The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

So it looks like variations in solar irradiance actually do effect the weather.
The bad science the believers cling to saying that the suns irradiance only changes by 0.01% or what ever ridiculous number they came up with in 1996 based on 1 specific wavelength of UV and who's measurements were only recorded casually has finally been thrown out, put in the dumpster and set ablaze.
I only wonder, how much water are they going to waste putting out this dumpster fire and how much time they will waste picking through the ashes trying to save it.

Congratulations! You've spent seven lines of text to contribute absolutely nothing to the discussion.Ph.D.in vitriolics. Must be something in the water.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Today, twelve scientific papers published that air(o)head can ignore because of the source. Too lazy to linkify*, I'm going out for a bike ride.



The main one I take away is "Electrons are particles".


* I guess vBulletin did the heavy lifting.

The reason I refuse to look at any of that,is the same reason I've refused in the past.
Until you post,in your own words,a brief incapsulation of what the articles say,and represent to the world audience,there's no reason the invest the time investigating them.I don't care how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.


You could go the the Goddard Institute for Space Studies for access to the horses mouth without filtering.If I want to know something about bat/pangolin-derived SARS corona-virus I go to Dr Fauci,not a real estate speculator with a 2.0 GPA,who wants me to swallow a tanning booth,and inject Lysol.
Electrons are particles/waves.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I admire your enthusiasm for nostalgia.
Also 5 years isn't climate change. The IPCC uses rolling 30 year blocks. The report used to paint the dire picture of the oceans run away temperature and acidity was retracted in nature so that suggestion isn't valid.

When statistical analysis is employed to model the Covid pandemic for comparison to field observations we achieve 'validity',however,when the same science is tasked to examine climate change it becomes 'invalid'? Dark side of the Sun? Do you have any idea how asinine that is?

[freebeard]

Until you post,in your own words,a brief incapsulation of what the articles say,and represent to the world audience,there's no reason the invest the time investigating them.

Tersely: Electromagnetism > gravity.

If I want to know something about bat/pangolin-derived SARS corona-virus I go to Dr Fauci,not a real estate speculator with a 2.0 GPA,who wants me to swallow a tanning booth,and inject Lysol.

"....and inject Lysol." LOL It's the 'fine people' hoax redux.

Fauci was platformed by a reality TV star turned politician.

Can you trust NewsWeek?
www.newsweek.com: Dr. Fauci Backed Controversial Wuhan Lab with Millions of U.S. Dollars for Risky Coronavirus Research

Dr. Anthony Fauci is an adviser to President Donald Trump and something of an American folk hero for his steady, calm leadership during the pandemic crisis. At least one poll shows that Americans trust Fauci more than Trump on the coronavirus pandemic—and few scientists are portrayed on TV by Brad Pitt.

But just last year, the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the organization led by Dr. Fauci, funded scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and other institutions for work on gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses.

In 2019, with the backing of NIAID, the National Institutes of Health committed $3.7 million over six years for research that included some gain-of-function work. The program followed another $3.7 million, 5-year project for collecting and studying bat coronaviruses, which ended in 2019, bringing the total to $7.4 million.

Many scientists have criticized gain of function research, which involves manipulating viruses in the lab to explore their potential for infecting humans, because it creates a risk of starting a pandemic from accidental release.

What say you about Shi Zheng Li The only thing I find that connects the two is

HUGE EXCLUSIVE: Chinese Doctor Shi Zhengli Ran Coronavirus ...
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/202...ed-researcher/
After the US research project was shut down, Dr. Shi continued her coronavirus research in Wuhan, China. Doctor Shi Zhengli from China was part of a team, including Doctor Ralph S. Baric, that published an article in a 2015 edition of Nature Medicine.. TRENDING: "Dr. Fauci Gave $3.7 Million to Wuhan Laboratory... Something Is Going On" - Rudy Giuliani Drops a Bomb on NIAID Director Dr. Tony Fauci

Two different stories: circumstantial. But his ties to Bill Gates are clearer.
duckduckgo.com/?q=dr+fauci+connection+with+bill+gates
Microsoft never got a dollar from me, but now Bill Gates is coming at us from behind.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by aerohead

When statistical analysis is employed to model the Covid pandemic for comparison to field observations we achieve 'validity',however,when the same science is tasked to examine climate change it becomes 'invalid'? Dark side of the Sun? Do you have any idea how asinine that is?

We were supposed to see at least 200,000 and possibly millions killed by China virus even with the lock down. Reminds me a lot of the global warming predictions and how we have to do all kinds of ridiculous nonsense to save our selves.
Must be read herring sesson in texas.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by aerohead

Congratulations! You've spent seven lines of text to contribute absolutely nothing to the discussion.Ph.D.in vitriolics. Must be something in the water.

The desired effects on the target audience were achieved.

[freebeard]

...read herring sesson...

[breaks out secret decoder ring]

Some people may not like Steven Crowder so you'll have to click, but it is relevant, believe me. https://youtu.be/k_mQml9h5ZY Data vs models.

[redpoint5]

Like everyone (including myself), there's things I like about Crowder and things I do not. He's a comedian first and foremost, so if one doesn't like his comedy, he won't generally be appealing. Next he's a social commentator, but right after that is political commentary. I mostly find the comedy entertaining.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by myself

Data vs models.

I buried the lede

I know I've been called out on that before.

The point to be taken is that if data generated daily on the ground, ground truth if you will, trumps (there I said it) models. Don't double down on the models, you might take an aero to the hea knee.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Tersely: Electromagnetism > gravity.

"....and inject Lysol." LOL It's the 'fine people' hoax redux.

Fauci was platformed by a reality TV star turned politician.

Can you trust NewsWeek?
www.newsweek.com: Dr. Fauci Backed Controversial Wuhan Lab with Millions of U.S. Dollars for Risky Coronavirus Research


What say you about Shi Zheng Li The only thing I find that connects the two is

Two different stories: circumstantial. But his ties to Bill Gates are clearer.
duckduckgo.com/?q=dr+fauci+connection+with+bill+gates
Microsoft never got a dollar from me, but now Bill Gates is coming at us from behind.

here you go again! electromagnetism goes to gravity says zero!
I don't care what reality television says.
I don't care what NEWSWEEK writes.It's not germane to Dr. Fauci's scientific recommendations about safety.
Whose 'controversy'? People with 2.0 GPAs?
I say zero about DuckduckGo.WTF are they? And who cares?
If your ears are operating,can you not simply listen to Fauci's narrative,and deduce that he knows something about epidemiology?