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

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.

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

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 Earth’s 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.

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.

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 Earth’s 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.

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 Earth’s 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.

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"?Â* 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".Â* 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.

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.

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"?Â* 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".Â* 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.

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

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

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

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"?Â* 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".Â* 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.Â* 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.Â* 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.Â* A
> couple months later we were told to wear masks, and anyone who objected
> was scorned and and told to follow the science.Â* I realize that science
> Â*gets more involved over time,Â* but this thing has been way to
> inconsistent to be referred to as science.

A typical response from a non-scientist!

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

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,
€ŽSeptember 11, 1972€Ž)
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, €ŽSeptember 12, 1972€Ž)
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,
€ŽDecember 4, 1974€Ž)
1974 €“ Air Pollution May Trigger Ice Age, Scientists Feel (The
Telegraph, €ŽDecember 5, 1974€Ž)
1974 €“ More Air Pollution Could Trigger Ice Age Disaster (Daily Sentinel
€“ €ŽDecember 5, 1974€Ž)
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, €ŽMarch 2, 1975€Ž)
1975 €“ Is Another Ice Age Due? Arctic Ice Expands In Last Decade
(Youngstown Vindicator €“ €ŽMarch 2, 1975€Ž)
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, €ŽMarch 2, 1975€Ž)
1975 €“ Theres Troublesome Weather Ahead (Tri City Herald, €ŽMarch 2, 1975€Ž)
1975 €“ Is Earth Doomed To Live Through Another Ice Age? (The Robesonian,
€ŽMarch 3, 1975€Ž)
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, €ŽJanuary 17, 1978€Ž)
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.

;-)

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/

€œWe are plunging now into a deep mini ice age,€� says British
astrophysicist Piers Corbyn, €œand 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.

€œThe fact is the sun rules the sea temperature, and the sea temperature
rules the climate,€� explains Corbyn.

€œWhat 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.

€œThe 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

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"?Â* 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".Â* 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.Â* 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.Â* 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.Â* A
> couple months later we were told to wear masks, and anyone who objected
> was scorned and and told to follow the science.Â* I realize that science
> Â*gets more involved over time,Â* 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 €œmasks are
uncomfortable and inconvenient, as anyone who has worn them can testify€�
and require a great deal of €œdiscipline, self-imposed or other.€� Jordan
came to a more guarded conclusion: €œThe 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.

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"...

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.

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"?Â* 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".Â* 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.Â* A couple months later we were told to wear masks, and anyone
>> who objected was scorned and and told to follow the science.Â* I
>> realize that science Â*Â*gets more involved over time,Â* 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.

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"?Â* 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".Â* 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.Â* 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.Â* 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.Â* A
> couple months later we were told to wear masks, and anyone who objected
> was scorned and and told to follow the science.Â* I realize that science
> Â*gets more involved over time,Â* 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.

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.Â* A couple months later we were told to wear masks, and anyone
>> who objected was scorned and and told to follow the science.Â* I
>> realize that science Â*Â*gets more involved over time,Â* but this thing
>> has been way to inconsistent to be referred to as science.
>
> Masks are just common sense.Â* 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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"?Â* 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".Â* 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.Â* 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 Â*Â*gets more involved over time,Â* 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.
> Â*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!

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.Â* 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 Â*Â*gets more involved over time,Â* but this
>>> thing has been way to inconsistent to be referred to as science.
>>
>> Masks are just common sense.Â* 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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!

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"?Â* 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".Â* 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.Â* A couple months later we were told to wear masks, and anyone
>> who objected was scorned and and told to follow the science.Â* I
>> realize that science Â*Â*gets more involved over time,Â* but this thing
>> has been way to inconsistent to be referred to as science.
>
> Masks are just common sense.Â* 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

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.Â* 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 Â*Â*gets more involved over time,Â* but this
>>> thing has been way to inconsistent to be referred to as science.
>>
>> Masks are just common sense.Â* 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.Â* 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

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.

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?

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.

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.