> region on Earth. > >>> > >>> Within scientific journals, this is still how the two terms are used. > >>> Global warming refers to surface temperature increases, while climate > >>> change includes global warming and everything else that increasing > >>> greenhouse gas amounts will affect. > >> > >> There are no "scientific climatologists". Climatology is a scam science > >> that makes a lot of money for politicians and Universities that buy into > >> the "idea" for money and power. > >> One might as well shake a magic eight ball or visit that machine on > >> the boardwalk. > >> I lost my career to the same ilk of climatologists in the seventies. > >> Back then, we were going to enter a new ice age. More data means > >> more confusion,but fake climatology jobs are on the line. Gotta say > >> whatever the politicians want to be presented as the truth. > >> Look at the politics of Covid for a comparison. They don't know sh*t. > >> But kudos to the virologists that created the vaccine. They did know and > >> practiced the true meaning of science. > >> I ask again, why is Bikini Atoll still above sea level? > >> > >> leo > > > > > > Thank you, Leo...we are regressing to an age of "junk science" scamming, which is super - propelled by liberal political correctness. The Covid crisis is the latest cringable example - not to mention the totally manufactured "climate crisis " ... > > > > And don't get me started on the EV trend... > > > > Remember the looming polar bear ""extinction"? By most estimates there are many more polar bears today than decades ago...a quick goog brings up much stuff... > > > > Etcetera... > > > "science" is the new "racism". The mere mention of either word out of > the mouth of a woke, and all discussion must cease. You are 1000% correct, Sir... -- Best Greg |
French Cognac vs. other Cognac
Taxed and Spent wrote:
> On 6/1/2021 6:38 AM, Dave Smith wrote: > > On 2021-06-01 8:24 a.m., Taxed and Spent wrote: > >> On 5/31/2021 11:21 PM, GM wrote: > > > >>> Remember the looming polar bear ""extinction"? By most estimates > >>> there are many more polar bears today than decades ago...a quick goog > >>> brings up much stuff... > >>> > >>> Etcetera... > >>> > >> > >> > >> "science" is the new "racism". The mere mention of either word out of > >> the mouth of a woke, and all discussion must cease. > >> > > > > > > There appears to be a new definition to the word "science". It used to > > involve empirical observations, and results could be replicated. There > > have been a number of issues with the Covid19 pandemic where people have > > talked about following the science, but those scientific facts seem to > > be based more on anecdotes than on empirical studies. Look at the > > controversy on masks. No, we don't need them, but we have to sterilize > > every surface, don't touch anyone or anything they have touched. A > > couple months later we were told to wear masks, and anyone who objected > > was scorned and and told to follow the science. I realize that science > > gets more involved over time, but this thing has been way to > > inconsistent to be referred to as science. > > > Fauci keeps saying things like "there is no scientific evidence for . . > .". What he doesn't say is "there is also no scientific evidence for > the opposite." So let front line doctors try treatments, even if not > blessed by St. Fauci. And, when it suits him, Fauci makes proclamations > without scientific evidence to support him. He is the wrong guy for the > job. Future history will judge him as a fool... -- Best Greg |
French Cognac vs. other Cognac
Taxed and Spent wrote:
> On 6/1/2021 6:38 AM, Dave Smith wrote: > > On 2021-06-01 8:24 a.m., Taxed and Spent wrote: > >> On 5/31/2021 11:21 PM, GM wrote: > > > >>> Remember the looming polar bear ""extinction"? By most estimates > >>> there are many more polar bears today than decades ago...a quick goog > >>> brings up much stuff... > >>> > >>> Etcetera... > >>> > >> > >> > >> "science" is the new "racism". The mere mention of either word out of > >> the mouth of a woke, and all discussion must cease. > >> > > > > > > There appears to be a new definition to the word "science". It used to > > involve empirical observations, and results could be replicated. There > > have been a number of issues with the Covid19 pandemic where people have > > talked about following the science, but those scientific facts seem to > > be based more on anecdotes than on empirical studies. Look at the > > controversy on masks. No, we don't need them, but we have to sterilize > > every surface, don't touch anyone or anything they have touched. A > > couple months later we were told to wear masks, and anyone who objected > > was scorned and and told to follow the science. I realize that science > > gets more involved over time, but this thing has been way to > > inconsistent to be referred to as science. > > > Fauci keeps saying things like "there is no scientific evidence for . . > .". What he doesn't say is "there is also no scientific evidence for > the opposite." So let front line doctors try treatments, even if not > blessed by St. Fauci. And, when it suits him, Fauci makes proclamations > without scientific evidence to support him. He is the wrong guy for the > job. Who was it that said, "Science exists to be proven wrong"...??? -- GM |
French Cognac vs. other Cognac
On 2021-06-01 7:38 a.m., Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2021-06-01 8:24 a.m., Taxed and Spent wrote: >> On 5/31/2021 11:21 PM, GM wrote: > >>> Remember the looming polar bear ""extinction"?Β* By most estimates >>> there are many more polar bears today than decades ago...a quick goog >>> brings up much stuff... >>> >>> Etcetera... >>> >> >> >> "science" is the new "racism".Β* The mere mention of either word out of >> the mouth of a woke, and all discussion must cease. >> > > > There appears to be a new definition to the word "science". It used to > involve empirical observations, and results could be replicated.Β* There > have been a number of issues with the Covid19 pandemic where people have > talked about following the science, but those scientific facts seem to > be based more on anecdotes than on empirical studies.Β* Look at the > controversy on masks. No, we don't need them, but we have to sterilize > every surface, don't touch anyone or anything they have touched.Β* A > couple months later we were told to wear masks, and anyone who objected > was scorned and and told to follow the science.Β* I realize that science > Β*gets more involved over time,Β* but this thing has been way to > inconsistent to be referred to as science. A typical response from a non-scientist! |
French Cognac vs. other Cognac
Graham wrote:
> On 2021-06-01 7:38 a.m., Dave Smith wrote: > > On 2021-06-01 8:24 a.m., Taxed and Spent wrote: > >> On 5/31/2021 11:21 PM, GM wrote: > > > >>> Remember the looming polar bear ""extinction"? By most estimates > >>> there are many more polar bears today than decades ago...a quick goog > >>> brings up much stuff... > >>> > >>> Etcetera... > >>> > >> > >> > >> "science" is the new "racism". The mere mention of either word out of > >> the mouth of a woke, and all discussion must cease. > >> > > > > > > There appears to be a new definition to the word "science". It used to > > involve empirical observations, and results could be replicated. There > > have been a number of issues with the Covid19 pandemic where people have > > talked about following the science, but those scientific facts seem to > > be based more on anecdotes than on empirical studies. Look at the > > controversy on masks. No, we don't need them, but we have to sterilize > > every surface, don't touch anyone or anything they have touched. A > > couple months later we were told to wear masks, and anyone who objected > > was scorned and and told to follow the science. I realize that science > > gets more involved over time, but this thing has been way to > > inconsistent to be referred to as science. > A typical response from a non-scientist! Graham, instead of a cheap retort, why don't *you* provide some back - up for *your* comment...??? -- Best Greg |
French Cognac vs. other Cognac
On 5/31/2021 10:41 PM, Leonard Blaisdell wrote:
> On 2021-05-30, Ed Pawlowski > wrote: > >> Climate change: a long-term change in the Earths climate, or of a >> region on Earth. >> >> Within scientific journals, this is still how the two terms are used. >> Global warming refers to surface temperature increases, while climate >> change includes global warming and everything else that increasing >> greenhouse gas amounts will affect. > > There are no "scientific climatologists". Climatology is a scam science > that makes a lot of money for politicians and Universities that buy into > the "idea" for money and power. This is E. Anglia email scam true., > One might as well shake a magic eight ball or visit that machine on > the boardwalk. Madame Zoltar will be more accurate. > I lost my career to the same ilk of climatologists in the seventies. > Back then, we were going to enter a new ice age. Sure we https://climatechangedispatch.com/12...ice-age-scare/ News articles: 1970 Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age Scientists See Ice Age In the Future (The Washington Post, January 11, 1970) 1970 Is Mankind Manufacturing a New Ice Age for Itself? (L.A. Times, January 15, 1970) 1970 New Ice Age May Descend On Man (Sumter Daily Item, January 26, 1970) 1970 Pollution Prospect A Chilling One (Owosso Argus-Press, January 26, 1970) 1970 Pollutions 2-way "Freeze On Society (Middlesboro Daily News, January 28, 1970) 1970 Cold Facts About Pollution (The Southeast Missourian, January 29, 1970) 1970 Pollution Could Cause Ice Age, Agency Reports (St. Petersburg Times, March 4, 1970) 1970 Pollution Called Ice Age Threat (St. Petersburg Times, June 26, 1970) 1970 Dirt Will .Bring New Ice Age (The Sydney Morning Herald, October 19, 1970) 1971 Ice Age Refugee Dies Underground (The Montreal Gazette, February 17, 1971) 1971 U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming (The Washington Post, July 9, 1971) 1971 Ice Age Around the Corner (Chicago Tribune, July 10, 1971) 1971 New Ice Age Coming Its Already Getting Colder (L.A. Times, October 24, 1971) 1971 Another Ice Age? Pollution Blocking Sunlight (The Day, November 1, 1971) 1971 Air Pollution Could Bring An Ice Age (Harlan Daily Enterprise, November 4, 1971) 1972 Air pollution may cause ice age (Free-Lance Star, February 3, 1972) 1972 Scientist Says New ice Age Coming (The Ledger, February 13, 1972) 1972 Scientist predicts new ice age (Free-Lance Star, September 11, 1972) 1972 British expert on Climate Change says Says New Ice Age Creeping Over Northern Hemisphere (Lewiston Evening Journal, September 11, 1972) 1972 Climate Seen Cooling For Return Of Ice Age (Portsmouth Times, September 11, 1972) 1972 New Ice Age Slipping Over North (Press-Courier, September 11, 1972) 1972 Ice Age Begins A New Assault In North (The Age, September 12, 1972) 1972 Weather To Get Colder (Montreal Gazette, September 12, 1972) 1972 British climate expert predicts new Ice Age (The Christian Science Monitor, September 23, 1972) 1972 Scientist Sees Chilling Signs of New Ice Age (L.A. Times, September 24, 1972) 1972 Science: Another Ice Age? (Time Magazine, November 13, 1972) 1973 The Ice Age Cometh (The Saturday Review, March 24, 1973) 1973 Weather-watchers think another ice age may be on the way (The Christian Science Monitor, December 11, 1973) 1974 New evidence indicates ice age here (Eugene Register-Guard, May 29, 1974) 1974 Another Ice Age? (Time Magazine, June 24, 1974) 1974 2 Scientists Think "Little Ice Age Near (The Hartford Courant, August 11, 1974) 1974 Ice Age, worse food crisis seen (The Chicago Tribune, October 30, 1974) 1974 Believes Pollution Could Bring On Ice Age (Ludington Daily News, December 4, 1974) 1974 Pollution Could Spur Ice Age, Nasa Says (Beaver Country Times, December 4, 1974) 1974 Air Pollution May Trigger Ice Age, Scientists Feel (The Telegraph, December 5, 1974) 1974 More Air Pollution Could Trigger Ice Age Disaster (Daily Sentinel December 5, 1974) 1974 Scientists Fear Smog Could Cause Ice Age (Milwaukee Journal, December 5, 1974) 1975 Climate Changes Called Ominous (The New York Times, January 19, 1975) 1975 Climate Change: Chilling Possibilities (Science News, March 1, 1975) 1975 B-r-r-r-r: New Ice Age on way soon? (The Chicago Tribune, March 2, 1975) 1975 Cooling Trends Arouse Fear That New Ice Age Coming (Eugene Register-Guard, March 2, 1975) 1975 Is Another Ice Age Due? Arctic Ice Expands In Last Decade (Youngstown Vindicator March 2, 1975) 1975 Is Earth Headed For Another Ice Age? (Reading Eagle, March 2, 1975) 1975 New Ice Age Dawning? Significant Shift In Climate Seen (Times Daily, March 2, 1975) 1975 Theres Troublesome Weather Ahead (Tri City Herald, March 2, 1975) 1975 Is Earth Doomed To Live Through Another Ice Age? (The Robesonian, March 3, 1975) 1975 The Ice Age cometh: the system that controls our climate (The Chicago Tribune, April 13, 1975) 1975 The Cooling World (Newsweek, April 28, 1975) 1975 Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead (PDF) (The New York Times, May 21, 1975) 1975 In the Grip of a New Ice Age? (International Wildlife, July-August, 1975) 1975 Oil Spill Could Cause New Ice Age (Milwaukee Journal, December 11, 1975) 1976 The Cooling: Has the Next Ice Age Already Begun? [Book] (Lowell Ponte, 1976) 1977 Blizzard What Happens if it Doesnt Stop? [Book] (George Stone, 1977) 1977 The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age [Book] (The Impact Team, 1977) 1976 Worrisome CIA Report; Even U.S. Farms May be Hit by Cooling Trend (U.S. News & World Report, May 31, 1976) 1977 The Big Freeze (Time Magazine, January 31, 1977) 1977 We Will Freeze in the Dark (Capital Cities Communications Documentary, Host: Nancy Dickerson, April 12, 1977) 1978 The New Ice Age [Book] (Henry Gilfond, 1978) 1978 Little Ice Age: Severe winters and cool summers ahead (Calgary Herald, January 10, 1978) 1978 Winters Will Get Colder, "were Entering Little Ice Age (Ellensburg Daily Record, January 10, 1978) 1978 Geologist Says Winters Getting Colder (Middlesboro Daily News, January 16, 1978) 1978 Its Going To Get Colder (Boca Raton News, January 17, 1978) 1978 Believe new ice age is coming (The Bryan Times, March 31, 1978) 1978 The Coming Ice Age (In Search Of TV Show, Season 2, Episode 23, Host: Leonard Nimoy, May 1978) 1978 An Ice Age Is Coming Weather Expert Fears (Milwaukee Sentinel, November 17, 1978) 1979 A Choice of Catastrophes The Disasters That Threaten Our World [Book] (Isaac Asimov, 1979) 1979 Get Ready to Freeze (Spokane Daily Chronicle, October 12, 1979) 1979 New ice age almost upon us? (The Christian Science Monitor, November 14, 1979) > More data means > more confusion,but fake climatology jobs are on the line. Gotta say > whatever the politicians want to be presented as the truth. Publish or perish. > Look at the politics of Covid for a comparison. They don't know sh*t. > But kudos to the virologists that created the vaccine. They did know and > practiced the true meaning of science. > I ask again, why is Bikini Atoll still above sea level? > > leo Because John Wayne was filming in St. George, Utah. ;-) |
French Cognac vs. other Cognac
On 6/1/2021 12:21 AM, GM wrote:
> On Monday, May 31, 2021 at 11:41:50 PM UTC-5, Leonard Blaisdell wrote: >> On 2021-05-30, Ed Pawlowski > wrote: >> >>> Climate change: a long-term change in the Earths climate, or of a >>> region on Earth. >>> >>> Within scientific journals, this is still how the two terms are used. >>> Global warming refers to surface temperature increases, while climate >>> change includes global warming and everything else that increasing >>> greenhouse gas amounts will affect. >> >> There are no "scientific climatologists". Climatology is a scam science >> that makes a lot of money for politicians and Universities that buy into >> the "idea" for money and power. >> One might as well shake a magic eight ball or visit that machine on >> the boardwalk. >> I lost my career to the same ilk of climatologists in the seventies. >> Back then, we were going to enter a new ice age. More data means >> more confusion,but fake climatology jobs are on the line. Gotta say >> whatever the politicians want to be presented as the truth. >> Look at the politics of Covid for a comparison. They don't know sh*t. >> But kudos to the virologists that created the vaccine. They did know and >> practiced the true meaning of science. >> I ask again, why is Bikini Atoll still above sea level? >> >> leo > > > Thank you, Leo...we are regressing to an age of "junk science" scamming, which is super - propelled by liberal political correctness. The Covid crisis is the latest cringable example - not to mention the totally manufactured "climate crisis " ... > > And don't get me started on the EV trend... > > Remember the looming polar bear ""extinction"? By most estimates there are many more polar bears today than decades ago...a quick goog brings up much stuff... > > Etcetera... > We're on the verge of an actual maunder Minimum. It's almost heeeere... https://electroverse.net/british-ast...mum-has-begun/ We are plunging now into a deep mini ice age, says British astrophysicist Piers Corbyn, and there is no way out. For the next 20 years its going to get colder and colder, on average, says Corbyn who holds a B.Sc. in Physics and an M.Sc. in Astrophysics. The jet stream will be wilder: there will be more wild temperature changes, more hail events, more earthquakes, more extreme volcano events, more snow in winters, lousy summers, late springs, short autumns, and more and more crop failures. The fact is the sun rules the sea temperature, and the sea temperature rules the climate, explains Corbyn. What we have happening now is the start of the mini ice age ¦ it began around 2013. Its a slow start, and now the rate of moving into the mini ice age is accelerating. The best thing to do now is to tell your politicians to stop believing nonsense, concludes Corbyn. https://i1.wp.com/electroverse.net/w...68%2C320&ssl=1 |
French Cognac vs. other Cognac
On 6/1/2021 7:38 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2021-06-01 8:24 a.m., Taxed and Spent wrote: >> On 5/31/2021 11:21 PM, GM wrote: > >>> Remember the looming polar bear ""extinction"?Β* By most estimates >>> there are many more polar bears today than decades ago...a quick goog >>> brings up much stuff... >>> >>> Etcetera... >>> >> >> >> "science" is the new "racism".Β* The mere mention of either word out of >> the mouth of a woke, and all discussion must cease. >> > > > There appears to be a new definition to the word "science". It used to > involve empirical observations, and results could be replicated.Β* There > have been a number of issues with the Covid19 pandemic where people have > talked about following the science, but those scientific facts seem to > be based more on anecdotes than on empirical studies.Β* Look at the > controversy on masks. No, we don't need them, but we have to sterilize > every surface, don't touch anyone or anything they have touched.Β* A > couple months later we were told to wear masks, and anyone who objected > was scorned and and told to follow the science.Β* I realize that science > Β*gets more involved over time,Β* but this thing has been way to > inconsistent to be referred to as science. That's because the masks were and are a not so elaborate submission ritual, and nothing more. They failed us 100 years ago as well: https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10....8.769108/full/ In 1927, Edwin Jordans definitive study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association as a series of articles and then as a book, determined that masks were effective when worn by patients already sick or by those directly exposed to victims, including nurses and physicians. Jordan also acknowledged, however, that masks are uncomfortable and inconvenient, as anyone who has worn them can testify and require a great deal of discipline, self-imposed or other. Jordan came to a more guarded conclusion: The effect of mask wearing throughout the general community is not easy to determine. https://update.lib.berkeley.edu/2020...interventions/ The above graph showed very little difference in death rates between Stockton, which mandated the wearing of masks in public, and Boston, which did not. So, early on, authorities were skeptical of the effectiveness of masks, but they also felt that masks were not used properly. |
French Cognac vs. other Cognac
On 6/1/2021 8:25 AM, GM wrote:
> Taxed and Spent wrote: > >> On 6/1/2021 6:38 AM, Dave Smith wrote: >>> On 2021-06-01 8:24 a.m., Taxed and Spent wrote: >>>> On 5/31/2021 11:21 PM, GM wrote: >>> >>>>> Remember the looming polar bear ""extinction"? By most estimates >>>>> there are many more polar bears today than decades ago...a quick goog >>>>> brings up much stuff... >>>>> >>>>> Etcetera... >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> "science" is the new "racism". The mere mention of either word out of >>>> the mouth of a woke, and all discussion must cease. >>>> >>> >>> >>> There appears to be a new definition to the word "science". It used to >>> involve empirical observations, and results could be replicated. There >>> have been a number of issues with the Covid19 pandemic where people have >>> talked about following the science, but those scientific facts seem to >>> be based more on anecdotes than on empirical studies. Look at the >>> controversy on masks. No, we don't need them, but we have to sterilize >>> every surface, don't touch anyone or anything they have touched. A >>> couple months later we were told to wear masks, and anyone who objected >>> was scorned and and told to follow the science. I realize that science >>> gets more involved over time, but this thing has been way to >>> inconsistent to be referred to as science. >>> >> Fauci keeps saying things like "there is no scientific evidence for . . >> .". What he doesn't say is "there is also no scientific evidence for >> the opposite." So let front line doctors try treatments, even if not >> blessed by St. Fauci. And, when it suits him, Fauci makes proclamations >> without scientific evidence to support him. He is the wrong guy for the >> job. > > > Future history will judge him as a fool... > You misspelled "mass murderer"... |
French Cognac vs. other Cognac
On 6/1/2021 9:35 AM, GM wrote:
> Graham wrote: > >> On 2021-06-01 7:38 a.m., Dave Smith wrote: >>> On 2021-06-01 8:24 a.m., Taxed and Spent wrote: >>>> On 5/31/2021 11:21 PM, GM wrote: >>> >>>>> Remember the looming polar bear ""extinction"? By most estimates >>>>> there are many more polar bears today than decades ago...a quick goog >>>>> brings up much stuff... >>>>> >>>>> Etcetera... >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> "science" is the new "racism". The mere mention of either word out of >>>> the mouth of a woke, and all discussion must cease. >>>> >>> >>> >>> There appears to be a new definition to the word "science". It used to >>> involve empirical observations, and results could be replicated. There >>> have been a number of issues with the Covid19 pandemic where people have >>> talked about following the science, but those scientific facts seem to >>> be based more on anecdotes than on empirical studies. Look at the >>> controversy on masks. No, we don't need them, but we have to sterilize >>> every surface, don't touch anyone or anything they have touched. A >>> couple months later we were told to wear masks, and anyone who objected >>> was scorned and and told to follow the science. I realize that science >>> gets more involved over time, but this thing has been way to >>> inconsistent to be referred to as science. >> A typical response from a non-scientist! > > > Graham, instead of a cheap retort, why don't *you* provide some back - up for *your* comment...??? > This is par for the course with him, he simply lacks the building blocks of any kind of scientific rebuttal. |
French Cognac vs. other Cognac
On 2021-06-01 10:57 a.m., Graham wrote:
> On 2021-06-01 7:38 a.m., Dave Smith wrote: >> On 2021-06-01 8:24 a.m., Taxed and Spent wrote: >>> On 5/31/2021 11:21 PM, GM wrote: >> >>>> Remember the looming polar bear ""extinction"?Β* By most estimates >>>> there are many more polar bears today than decades ago...a quick >>>> goog brings up much stuff... >>>> >>>> Etcetera... >>>> >>> >>> >>> "science" is the new "racism".Β* The mere mention of either word out >>> of the mouth of a woke, and all discussion must cease. >>> >> >> >> There appears to be a new definition to the word "science". It used to >> involve empirical observations, and results could be replicated. >> There have been a number of issues with the Covid19 pandemic where >> people have talked about following the science, but those scientific >> facts seem to be based more on anecdotes than on empirical studies. >> Look at the controversy on masks. No, we don't need them, but we have >> to sterilize every surface, don't touch anyone or anything they have >> touched.Β* A couple months later we were told to wear masks, and anyone >> who objected was scorned and and told to follow the science.Β* I >> realize that science Β*Β*gets more involved over time,Β* but this thing >> has been way to inconsistent to be referred to as science. > > A typical response from a non-scientist! > I studied social sciences rather than the physical sciences, but I did a considerable amount of research, was lab demonstrator in an experimental Psychology course and completed a thesis. My first job out of university was in educational research. I realize that a lot of scientific knowledge has changed over the years. We have developed technologies that have allowed us to find more accurate answers to our questions. I have never seen science change so quickly. That is bad enough because it indicates how weak the "science" was in the first place, but it is much worse that they then insult the skeptics with the "follow the science" put down. |
French Cognac vs. other Cognac
On 6/1/2021 9:38 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2021-06-01 8:24 a.m., Taxed and Spent wrote: >> On 5/31/2021 11:21 PM, GM wrote: > >>> Remember the looming polar bear ""extinction"?Β* By most estimates >>> there are many more polar bears today than decades ago...a quick goog >>> brings up much stuff... >>> >>> Etcetera... >>> >> >> >> "science" is the new "racism".Β* The mere mention of either word out of >> the mouth of a woke, and all discussion must cease. >> > > > There appears to be a new definition to the word "science". It used to > involve empirical observations, and results could be replicated.Β* There > have been a number of issues with the Covid19 pandemic where people have > talked about following the science, but those scientific facts seem to > be based more on anecdotes than on empirical studies.Β* Look at the > controversy on masks. No, we don't need them, but we have to sterilize > every surface, don't touch anyone or anything they have touched.Β* A > couple months later we were told to wear masks, and anyone who objected > was scorned and and told to follow the science.Β* I realize that science > Β*gets more involved over time,Β* but this thing has been way to > inconsistent to be referred to as science. Masks are just common sense. It is a virus and easily spread from excretions from the mouth. If you are standing naked and someone pees on you, you get wet If you have pants on and someone pees on you, there is a little protection. If you are both wearing pants and someone tries to pee on you, he gets wet, you don't. |
French Cognac vs. other Cognac
On 2021-06-01 12:30 p.m., Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 6/1/2021 9:38 AM, Dave Smith wrote: >> There appears to be a new definition to the word "science". It used to >> involve empirical observations, and results could be replicated. >> There have been a number of issues with the Covid19 pandemic where >> people have talked about following the science, but those scientific >> facts seem to be based more on anecdotes than on empirical studies. >> Look at the controversy on masks. No, we don't need them, but we have >> to sterilize every surface, don't touch anyone or anything they have >> touched.Β* A couple months later we were told to wear masks, and anyone >> who objected was scorned and and told to follow the science.Β* I >> realize that science Β*Β*gets more involved over time,Β* but this thing >> has been way to inconsistent to be referred to as science. > > Masks are just common sense.Β* It is a virus and easily spread from > excretions from the mouth. > > If you are standing naked and someone pees on you, you get wet > > If you have pants on and someone pees on you, there is a little protection. > > If you are both wearing pants and someone tries to pee on you, he gets > wet, you don't. I am not arguing for or against masks. I am objecting to the put down "follow the science" when the sciences keeps changing. I mentioned masks because at the start of this pandemic we were told that we did not need them. Later on we were told to wear them and that slur was addressed to people who objected and preferred to follow the science they had been told a few weeks earlier. |
French Cognac vs. other Cognac
On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 07:27:54 -0700 (PDT), GM
> wrote: >Taxed and Spent wrote: > >> On 6/1/2021 6:38 AM, Dave Smith wrote: >> > On 2021-06-01 8:24 a.m., Taxed and Spent wrote: >> >> On 5/31/2021 11:21 PM, GM wrote: >> > >> >>> Remember the looming polar bear ""extinction"? By most estimates >> >>> there are many more polar bears today than decades ago...a quick goog >> >>> brings up much stuff... >> >>> >> >>> Etcetera... >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> "science" is the new "racism". The mere mention of either word out of >> >> the mouth of a woke, and all discussion must cease. >> >> >> > >> > >> > There appears to be a new definition to the word "science". It used to >> > involve empirical observations, and results could be replicated. There >> > have been a number of issues with the Covid19 pandemic where people have >> > talked about following the science, but those scientific facts seem to >> > be based more on anecdotes than on empirical studies. Look at the >> > controversy on masks. No, we don't need them, but we have to sterilize >> > every surface, don't touch anyone or anything they have touched. A >> > couple months later we were told to wear masks, and anyone who objected >> > was scorned and and told to follow the science. I realize that science >> > gets more involved over time, but this thing has been way to >> > inconsistent to be referred to as science. >> > >> Fauci keeps saying things like "there is no scientific evidence for . . >> .". What he doesn't say is "there is also no scientific evidence for >> the opposite." So let front line doctors try treatments, even if not >> blessed by St. Fauci. And, when it suits him, Fauci makes proclamations >> without scientific evidence to support him. He is the wrong guy for the >> job. > > >Who was it that said, "Science exists to be proven wrong"...??? Ask them, theyre here. "You can stop saying that now. Thank you." -- The other Dave Smith. |
French Cognac vs. other Cognac
On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 08:35:47 -0700 (PDT), GM
> wrote: >Graham wrote: > >> On 2021-06-01 7:38 a.m., Dave Smith wrote: >> > On 2021-06-01 8:24 a.m., Taxed and Spent wrote: >> >> On 5/31/2021 11:21 PM, GM wrote: >> > >> >>> Remember the looming polar bear ""extinction"? By most estimates >> >>> there are many more polar bears today than decades ago...a quick goog >> >>> brings up much stuff... >> >>> >> >>> Etcetera... >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> "science" is the new "racism". The mere mention of either word out of >> >> the mouth of a woke, and all discussion must cease. >> >> >> > >> > >> > There appears to be a new definition to the word "science". It used to >> > involve empirical observations, and results could be replicated. There >> > have been a number of issues with the Covid19 pandemic where people have >> > talked about following the science, but those scientific facts seem to >> > be based more on anecdotes than on empirical studies. Look at the >> > controversy on masks. No, we don't need them, but we have to sterilize >> > every surface, don't touch anyone or anything they have touched. A >> > couple months later we were told to wear masks, and anyone who objected >> > was scorned and and told to follow the science. I realize that science >> > gets more involved over time, but this thing has been way to >> > inconsistent to be referred to as science. >> A typical response from a non-scientist! > > >Graham, instead of a cheap retort, why don't *you* provide some back - up for *your* comment...??? Ask them, theyre here. "You can stop saying that now. Thank you." -- The other Dave Smith. |
French Cognac vs. other Cognac
On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 12:30:25 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>On 6/1/2021 9:38 AM, Dave Smith wrote: >> On 2021-06-01 8:24 a.m., Taxed and Spent wrote: >>> On 5/31/2021 11:21 PM, GM wrote: >> >>>> Remember the looming polar bear ""extinction"?* By most estimates >>>> there are many more polar bears today than decades ago...a quick goog >>>> brings up much stuff... >>>> >>>> Etcetera... >>>> >>> >>> >>> "science" is the new "racism".* The mere mention of either word out of >>> the mouth of a woke, and all discussion must cease. >>> >> >> >> There appears to be a new definition to the word "science". It used to >> involve empirical observations, and results could be replicated.* There >> have been a number of issues with the Covid19 pandemic where people have >> talked about following the science, but those scientific facts seem to >> be based more on anecdotes than on empirical studies.* Look at the >> controversy on masks. No, we don't need them, but we have to sterilize >> every surface, don't touch anyone or anything they have touched.* A >> couple months later we were told to wear masks, and anyone who objected >> was scorned and and told to follow the science.* I realize that science >> *gets more involved over time,* but this thing has been way to >> inconsistent to be referred to as science. > >Masks are just common sense. It is a virus and easily spread from >excretions from the mouth. > >If you are standing naked and someone pees on you, you get wet > >If you have pants on and someone pees on you, there is a little protection. > >If you are both wearing pants and someone tries to pee on you, he gets >wet, you don't. Ask them, theyre here. "You can stop saying that now. Thank you." -- The other Dave Smith. |
French Cognac vs. other Cognac
On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 07:20:02 -0700, Taxed and Spent
> wrote: >On 6/1/2021 6:38 AM, Dave Smith wrote: >> On 2021-06-01 8:24 a.m., Taxed and Spent wrote: >>> On 5/31/2021 11:21 PM, GM wrote: >> >>>> Remember the looming polar bear ""extinction"?* By most estimates >>>> there are many more polar bears today than decades ago...a quick goog >>>> brings up much stuff... >>>> >>>> Etcetera... >>>> >>> >>> >>> "science" is the new "racism".* The mere mention of either word out of >>> the mouth of a woke, and all discussion must cease. >>> >> >> >> There appears to be a new definition to the word "science". It used to >> involve empirical observations, and results could be replicated. There >> have been a number of issues with the Covid19 pandemic where people have >> talked about following the science, but those scientific facts seem to >> be based more on anecdotes than on empirical studies. Look at the >> controversy on masks. No, we don't need them, but we have to sterilize >> every surface, don't touch anyone or anything they have touched. A >> couple months later we were told to wear masks, and anyone who objected >> was scorned and and told to follow the science. I realize that science >> gets more involved over time, but this thing has been way to >> inconsistent to be referred to as science. >> > >Fauci keeps saying things like "there is no scientific evidence for . . >.". What he doesn't say is "there is also no scientific evidence for >the opposite." So let front line doctors try treatments, even if not >blessed by St. Fauci. And, when it suits him, Fauci makes proclamations >without scientific evidence to support him. He is the wrong guy for the >job. > > Ask them, theyre here. "You can stop saying that now. Thank you." -- The other Dave Smith. |
French Cognac vs. other Cognac
On 2021-06-01 10:23 a.m., Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2021-06-01 10:57 a.m., Graham wrote: >> On 2021-06-01 7:38 a.m., Dave Smith wrote: >>> On 2021-06-01 8:24 a.m., Taxed and Spent wrote: >>>> On 5/31/2021 11:21 PM, GM wrote: >>> >>>>> Remember the looming polar bear ""extinction"?Β* By most estimates >>>>> there are many more polar bears today than decades ago...a quick >>>>> goog brings up much stuff... >>>>> >>>>> Etcetera... >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> "science" is the new "racism".Β* The mere mention of either word out >>>> of the mouth of a woke, and all discussion must cease. >>>> >>> >>> >>> There appears to be a new definition to the word "science". It used >>> to involve empirical observations, and results could be replicated. >>> There have been a number of issues with the Covid19 pandemic where >>> people have talked about following the science, but those scientific >>> facts seem to be based more on anecdotes than on empirical studies. >>> Look at the controversy on masks. No, we don't need them, but we have >>> to sterilize every surface, don't touch anyone or anything they have >>> touched.Β* A couple months later we were told to wear masks, and >>> anyone who objected was scorned and and told to follow the science. >>> I realize that science Β*Β*gets more involved over time,Β* but this >>> thing has been way to inconsistent to be referred to as science. >> >> A typical response from a non-scientist! >> > > > I studied social sciences rather than the physical sciences, but I did a > considerable amount of research, was lab demonstrator in an experimental > Psychology course and completed a thesis. My first job out of university > was in educational research. > Social science and the laughable political "science" cannot be compared to "hard" science. > > I realize that a lot of scientific knowledge has changed over the years. > Β*We have developed technologies that have allowed us to find more > accurate answers to our questions. I have never seen science change so > quickly. Develope more quickly!! That's because of the huge number of scientists working frantically to get on top of this virus! |
French Cognac vs. other Cognac
On 2021-06-01 11:03 a.m., Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2021-06-01 12:30 p.m., Ed Pawlowski wrote: >> On 6/1/2021 9:38 AM, Dave Smith wrote: > >>> There appears to be a new definition to the word "science". It used >>> to involve empirical observations, and results could be replicated. >>> There have been a number of issues with the Covid19 pandemic where >>> people have talked about following the science, but those scientific >>> facts seem to be based more on anecdotes than on empirical studies. >>> Look at the controversy on masks. No, we don't need them, but we have >>> to sterilize every surface, don't touch anyone or anything they have >>> touched.Β* A couple months later we were told to wear masks, and >>> anyone who objected was scorned and and told to follow the science. >>> I realize that science Β*Β*gets more involved over time,Β* but this >>> thing has been way to inconsistent to be referred to as science. >> >> Masks are just common sense.Β* It is a virus and easily spread from >> excretions from the mouth. >> >> If you are standing naked and someone pees on you, you get wet >> >> If you have pants on and someone pees on you, there is a little >> protection. >> >> If you are both wearing pants and someone tries to pee on you, he gets >> wet, you don't. > > I am not arguing for or against masks. I am objecting to the put down > "follow the science" when the sciences keeps changing. What you see as changing is better defined as developing. |
French Cognac vs. other Cognac
On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 05:24:53 -0700, Taxed and Spent
> wrote: >On 5/31/2021 11:21 PM, GM wrote: >> On Monday, May 31, 2021 at 11:41:50 PM UTC-5, Leonard Blaisdell wrote: >>> On 2021-05-30, Ed Pawlowski > wrote: >>> >>>> Climate change: a long-term change in the Earths climate, or of a >>>> region on Earth. >>>> >>>> Within scientific journals, this is still how the two terms are used. >>>> Global warming refers to surface temperature increases, while climate >>>> change includes global warming and everything else that increasing >>>> greenhouse gas amounts will affect. >>> >>> There are no "scientific climatologists". Climatology is a scam science >>> that makes a lot of money for politicians and Universities that buy into >>> the "idea" for money and power. >>> One might as well shake a magic eight ball or visit that machine on >>> the boardwalk. >>> I lost my career to the same ilk of climatologists in the seventies. >>> Back then, we were going to enter a new ice age. More data means >>> more confusion,but fake climatology jobs are on the line. Gotta say >>> whatever the politicians want to be presented as the truth. >>> Look at the politics of Covid for a comparison. They don't know sh*t. >>> But kudos to the virologists that created the vaccine. They did know and >>> practiced the true meaning of science. >>> I ask again, why is Bikini Atoll still above sea level? >>> >>> leo >> >> >> Thank you, Leo...we are regressing to an age of "junk science" scamming, which is super - propelled by liberal political correctness. The Covid crisis is the latest cringable example - not to mention the totally manufactured "climate crisis " ... >> >> And don't get me started on the EV trend... >> >> Remember the looming polar bear ""extinction"? By most estimates there are many more polar bears today than decades ago...a quick goog brings up much stuff... >> >> Etcetera... >> > > >"science" is the new "racism". The mere mention of either word out of >the mouth of a woke, and all discussion must cease. Facts are the new bubonic plague. -- The other Dave Smith. |
French Cognac vs. other Cognac
Graham wrote:
> On 2021-06-01 10:23 a.m., Dave Smith wrote: > > On 2021-06-01 10:57 a.m., Graham wrote: > >> On 2021-06-01 7:38 a.m., Dave Smith wrote: > >>> On 2021-06-01 8:24 a.m., Taxed and Spent wrote: > >>>> On 5/31/2021 11:21 PM, GM wrote: > >>> > >>>>> Remember the looming polar bear ""extinction"? By most estimates > >>>>> there are many more polar bears today than decades ago...a quick > >>>>> goog brings up much stuff... > >>>>> > >>>>> Etcetera... > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> "science" is the new "racism". The mere mention of either word out > >>>> of the mouth of a woke, and all discussion must cease. > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> There appears to be a new definition to the word "science". It used > >>> to involve empirical observations, and results could be replicated. > >>> There have been a number of issues with the Covid19 pandemic where > >>> people have talked about following the science, but those scientific > >>> facts seem to be based more on anecdotes than on empirical studies. > >>> Look at the controversy on masks. No, we don't need them, but we have > >>> to sterilize every surface, don't touch anyone or anything they have > >>> touched. A couple months later we were told to wear masks, and > >>> anyone who objected was scorned and and told to follow the science. > >>> I realize that science gets more involved over time, but this > >>> thing has been way to inconsistent to be referred to as science. > >> > >> A typical response from a non-scientist! > >> > > > > > > I studied social sciences rather than the physical sciences, but I did a > > considerable amount of research, was lab demonstrator in an experimental > > Psychology course and completed a thesis. My first job out of university > > was in educational research. > > > Social science and the laughable political "science" cannot be compared > to "hard" science. > > > > I realize that a lot of scientific knowledge has changed over the years. > > We have developed technologies that have allowed us to find more > > accurate answers to our questions. I have never seen science change so > > quickly. > Develope more quickly!! That's because of the huge number of scientists > working frantically to get on top of this virus! Let us nor forget the contribution of President Trump in initiating "Operation Warp Speed", Graham... -- GM |
French Cognac vs. other Cognac
On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 12:30:25 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>Masks are just common sense. It is a virus and easily spread from >excretions from the mouth. > >If you are standing naked and someone pees on you, you get wet > >If you have pants on and someone pees on you, there is a little protection. > >If you are both wearing pants and someone tries to pee on you, he gets >wet, you don't. Communism! A Republican under God has the right to spread viruses. It's the 2nd Amendment! Besides, viruses don't even exist. That's all facts and science! -- The other Dave Smith. |
French Cognac vs. other Cognac
On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 13:08:25 -0600, Graham > wrote:
>On 2021-06-01 11:03 a.m., Dave Smith wrote: >> >> I am not arguing for or against masks. I am objecting to the put down >> "follow the science" when the sciences keeps changing. > >What you see as changing is better defined as developing. Dense people can't understand that scientific insights into a new phenomenon will be prone to change. If you said one thing a year ago and another thing today, you're not a good scientist! Or so the dummies think. -- The other Dave Smith. |
French Cognac vs. other Cognac
On 2021-06-01 2:13 p.m., Dave Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 13:08:25 -0600, Graham > wrote: > >> On 2021-06-01 11:03 a.m., Dave Smith wrote: >>> >>> I am not arguing for or against masks. I am objecting to the put down >>> "follow the science" when the sciences keeps changing. >> >> What you see as changing is better defined as developing. > > Dense people can't understand that scientific insights into a new > phenomenon will be prone to change. If you said one thing a year ago > and another thing today, you're not a good scientist! Or so the > dummies think. > Precisely! |
French Cognac vs. other Cognac
On 6/1/2021 10:30 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 6/1/2021 9:38 AM, Dave Smith wrote: >> On 2021-06-01 8:24 a.m., Taxed and Spent wrote: >>> On 5/31/2021 11:21 PM, GM wrote: >> >>>> Remember the looming polar bear ""extinction"?Β* By most estimates >>>> there are many more polar bears today than decades ago...a quick >>>> goog brings up much stuff... >>>> >>>> Etcetera... >>>> >>> >>> >>> "science" is the new "racism".Β* The mere mention of either word out >>> of the mouth of a woke, and all discussion must cease. >>> >> >> >> There appears to be a new definition to the word "science". It used to >> involve empirical observations, and results could be replicated. >> There have been a number of issues with the Covid19 pandemic where >> people have talked about following the science, but those scientific >> facts seem to be based more on anecdotes than on empirical studies. >> Look at the controversy on masks. No, we don't need them, but we have >> to sterilize every surface, don't touch anyone or anything they have >> touched.Β* A couple months later we were told to wear masks, and anyone >> who objected was scorned and and told to follow the science.Β* I >> realize that science Β*Β*gets more involved over time,Β* but this thing >> has been way to inconsistent to be referred to as science. > > Masks are just common sense.Β* It is a virus and easily spread from > excretions from the mouth. Except that the size of the particulates is so small that almost all masks offer little protection. https://www.ultimatekilimanjaro.com/..._1024x1024.jpg And the N95 with purge valve just infects everyone nearby. > If you are standing naked and someone pees on you, you get wet > > If you have pants on and someone pees on you, there is a little protection. > > If you are both wearing pants and someone tries to pee on you, he gets > wet, you don't. If you have to wear this many masks, the protection is imaginary. https://federalinquirer.com/wp-conte...ks-800x539.jpg |
French Cognac vs. other Cognac
On 6/1/2021 11:03 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2021-06-01 12:30 p.m., Ed Pawlowski wrote: >> On 6/1/2021 9:38 AM, Dave Smith wrote: > >>> There appears to be a new definition to the word "science". It used >>> to involve empirical observations, and results could be replicated. >>> There have been a number of issues with the Covid19 pandemic where >>> people have talked about following the science, but those scientific >>> facts seem to be based more on anecdotes than on empirical studies. >>> Look at the controversy on masks. No, we don't need them, but we have >>> to sterilize every surface, don't touch anyone or anything they have >>> touched.Β* A couple months later we were told to wear masks, and >>> anyone who objected was scorned and and told to follow the science. >>> I realize that science Β*Β*gets more involved over time,Β* but this >>> thing has been way to inconsistent to be referred to as science. >> >> Masks are just common sense.Β* It is a virus and easily spread from >> excretions from the mouth. >> >> If you are standing naked and someone pees on you, you get wet >> >> If you have pants on and someone pees on you, there is a little >> protection. >> >> If you are both wearing pants and someone tries to pee on you, he gets >> wet, you don't. > > I am not arguing for or against masks. I am objecting to the put down > "follow the science" when the sciences keeps changing. I mentioned masks > because at the start of this pandemic we were told that we did not need > them.Β* Later on we were told to wear them and that slur was addressed to > people who objected and preferred to follow the science they had been > told a few weeks earlier. You have this one right. https://federalinquirer.com/wp-conte...ks-800x539.jpg |
French Cognac vs. other Cognac
On 2021-06-01 5:08 p.m., Graham wrote:
> On 2021-06-01 2:13 p.m., Dave Smith wrote: >> On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 13:08:25 -0600, Graham > wrote: >> >>> On 2021-06-01 11:03 a.m., Dave Smith wrote: >>>> >>>> I am not arguing for or against masks. I am objecting to the put down >>>> "follow the science" when the sciences keeps changing. >>> >>> What you see as changing is better defined as developing. >> >> Dense people can't understand that scientific insights into a new >> phenomenon will be prone to change. If you said one thing a year ago >> and another thing today, you're not a good scientist! Or so the >> dummies think. >> > Precisely! I had pointed out earlier in similar threads that much of what we were told was not really science. It was anecdotal. I looked up some of the sources and did not see studies or references to real studies. They were anecdotal observations. |
French Cognac vs. other Cognac
On 6/1/2021 1:54 PM, GM wrote:
> Graham wrote: > >> On 2021-06-01 10:23 a.m., Dave Smith wrote: >>> On 2021-06-01 10:57 a.m., Graham wrote: >>>> On 2021-06-01 7:38 a.m., Dave Smith wrote: >>>>> On 2021-06-01 8:24 a.m., Taxed and Spent wrote: >>>>>> On 5/31/2021 11:21 PM, GM wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> Remember the looming polar bear ""extinction"? By most estimates >>>>>>> there are many more polar bears today than decades ago...a quick >>>>>>> goog brings up much stuff... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Etcetera... >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "science" is the new "racism". The mere mention of either word out >>>>>> of the mouth of a woke, and all discussion must cease. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> There appears to be a new definition to the word "science". It used >>>>> to involve empirical observations, and results could be replicated. >>>>> There have been a number of issues with the Covid19 pandemic where >>>>> people have talked about following the science, but those scientific >>>>> facts seem to be based more on anecdotes than on empirical studies. >>>>> Look at the controversy on masks. No, we don't need them, but we have >>>>> to sterilize every surface, don't touch anyone or anything they have >>>>> touched. A couple months later we were told to wear masks, and >>>>> anyone who objected was scorned and and told to follow the science. >>>>> I realize that science gets more involved over time, but this >>>>> thing has been way to inconsistent to be referred to as science. >>>> >>>> A typical response from a non-scientist! >>>> >>> >>> >>> I studied social sciences rather than the physical sciences, but I did a >>> considerable amount of research, was lab demonstrator in an experimental >>> Psychology course and completed a thesis. My first job out of university >>> was in educational research. >>> >> Social science and the laughable political "science" cannot be compared >> to "hard" science. >>> >>> I realize that a lot of scientific knowledge has changed over the years. >>> We have developed technologies that have allowed us to find more >>> accurate answers to our questions. I have never seen science change so >>> quickly. >> Develope more quickly!! That's because of the huge number of scientists >> working frantically to get on top of this virus! > > > Let us nor forget the contribution of President Trump in initiating "Operation Warp Speed", Graham... > Would you have preferred we languished like with West Nile and Zika? |
French Cognac vs. other Cognac
On 6/1/2021 2:06 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 12:30:25 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote: > >> Masks are just common sense. It is a virus and easily spread from >> excretions from the mouth. >> >> If you are standing naked and someone pees on you, you get wet >> >> If you have pants on and someone pees on you, there is a little protection. >> >> If you are both wearing pants and someone tries to pee on you, he gets >> wet, you don't. > > Communism! A Republican under God has the right to spread viruses. > It's the 2nd Amendment! Besides, viruses don't even exist. That's all > facts and science! > Auztards are a lower form of life, demonstrably so. |
French Cognac vs. other Cognac
On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 17:42:54 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote: >On 2021-06-01 5:08 p.m., Graham wrote: >> On 2021-06-01 2:13 p.m., Dave Smith wrote: >>> On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 13:08:25 -0600, Graham > wrote: >>> >>>> What you see as changing is better defined as developing. >>> >>> Dense people can't understand that scientific insights into a new >>> phenomenon will be prone to change. If you said one thing a year ago >>> and another thing today, you're not a good scientist! Or so the >>> dummies think. >>> >> Precisely! > >I had pointed out earlier in similar threads that much of what we were >told was not really science. It was anecdotal. I looked up some of the >sources and did not see studies or references to real studies. They were >anecdotal observations. This may come as a shock, but not everything is a comment on what you said in other threads. -- The other Dave Smith. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:30 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter