Global Warming -- LOL

Well, then, we should disregard it in favor of yours.

 

We should always disregard unsubstantiated opinions when peer reviewed evidence conflicts with that unsubstantiated opinion. It’s not the fact she’s a geologist that invalidates her opinion. It’s that her opinion is not supported by any empirical evidence.

If we are going to refer to this subject as “climate science” we must defer to evidence produced by the scientific method. There is no room for opinions. That’s why I don’t post my opinions! I leave that to you and this geologist. I’ll keep posting verifiably correct information supported by large scale peer reviewed studies.

Carry on…

 

LOL. I would LOVE to see you refute anything I posted on Covid using actual evidence produced through the scientific method.

Just like with climate, everything I post is devoid of my opinion. It’s all supported by empirical evidence.

Look at the post I made on Covid last night. Based entirely on peer reviewed evidence. Have a look. As always I’m open to looking at studies that conflict with what I’ve posted. I’m not interested in your unsubstantiated opinions.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?posts/1073947309/

Again, I didn’t make YOUR TIME the subject. You did. If you don’t want your time discussed here don’t bring up the subject on an open forum! This is very basic stuff.

 

Isn’t it interesting how when climate science is the subject, those taking the populist position always end up posting content devoid of science and full of logical fallacies?

It’s too bad those most fearful of climate change are the least informed on climate science. It’s unfortunate they can’t accept empirical evidence—it would go far to soothe their distress. Any populist position sold to the public with fear should be carefully examined and tested against actual evidence produced through application of the scientific method.

I feel bad for those like @LangleyMan that fear things they don’t understand because they have been misled by people who don’t have their best interest at heart. I hope the information I provide here can help some move out of the darkness of fear and misinformation into the light of reality. Living in fear creates undue stress that is not good for the human mind or body. I don’t want that for anyone.

 

While Climate Activists Push “Crop Failures”, Science Doubles the Crop Yields
Crop production September 6, 20210
Like clockwork, every year climate activists and their media enablers publish bold headlines claiming that global warming aka "climate change" will result in crop...

Sorry, Google News, Crop Yields Keep Growing, Not Shrinking
Crop production April 16, 20210
Among its top search results today for “climate change,” Google News is promoting a story published by Courthouse News Service claiming climate change has...

 

Warming mostly in the winter and at night and well below freezing.

Daily Mean Temperatures in the Arctic 1958 - 2023

Daily mean temperatures for the Arctic area north of the 80th northern parallel, plotted with daily climate values calculated from the period 1958-2002.

LINK

Latest map,

 

They keep making dumb claims that crops are failing because it has barely warmed yet as you show crop yields are INCREASING as it has been for the entire 44 years of this warming trend.

 

It’s an attempt to cherry pick data from one area to attempt to show a global phenomenon is net negative instead of net positive. Global climate change has and will continue to be beneficial to food production. It’s simple biology. You don’t need studies really. Just look at human civilization and hunger based on historical global temperatures.

For those still clinging to the myth climate change has only negative consequences for agriculture here are a couple more examples of rising temperatures increasing yields.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aafa55

And:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-21454-3

 

The climate in most parts of the world remains unchanged a fact exposed by the Koppen Classification system Wikipedia LINK

Where I live it is still the same climate as it was in 1964 when I moved there, it is still BSk and I am sure it is remains the same in your area by classification since 1950.

Consensus claims are worthless REPRODUCIBLE research is Gold.

 

You still ignore the benefits of wearing quality PPE like these P100 and N100 respirators...



... in favor of your lectures on staying in good health. Anyone, including those who have good health, can benefit from wearing a high-quality respirator in situations where they're exposed to covid.

@CenterField even reminded you of the value of quality PPE because you left that out in dispensing advice.

You don't waste my time any longer because I won't discuss issues with you.

This post is an opportunity to remind people they can protect themselves from covid infection with high-quality respirators readily available on Amazon or in the case of the P100 respirator on the left (the pink filters) from building supply stores.




I'm not touting Amazon, just providing proof protection is available. You may not be able to get a loved one to lose weight or change to a healthy lifestyle, but you can let them know about the "mask" they can wear.

No need to reply to my post, of course.

 

A summer that would be considered cold for my area by average and large areas of the world.

Really are you that unaware of parts of the world inhabited by many millions who live in a summer heat of 20-25 F by average warmer than chilly England?

India, Saudi Arabia, America, Africa, Australia and many more......

You focus on a tiny spit of land think that is a big worry for the rest of the world to ponder......

 

Nice advertisement, so you get a kickback from Amazon or 3M?

 

Where does it say it is designed to filter out viruses and rated by micron level filtration?

You didn't post the link to allow others give it full examination.

From this LINK shows that N100 and P100 Respirators do NOT filter out viruses as the stated micron level is .30 micron and larger while viruses are between .005-.30 microns in size LINK

 

You're a legend in your own mind.

You're moving people "out of the darkness of fear and misinformation..."?

 

Yet another of your stupid comments.

 

Really ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

And I thought I was being helpful ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

I’m one of two or three PF members who is not anti mask. Here is a sample of what I’ve posted on the subject.

My advice on healthy lifestyle to combat Covid excludes masking because PPE and biophysical effects of diet, sleep etc. are two very different things. PPE is simple physics. My advice on health is biology based. There is no sense confusing the two.

Also, there is/was all kinds of advice out there on masks. NOBODY was advising people on health choices. Not doctors, not politicians and not public health entities. I started doing so in April of 2020.

So your accusation of me ignoring masking for Covid mitigation is patently false. And you knew it was. Now would be a good time to stop being disingenuous and stop making false accusations easily shown to be false.

 

It doesn't. They aren't being sold as medical devices.

I'm not stopping you from researching the efficacy of P100 respirators in protecting against covid.

The trap the viruses particles (not all) because of Brownian Motion.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/chemistry/brownian-motion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_motion

 

No. I’m simply honest and make posts based on empirical evidence, primarily peer reviewed research published in respected journals of science.

Yes. Those who wish to be educated and base their beliefs on evidence. I can’t help people who reject evidence produced by the scientific method.

You are always welcome to provide evidence the evidence I provide is in error or inadequate. But your unsubstantiated opinion is of NO value in matters of science. Sorry.

 

You were making a snarky remark of little or no value.

As I said, I wasn't touting Amazon and reminded people these products are often available at building supply stores.

 

I see that Langley Man is ignoring my virus size post, now that I have looked around some more it gets worse for him as specific research has been published to discern the true size of COVID-19 or SARS 2 virus.

Medical Life Sciences

The Size of SARS-CoV-2 and its Implications

Excerpt:

Size of SARS-CoV-2
Since the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was first identified in December of 2019, many infectious disease specialists, as well as researchers for almost every avenue of medicine, have been investigating how this virus spreads to and infects human beings, the wide range of severe health effects it can cause and ultimately what drugs will be able to effectively kill this virus safely.

In addition to mechanistic information, researchers have also evaluated the size and content characteristics of the SARS-CoV-2 particles. Upon analysis of negative-stained SARS-CoV-2 articles by electron microscopy, different researchers have had varying results, but the diameter of the virus has been found to range between 50 nm to 140 nm.

LINK

bolding mine

50nm-140nm is equivalent to .05 microns-.14 microns which is well below the respirators .30 micron rating you posted about.

==========

From this LINK shows that N100 and P100 Respirators do NOT filter out viruses as the stated micron level is .30 micron and larger

 

Yup, you did, prices and all

 

Your pseudoscience of cherrypicked "evidence" is worth refuting. Unlike you, I'm not sorry.

 

You don't subscribe to the theory that this extinction was caused by an asteroid which hit the earth and formed the gulf of Mexico? By the way, I have read posts explaining cooling periods are a result of global warming. That goes beyond the science to be sure.

 

Now we see a move from simple fallacy to outright dishonesty. This is a perfect example of why beliefs should be based on empirical evidence. When beliefs are not based on evidence the only path in debate is fallacy and blatant dishonesty.

Thanks to @LangleyMan for helping me demonstrate the importance of having a scientific basis for one’s position and how lacking that scientific basis results in lost credibility.