Not Again!

[SteinwayTransitCorp]

WATCH: A Real Climate Scientist Debunks ‘Crisis’ Claims​

This article originally appeared on WND.com

Guest by post by Bob Unruh

Weather-related deaths have plunged 97% over last century

A real climate scientist has appeared on video debunking those claims that the world is in “crisis,” that “people are dying” because of the climate, and all those charges leveled by activists.

The video begins with those wild charges by global warming activists Greta Thunberg and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who both claimed “People are dying!”

Also among the propaganda is the claim earth has until 2030 to avoid calamity.

Curry was on the authorship team of a study that came out about the time of Hurricane Katrina. Its point was to make adjustments when rebuilding New Orleans from the damage of such a storm.
“We didn’t really blame it on global warming,” Curry said.

But the activists grabbed the information to use in support of their faith in global warming, which was changed to climate change when the warming stopped.

Ignored were factors involving natural variability in climate, and the issue prompted her to study more.

Then came Climategate, which revealed so-called climate scientists concealing information, warping study results and bullying editors.

Extremists, including those at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changed, decided on a war against oil companies and capitalism, and put the “policy cart” far ahead of the “science horse,” she said.

Then developed the bias in funding, where scientists looking neutrally at such issues couldn’t get funded.

Eventually, they were determined to be “deniers,” and Curry said the scientific community likely began the “cancel culture” because of these issues.

Today, she charged, climate change arguments are being used to ignore the real problems that need to be addressed, such as poverty, lifestyle, poor government, poor land use, poor city planning and more.
A commentary at Twitchy said, “John Stossel was pretty brave to take on the modern-day religion that IS climate change. This is not merely an agenda item or issue for many many many people, OH NO, it has definitely become a religion.”

It continued, “And if you speak out against it or try to disprove it you are the DEVIL … or something.”


In fact, the science shows that over the last 100 years, the deaths related to climate have dropped – by 97%.

The comments come from Judith Curry, a climatologist who has published more than 140 scientific books and papers and has served on the faculty of Georgia Tech.

 

[Chuck Finley69]

BIG SHOCK

 

[SteinwayTransitCorp]

SHOCKING

 

[spARTacus]

...This article originally appeared on WND.com

Guest by post by Bob Unruh ...

It actually reads a lot like some of your posts. Basically, a bunch of viewpoints and opinions loosely assembled, some written ok and some written rather poorly as attempts for providing statements and claims that are logically based and justified. Presumably, you refer to an article piece like this as an example of "fact" and "scientifically based" ?

 

[SteinwayTransitCorp]

It actually reads a lot like some of your posts. Basically, a bunch of viewpoints and opinions loosely assembled, some written ok and some written rather poorly as attempts for providing statements and claims that are logically based and justified. Presumably, you refer to an article piece like this as an example of "fact" and "scientifically based" ?

Guess a tenured professor can’t be right because after all, you don’t agree with it………Blather on!

 

[SteinwayTransitCorp]

It actually reads a lot like some of your posts. Basically, a bunch of viewpoints and opinions loosely assembled, some written ok and some written rather poorly as attempts for providing statements and claims that are logically based and justified. Presumably, you refer to an article piece like this as an example of "fact" and "scientifically based" ?

The only science you believe in, is that you feel good and it feels OK.

 

[Ph1llip]

It actually reads a lot like some of your posts. Basically, a bunch of viewpoints and opinions loosely assembled, some written ok and some written rather poorly as attempts for providing statements and claims that are logically based and justified. Presumably, you refer to an article piece like this as an example of "fact" and "scientifically based" ?

Spartz, "Global Warming" is an IQ test.

If you believe in it, your score is a two digit number .

In all seriousness, do you even know how it's supposed to work? Can you explain it here? Or are you just believing scientists who are on the research grant gravy train, you know, the same idiots who locked the world down for two years, made everyone wear a mask and told them to stay home. Because at various times in n history, these same idiots told us the sun rrevolved around the earth, that the earth was flat, that we'd run out of oil in the 70's etc.etc. etc.

Don't let others think for you, think for yourself.

 

[spARTacus]

Guess a tenured professor can’t be right because after all, you don’t agree with it………Blather on!

I commented on the crappiness of the article, not a very well put together one and a pretty weak reference (the article) to rely on for facts and authority on a subject. Whatever the professor actually said and represented in the studies, the article really doesn't get into much of that. It basically only tries to rely on a couple of very short blurbs to suggest some credibility for some points it's trying to make (which also aren't very well conveyed, in my opinion). There really isn't enough substance in the article to judge about much. If articles like that are what you rely on, then it's not surprising you have the opinions and viewpoints you do.

 

[spARTacus]

The only science you believe in, is that you feel good and it feels OK.

There wasn't any science in that article.

 

[spARTacus]

Spartz, "Global Warming" is an IQ test.

If you believe in it, your score is a two digit number .

In all seriousness, do you even know how it's supposed to work? Can you explain it here? Or are you just believing scientists who are on the research grant gravy train, you know, the same idiots who locked the world down for two years, made everyone wear a mask and told them to stay home. Because at various times in n history, these same idiots told us the sun rrevolved around the earth, that the earth was flat, that we'd run out of oil in the 70's etc.etc. etc.

Don't let others think for you, think for yourself.

No one here in CB (and most of the people on the internet) don't really know how it all works. I've posted about that before. All that most people can do is rely on what they read and make good decisions about what to read, and then judge for themselves based on what they are able to understand, what they are able to reason about, what they can analyze and what they cannot. Some people have deeper abilities than others, and therefore some people can question and decide deeper than others for logic and analysis of what is presented, what makes sense and what does not.

I'm quite happy with my thinking and who I decide to believe and who I do not. Seems to me that lots of other people in the world have concluded the same as I have for who and what we have decided to believe and agree with. You should probably be more concerned about who you are listening to for your beliefs, and why so many people have not concluded the same as you have.

 

[SteinwayTransitCorp]

No one here in CB (and most of the people on the internet) don't really know how it all works. I've posted about that before. All that most people can do is rely on what they read and make good decisions about what to read, and then judge for themselves based on what they are able to understand, what they are able to reason about, what they can analyze and what they cannot. Some people have deeper abilities than others, and therefore some people can question and decide deeper than others for logic and analysis of what is presented, what makes sense and what does not.

I'm quite happy with my thinking and who I decide to believe and who I do not. Seems to me that lots of other people in the world have concluded the same as I have for who and what we have decided to believe and agree with. You should probably be more concerned about who you are listening to for your beliefs, and why so many people have not concluded the same as you have.

Hey follow them off the cliff your need to be a member of the mob and since it is a mob it must be right…….blather on

 

[spARTacus]

Hey follow them off the cliff your need to be a member of the mob and since it is a mob it must be right…….blather on

Just remember that by your own logic, you are potentially following those who you follow, towards a cliff.

 

[SteinwayTransitCorp]

Just remember that by your own logic, you are potentially following those who you follow, towards a cliff.

Nope, science is just that, Fowler to be in the “in” crowd it’s much easier……blather on

 

[spARTacus]

Nope, science is just that, Fowler to be in the “in” crowd it’s much easier……blather on

I really haven't seen any science behind any of your opinions and viewpoints for what you are deciding to believe and follow from others. Almost all of what you try to periodically post to help justify what you have decided to follow, almost all of that is just someone else's expression of their opinions and viewpoints. Rarely do I see any decent logic and science behind much of what you post, notwithstanding that you always make claims about facts. And you don't think you are following just to be part of some sort "in crowd" you are with?

 

[SteinwayTransitCorp]

I really haven't seen any science behind any of your opinions and viewpoints for what you are deciding to believe and follow from others. Almost all of what you try to periodically post to help justify what you have decided to follow, almost all of that is just someone else's expression of their opinions and viewpoints. Rarely do I see any decent logic and science behind much of what you post, notwithstanding that you always make claims about facts. And you don't think you are following just to be part of some sort "in crowd" you are with?

You never do, you discount everything you do not post………..there are so many examples with you……blather on

 

[spARTacus]

You never do, you discount everything you do not post………..there are so many examples with you……blather on

Nope. I only discount stuff where it doesn't make sense. That does normally however seem to be lots of what you post. That's on you.

 

[SteinwayTransitCorp]

Nope. I only discount stuff where it doesn't make sense. That does normally however seem to be lots of what you post. That's on you.

No you refuse anything that might cause you to think……..crime in NYC as posted by the NYPD discounted by you, many scientists posting about what’s wrong with climate change…….again you discount it……blather on.

 

[spARTacus]

No you refuse anything that might cause you to think……..crime in NYC as posted by the NYPD discounted by you, many scientists posting about what’s wrong with climate change…….again you discount it……blather on.

Lots of scientists argue one side of climate change and global warming, and there's also lots of scientists arguing another side. People post certain things and people post other things. Here in this forum, I've discounted lots of what you've posted. I don't think I discount what you post without also explaining my reasons.

 

[spARTacus]

No you refuse anything that might cause you to think……..crime in NYC as posted by the NYPD discounted by you, many scientists posting about what’s wrong with climate change…….again you discount it……blather on.

So we have to have this discussion again, about what you were trying to do to discredit NYC and it's success with EV bikes, your whole dumpster fire characterization, my indication that it wasn't as bad as you were making out, then how that lead to you discounting the murder rates now compared to when you first left NYC after growing up, plus also the refusal of you to admit that I earlier agreed with you that crime was relatively up?

 

[SteinwayTransitCorp]

So we have to have this discussion again, about what you were trying to do to discredit NYC and it's success with EV bikes, your whole dumpster fire characterization, my indication that it wasn't as bad as you were making out, then how that lead to you discounting the murder rates now compared to when you first left NYC after growing up, plus also the refusal of you to admit that I earlier agreed with you that crime was relatively up?

sorry did I mention bikes? Did I miss it? No you are back to cherry picking…….blather on!