The virus is not a killer

Uh.... it is already being shouted from the rooftops for the people who've been paying attention? And the result from those that think it's a joke is ... "This virus is NOT a killer... this is a giant nothing-burger, this is so blown out of proportion, all the world's leaders are colluding to destroy the world's economy!!! I want a haircut!!! Just say no to social distancing!!! But, but.... Obama!!!"

That's what happens when experts say, "Hey, maybe take this thing seriously, because look at how exponentially this thing is growing!"

 

I found this chart from the NYC Department of Health:



New York City, to date, has lost about 10,600 people from Covid-19 in ~five weeks, of which ~10450 died in the last four weeks.

 

Gotta say, I searched a lot before you provided that link for me without finding this information that really says it all (note: they did adjust from 76% to about 50% but still. Huge number).

And if in the previous period, the numbers for all deaths combined were half that, and Curious' link states they were, that is the story. Look at Drudge this AM. Big numbers are shouted but not compared to that other number. They need to keep that comparison front and center.
Edit; Example. This story is full of big numbers without showing us compared to what: https://news.trust.org/item/20200421211344-sn3xj

 

Hahahaha! Good one. A real knee slapper! Oh wait . . . were you serious?

 

There are scarce few politicians who do not think it is all about them. Just ask Hillary "It is going to be me" Clinton. Exceptions include Tulsi Gabbard, Dan Crenshaw, and Ron Paul.

 

Yes, completely. Every relevant expert agrees that the Earth is Warming and that Humans are a significant contributor to that warming.

 

You seem genuine, so I will take your word for it that this is the first you are hearing how bad it is. From where I'm sitting, almost everyone in the world understands what is happening, except for some rogue republicans who don't understand science & math.

 

I how you just make up crap, and then have it bite you on the ass. PLEASE . don't . stop .

https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhener...on-anthropogenic-climate-change/#43c14c711576

In a 2007 book chapter, Oreskes infers that the lack of expressed dissent “demonstrates that any remaining professional dissent is now exceedingly minor.” The chapter revealed that there were about 235 papers in the 2004 article, or 25%, that endorsed the position.

 

Some of them, even here, are willfully misunderstanding.

 

Please get newer information (and learn about how it is idiotic to assume the opinions of climatologists from abstracts that offer zero opinions). Here, I'll help.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0270467617707079

And then he updated it the two years later...

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0270467619886266

 

An army of idiots runs on its stomach too.

If they want a Darwin Award, more masks for the rest of us should this or another tiny monster mindlessly want us dead throughout the year. And it helps global warming:

“But if one thing is sure in climate science, it is that without a global economic meltdown or pandemic, atmospheric CO2 will continue to increase…” (p 225, Doubt and certainty in climate science, Alan Longhurst) https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/longhurst-print.pdf

Plus, their motorcycles may be hitting the market cheap. Hope a few have an Africa Twin or a Terere 700.

 

dood, you're not even trying.

http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php
31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs

 

Others that disagree ...

SCIENTISTS ARGUING THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS PRIMARILY CAUSED BY NATURAL PROCESSES
— scientists that have called the observed warming attributable to natural causes, i.e. the high solar activity witnessed over the last few decades.

• Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences.[81][82]
• Sallie Baliunas, retired astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.[83][84][85]
• Timothy Ball, historical climatologist, and retired professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg.[86][87][88]
• Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.[89][90]
• Vincent Courtillot, geophysicist, member of the French Academy of Sciences.[91]
• Doug Edmeades, PhD., soil scientist, officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit.[92]
• David Dilley, B.S. and M.S. in meteorology, CEO Global Weather Oscillations Inc. [198][199]
• David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester.[93][94]
• Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University.[95][96]
• William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy; emeritus professor, Princeton
• • Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, Theoretical Physicist and Researcher, Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.[98]
  • Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo.[99][100]
  • Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.[101][102]
  • William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology.[103][104]
  • David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware.[105][106]
  • Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri.[107][108]
  • Jennifer Marohasy, an Australian biologist, former director of the Australian Environment Foundation.[109][110]
  • Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.[111][112]
  • Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[113][114]
  • Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of mining geology, the University of Adelaide.[115][116]
  • Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego.[117][118]
  • Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University and University of Colorado.[119][120]
  • Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University.[121][122][123]Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo.[124][125]
  • Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo.[124][125]

 

More names ...

• Nedialko (Ned) T. Nikolov, PhD in Ecological Modelling, physical scientist for the U.S. Forest Service [200]
• Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.[126][127]
• Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia.[128][129][130][131]
• Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.[132][133]
• Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville.[134][135]
• Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center.[136][137]
• George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University.[138][139]
• Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa.[140][141]
• https://electroverse.net/the-list-s...with-the-current-consensus-on-climate-change/

So, I'm winning 31,487 to 1. Your turn.

 

I have absolutely no clue how the climate change debate is related to our current pandemic. While I agree the climate change debate is highly political, and the solutions on the table are often silly, it should not be an excuse to distrust science and math in general.

- If you use a computer, you trust science.
- If you use electricity, you trust science.
- If you have ever had a surgery, you trust science.


The list of ways you do trust science is endless. This pandemic is NOT political - it's a global crisis. Sheesh, people. At the risk of repeating myself for the 103rd time, the world leaders are not colluding with the world's pandemic experts to hose the world's economy.

 

I get that ... my post is agreeing with you but it was written in a confusing manner - my bad.

The millions of people that got Covid but were not tested - not added into the figures - would bring the reported Covid death % way down.

 

The ****ing Petition Project? That **** has multiple times more mathematicians than it does any person with a PhD even remotely related to climate or weather.

Also, not trying? I sourced two peer reviewed articles about the consensus levels and you respond with the ****ing petition project?

****ing useless.

 

How many recognized groups of scientists, either national or international, maintain a dissenting opinion in regards to the basic tenets of AGW?

The answer is Zero. Literally every single group of national and international scientists, be they the European Academy of Sciences or the American Society of Petroleum Geologists, have a supporting position. A grand total of two maintain a non-committal position.

 

It's my fault. I was responding to the folks that posit elderly people should be willing to sacrifice their lives in exchange for the betterment of the future generations.

And I asked if they realized that bit of logic directly cuts against most of the arguments being made in regard to climate change, i.e. that current value should not be sacrificed even if it makes future generations better.

 

WHY? Why? Why do the left feel compelled to purposely mislead? Tsk! Tsk! So, I win. You lose. NO SOUP FOR YOU! NEXT!

2007 AAPG revised position
Acknowledging that the association's previous policy statement on Climate Change was "not supported by a significant number of our members and prospective members",[17] AAPG's formal stance was reviewed and changed in July 2007.

The new statement formally accepts human activity as at least one contributor to carbon dioxide increase, but does not confirm its link to climate change, saying its members are "divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO2 has" on climate. AAPG also stated support for "research to narrow probabilistic ranges on the effect of anthropogenic CO2 on global climate."[18]

AAPG also withdrew its earlier criticism of other scientific organizations and research stating, "Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming trend will continue, as reported through NAS, AGU, AAAS, and AMS. AAPG respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data. These data do not necessarily support the maximum case scenarios forecast in some models."

 

A grand total of two maintain a non-committal position.

That's what I said. That's you quoting one of the two who maintains a non-committal position.

 

It's been shouted from rooftops all over the world. Any interested person can find this stuff. Any interested nation can act on this stuff.

 

Same.

 

I'm not sure where you are seeing it. I go to Drudge and the headline is, HUGE NUMBER DEAD!!! and I ask, compared to what? I'm seeing this on the network news and elsewhere. I've searched on line and not found this information. Curious Always had to point me to the link I shared as it is.

There still is the issue of "bad" in what way. Say this virus caused median US longevity to go for men @ 75 years to 70. That while it does kill the young, it is typically hitting the old. Politically, forget it. Old men vote too. But is all the loss of liberty and the hit to our economy, is it all worth it? Haven't we fought wars and lost 100ks of young men for our life, liberty and property? Food for thought. ITMT thank you again for you link.

 

Again @crank and @Curious Always This is the top link from Drudge right now:
https://news.trust.org/item/20200422210822-0oj2t
Lots of big numbers. Nothing to help us understand this in context. Nothing to compare to.