Popular National Acquisition - Covid

[irv]

Originally Posted by G1911

I have been informed that the video of proceedings is invalidated if the video is posted on Twitter, Facebook, or another platform with a long documentary record of censoring right wing voices but not censoring them enough for left wing extremists. So I can’t watch this.

LOL. It's funny how some are so brainwashed. If it doesn't come from the likes of CNN, MSNBC and a whole host of other left wing fake news propaganda sites, they don't believe it.

Don't watch/read these ones either of Matt Taibbi, on the day he was to testify in congress, getting audited by the IRS. It's just a coincidence.
I assumed this shit only went on in communist, crooked types of countries, but I guess, based on what we've seen with this current administration and all the lies and corruption they've exhibited, one shouldn't really be surprised.
https://twitter.com/catturd2/status/...B-5AcILGXST1WQ
https://youtu.be/tzDUik0O46U

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by irv

LOL. It's funny how some are so brainwashed. If it doesn't come from the likes of CNN, MSNBC and a whole host of other left wing fake news propaganda sites, they don't believe it.

Don't watch/read these ones either of Matt Taibbi, on the day he was to testify in congress, getting audited by the IRS. It's just a coincidence.
I assumed this shit only went on in communist, crooked types of countries, but I guess, based on what we've seen with this current administration and all the lies and corruption they've exhibited, one shouldn't really be surprised.
https://twitter.com/catturd2/status/...B-5AcILGXST1WQ
https://youtu.be/tzDUik0O46U

The bold part I agree with. I still am not sure who I pissed off but I was audited by everyone possible as a business owner in a few month period. You would be amazed at how many different state and federal agencies can actually audit you.

[tpeichel]

Just saw this.


A top official in Democrat President Joe Biden’s administration recently told Congress that “natural immunity is not something we believe in.”

Gil Cisneros, Biden’s undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, made the statement while arguing the case for vaccine mandates for members of the U.S. military. Cisneros made the claim shortly after a British study showed prior infection protects people as well as or better than vaccination.

The armed forces will instead continue to push service members to take the COVID-19 vaccine “and boosters,” Cisneros declared.

He continued by denying an inspector general’s report that officials reviewed Christians’ requests for religious exemptions only 12 minutes before dismissing them.

“We don’t know about natural immunity there, as far as how it works and how effective it is,” replied Cisneros after Rep. Jim Banks (R-IN) raised the U.K. study during the congressional hearing.

“There’s no good evidence and the research is still going on as to how we need to progress with this,” said Cisneros.

“But as for right now, natural immunity is not something we believe in for this, and so we are still moving forward.”

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by tpeichel

Just saw this.


A top official in Democrat President Joe Biden’s administration recently told Congress that “natural immunity is not something we believe in.”

Gil Cisneros, Biden’s undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, made the statement while arguing the case for vaccine mandates for members of the U.S. military. Cisneros made the claim shortly after a British study showed prior infection protects people as well as or better than vaccination.

The armed forces will instead continue to push service members to take the COVID-19 vaccine “and boosters,” Cisneros declared.

He continued by denying an inspector general’s report that officials reviewed Christians’ requests for religious exemptions only 12 minutes before dismissing them.

“We don’t know about natural immunity there, as far as how it works and how effective it is,” replied Cisneros after Rep. Jim Banks (R-IN) raised the U.K. study during the congressional hearing.

“There’s no good evidence and the research is still going on as to how we need to progress with this,” said Cisneros.

“But as for right now, natural immunity is not something we believe in for this, and so we are still moving forward.”

right so still no lawsuit if get sick from shot and emergency rooms are not full.....emergency room full argument thus is flawed..

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by tpeichel

Just saw this.


A top official in Democrat President Joe Biden’s administration recently told Congress that “natural immunity is not something we believe in.”

Gil Cisneros, Biden’s undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, made the statement while arguing the case for vaccine mandates for members of the U.S. military. Cisneros made the claim shortly after a British study showed prior infection protects people as well as or better than vaccination.

The armed forces will instead continue to push service members to take the COVID-19 vaccine “and boosters,” Cisneros declared.

He continued by denying an inspector general’s report that officials reviewed Christians’ requests for religious exemptions only 12 minutes before dismissing them.

“We don’t know about natural immunity there, as far as how it works and how effective it is,” replied Cisneros after Rep. Jim Banks (R-IN) raised the U.K. study during the congressional hearing.

“There’s no good evidence and the research is still going on as to how we need to progress with this,” said Cisneros.

“But as for right now, natural immunity is not something we believe in for this, and so we are still moving forward.”

If Big Natural Immunity sent millions of dollars in donations and lobbyists to the Biden Administration like Pfizer and other Big Pharma do then maybe the Biden Administration would look at natural immunity in a different light.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

right so still no lawsuit if get sick from shot and emergency rooms are not full.....emergency room full argument thus is flawed..

Still hoping something will change so you can get some work?

[irv]

Originally Posted by tpeichel

Just saw this.


A top official in Democrat President Joe Biden’s administration recently told Congress that “natural immunity is not something we believe in.”

Gil Cisneros, Biden’s undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, made the statement while arguing the case for vaccine mandates for members of the U.S. military. Cisneros made the claim shortly after a British study showed prior infection protects people as well as or better than vaccination.

The armed forces will instead continue to push service members to take the COVID-19 vaccine “and boosters,” Cisneros declared.

He continued by denying an inspector general’s report that officials reviewed Christians’ requests for religious exemptions only 12 minutes before dismissing them.

“We don’t know about natural immunity there, as far as how it works and how effective it is,” replied Cisneros after Rep. Jim Banks (R-IN) raised the U.K. study during the congressional hearing.

“There’s no good evidence and the research is still going on as to how we need to progress with this,” said Cisneros.

“But as for right now, natural immunity is not something we believe in for this, and so we are still moving forward.”

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

If Big Natural Immunity sent millions of dollars in donations and lobbyists to the Biden Administration like Pfizer and other Big Pharma do then maybe the Biden Administration would look at natural immunity in a different light.

I know they will not walk anything back at this point nor certainly admit to all the lies, corruption and censorship that is now being exposed daily, but I wonder if there is more to this than meets the eye?

How bad is the recruiting crisis? During the last fiscal year, the Army missed its recruiting goal by 15,000 active-duty soldiers, or 25 percent of its target. This shortfall forced the Army to cut its planned active-duty end strength from 476,000 to 466,000. And the current fiscal year is likely to be even worse. Mar 10, 2023

China siding with Russia and even talk or in the works about having their own currency making the U.S. no longer the world's reserve currency. Africa is already lost to the Chinese and South America is turning too. It goes on and on.
New world order, agenda 2030? So much going on that isn't being talked about by MSM or our govt's.
I'm not smart enough to figure it all out but I believe we, (like us up here) are being sold down the river.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C39wFqCOmag

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Still hoping something will change so you can get some work?

your still secretly working for the drug companies it appears

[1952boyntoncollector]

Do 90 percent of medical doctors believe in natural immunity to covid..

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

your still secretly working for the drug companies it appears

Maybe, maybe not but it is very obvious you posting the same exact thing over and over is not getting the response you are hoping for.

You have also never once answered my question or denied you are just trolling for work.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by irv

LOL. It's funny how some are so brainwashed. If it doesn't come from the likes of CNN, MSNBC and a whole host of other left wing fake news propaganda sites, they don't believe it.

Don't watch/read these ones either of Matt Taibbi, on the day he was to testify in congress, getting audited by the IRS. It's just a coincidence.
I assumed this shit only went on in communist, crooked types of countries, but I guess, based on what we've seen with this current administration and all the lies and corruption they've exhibited, one shouldn't really be surprised.
https://twitter.com/catturd2/status/...B-5AcILGXST1WQ
https://youtu.be/tzDUik0O46U

It's nothing more than a silly tactic to dismiss video that doesn't agree with a world view so they don't even have to engage with it. Twitter meme's are nothing but sh!@posting that can be funny or not funny depending on the person, but even video of testimony and other events is repeatedly dismissed out of hand in the same way because... it is posted on a large video archive that has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the testimony is true or the documentation correct. The only content that can be engaged with on any level is the state and parties narrative or that of other approved institutions and their propaganda outlets; nothing else, no matter the evidence. Actually reading bills to see what they actually say instead of listening to the propaganda is also very very bad, I have learned.

I miss the days when there were often reasonable sides to a debate and the debate was sometimes rooted in some semblance of facts that were acknowledged by all, the debate mostly stemming from details and differing values rather than the outright refusal to use an evidentiary basis whatsoever all around. It was not very long ago when many issue debates were reasonable and rooted in a basic evidentiary basis, but differing values and weights of priorities. We're down now to a total appeal to the authority of the state on most issues vs. a reactionary opposite belief.

I can't wait to see what the next hot topic is. Can people be otters? Are you as good as committing murder if you don't take a basic flu vaccine? What is going to kill us all in just 10 years if we don't act right now?

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

What is going to kill us all in just 10 years if we don't act right now?

You seem to like to repeat the idea that scientists are perpetually claiming that humans will perish from climate change "in 10 years"

I am not as familiar with this widespread scientific claim. My understanding is that climate scientists are pointing out that climate change has already caused significant change to our environment, and that further inaction will lead to dire consequences in the future (such as much of the United States being submerged under water) if not dealt with in the next 10 years or so.

This is because carbon dioxide, methane, and other molecules that absorb infrared heat stay in the atmosphere for decades. So inaction now, has a cumulative effect.

It is basic science that CO2, methane and other greenhouse gases exist and trap heat. Without them our planet would be a frozen ball of ice. The reason that the surface of Venus is so much hotter than Mercury, despite being further from the sun, is because its atmosphere has so much CO2, a phenomenon that Dr. Carl Sagan called a runaway greenhouse effect in his 1960 PhD thesis.

Too many greenhouse gases will lead to temperatures that humans and other animals are not evolved to live in and will melt all land-based ice, causing massive sea-level rise and ocean acidification (CO2 is acidic).

Some of the most dire consequences will not occur in our lifetimes, but will be caused by the build-up of these gases during our lifetimes.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

You seem to like to repeat the idea that scientists are perpetually claiming that humans will perish from climate change "in 10 years"

I am not as familiar with this widespread scientific claim. My understanding is that climate scientists are pointing out that climate change has already caused significant change to our environment, and that further inaction will lead to dire consequences in the future (such as much of the United States being submerged under water) if not dealt with in the next 10 years or so.

This is because carbon dioxide, methane, and other molecules that absorb infrared heat stay in the atmosphere for decades. So inaction now, has a cumulative effect.

It is basic science that CO2, methane and other greenhouse gases exist and trap heat. Without them our planet would be a frozen ball of ice. The reason that the surface of Venus is so much hotter than Mercury, despite being further from the sun, is because its atmosphere has so much CO2, a phenomenon that Dr. Carl Sagan called a runaway greenhouse effect in his 1960 PhD thesis.

Too many greenhouse gases will lead to temperatures that humans and other animals are not evolved to live in and will melt all land-based ice, causing massive sea-level rise and ocean acidification (CO2 is acidic).

Some of the most dire consequences will not occur in our lifetimes, but will be caused by the build-up of these gases during our lifetimes.

I like how you cut out the Otters and flu shots so you can address it at a very literal level so we don't have the actual claim of constant fear narratives and absurdities, and then add multiple stipulations to try and frame it very narrowly to "scientists", even though the statement actually made is very expressly the political, to cut out UN officials, the media and the political leadership that does the spinning and uses the scientific studies to push and shape the narratives. Nowhere has the statement you want to argue against with your applied restrictions been made.

I'm surprised you aren't familiar with the 10 years until its too late and we are doomed story.

Here's some I pulled up from the left within a time limit of 30 seconds searching from the political and institutional left. I'm sure you can find dozens of others easily as the 10 vital years framework has been a frequent talking point of the political left for decades.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/clima...b6a7bfb4c1827c

https://www.newsweek.com/alexandria-...report-1300873

https://news.yahoo.com/the-world-has...210017930.html

"governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control"! In 1989! : https://apnews.com/article/bd45c372c...964ea547880cd0

Originally Posted by G1911

My only opinion on Global Warming is that I have been told we are just 10 years away from uncorrectable disaster that will reshape the world and life as we know it for my entire life. The narrative is evidently overblown, as most fear screeching narratives always have been, and has not born out. Temperatures have risen slightly in the last century. Whether this is A) entirely or almost entirely the result of humans and B) it's effects will be hugely significant and reshape human life and organization I am not convinced one way or another. Objective research that isn't rooted in A) affirming institutions views and keeping the scientists career and reputation intact or B) contradicting institutions views would be great.

That's really all there is to say still.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

I like how you cut out the Otters and flu shots so you can address it at a very literal level so we don't have the actual claim of constant fear narratives and absurdities, and then add multiple stipulations to try and frame it very narrowly to "scientists", even though the statement actually made is very expressly the political, to cut out UN officials, the media and the political leadership that does the spinning and uses the scientific studies to push and shape the narratives. Nowhere has the statement you want to argue against with your applied restrictions been made.

I'm surprised you aren't familiar with the 10 years until its too late and we are doomed story.

Here's some I pulled up from the left within a time limit of 30 seconds searching from the political and institutional left. I'm sure you can find dozens of others easily as the 10 vital years framework has been a frequent talking point of the political left for decades.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/clima...b6a7bfb4c1827c

https://www.newsweek.com/alexandria-...report-1300873

https://news.yahoo.com/the-world-has...210017930.html

"governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control"! In 1989! : https://apnews.com/article/bd45c372c...964ea547880cd0





That's really all there is to say still.

Not sure if you bothered to actually read any of the links you cited, but each and every one of them is referring to the fact that if we don't drastically address climate change in the next 10 years, the world will have dire consequences. This is because of the fact that CO2 and methane exist for decades in the atmosphere, as discussed above.

So yes, inaction between 1989 and 1999 has put us on a trajectory to alter our planet in ways beyond our control. And here we are in 2023, having done relatively little about. Much of the inaction is because of people like yourself that seem to think climate change is humorous.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Not sure if you bothered to actually read any of the links you cited, but each and every one of them is referring to the fact that if we don't drastically address climate change in the next 10 years, the world will have dire consequences. This is because of the fact that CO2 and methane exist for decades in the atmosphere, as discussed above.

So yes, inaction between 1989 and 1999 has put us on a trajectory to alter our planet in ways beyond our control. And here we are in 2023, having done relatively little about. Much of the inaction is because of people like yourself that seem to think climate change is humorous.

You are cutting out the part where it is "beyond human control" in just 10 years and replacing it with a much softer argument that things will get a little worse over 10 years. If you read just the first few sentences and compare it to your rephrasing here, the difference is astounding.

"UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.

Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.

He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control."

"Beyond human control", a recurring motif from the left, that we have just 10 years, not that it will get slightly worse in the next 10 years. Boy, that sure sounds completely different from your rephrasing! And I'm the one who can't read. The irony.

If X tells you in 1989 that Y is beyond fixing in just 10 years and produces terrible consequences, and then in 1999 they tell you that Y is beyond fixing in just 10 years and produces terrible consequences, and in 2009 they tell you Y is beyond fixing in just 10 years and produces terrible consequences, and in 2019 they tell you that Y is beyond fixing in just 10 years and produces terrible consequences, you wouldn't realize the hyperbole? You wouldn't question that? That would make sense to you? You wouldn't think that's a fear narrative? It would take incredible stupidity to not realize something has been overstated at the least.

Yes, those of us who can do basic math are killing the planet. I'll be at the same beach at the same coastline in 10 years while you're preaching that we have just another extended 10 years before the 1989 narrative comes to be. Can't wait for it.

[G1911]

It dupe'd.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

You are cutting out the part where it is "beyond human control" in just 10 years and replacing it with a much softer argument that things will get a little worse over 10 years. If you read just the first few sentences and compare it to your rephrasing here, the difference is astounding.

"UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.

Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.

He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control."

"Beyond human control", a recurring motif from the left, that we have just 10 years, not that it will get slightly worse in the next 10 years. Boy, that sure sounds completely different from your rephrasing! And I'm the one who can't read. The irony.

If X tells you in 1989 that Y is beyond fixing in just 10 years and produces terrible consequences, and then in 1999 they tell you that Y is beyond fixing in just 10 years and produces terrible consequences, and in 2009 they tell you Y is beyond fixing in just 10 years and produces terrible consequences, and in 2019 they tell you that Y is beyond fixing in just 10 years and produces terrible consequences, you wouldn't realize the hyperbole? You wouldn't question that? That would make sense to you? You wouldn't think that's a fear narrative? It would take incredible stupidity to not realize something has been overstated at the least.

Yes, those of us who can do basic math are killing the planet. I'll be at the same beach at the same coastline in 10 years while you're preaching that we have just another extended 10 years before the 1989 narrative comes to be. Can't wait for it.

This is not that difficult of a concept to understand. The people you are quoting are not saying that all of the effects will occur in 10 years. They are saying that inaction in 10 years will eventually lead to the effects because it will not allow us enough time to avert drastic climate change. You can't do nothing for 10 years and then magically stop burning massive amounts of fossil fuels. You have to wind down fossil fuel usage.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

This is not that difficult of a concept to understand. The people you are quoting are not saying that the effects will occur in 10 years. They are saying that inaction in 10 years will eventually lead to the effects because it will not allow us enough time to avert drastic climate change. You can't do nothing for 10 years and then magically stop burning massive amounts of fossil fuels. You have to wind down fossil fuel usage.

This is not that difficult of a concept to understand. "Beyond human control" in 10 years means it is too late in 10 years. It will be beyond our control. Never did I say their quote is that every one of the end effects will occur in 10 years. If it is too late in 10 years, and they say this every 10 years for decades it obviously is not too late. If the narrative was true, it's been too late for over 20 years and it doesn't matter. Can't wait to hear this schtick again in 2029 like clockwork.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

This is not that difficult of a concept to understand. "Beyond human control" in 10 years means it is too late in 10 years. It will be beyond our control. Never did I say their quote is that every one of the end effects will occur in 10 years. If it is too late in 10 years, and they say this every 10 years for decades it obviously is not too late. If the narrative was true, it's been too late for over 20 years and it doesn't matter. Can't wait to hear this schtick again in 2029 like clockwork.

It does still matter. The worst of the effects can be delayed, maybe even avoided.
It is not an all or nothing concept.

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by g1911

this is not that difficult of a concept to understand. "beyond human control" in 10 years means it is too late in 10 years. It will be beyond our control. Never did i say their quote is that every one of the end effects will occur in 10 years. If it is too late in 10 years, and they say this every 10 years for decades it obviously is not too late. If the narrative was true, it's been too late for over 20 years and it doesn't matter. Can't wait to hear this schtick again in 2029 like clockwork.

2039, 2049, 2059...

[irv]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

It does still matter. The worst of the effects can be delayed, maybe even avoided.
It is not an all or nothing concept.

But that's exactly what they're preaching. We have X number of yrs (7 now, I believe?) or we are doomed, mankind (people kind from our Liberal idiot up here) as we know it will perish.

How the likes of you and others can't see the obvious lies, the obvious grift this all is is beyond me? It is nothing more than a political tool, a way for the left to fill their coffers and to amass large amounts of money to fund other political agendas.

With so many brainwashed now into believing all the lies, all the propaganda, all the left has to do now, come election time, is say the right, (the Cons, the Repub's) don't care about the planet, don't care about your children, don't care about your gramma, and without even blinking an eye, or looking at other more important things like the economy, crime rates, homelessness, world peace, etc, the left will put an X on the ballot sheet as fast as they can.

[irv]

Originally Posted by G1911

It's nothing more than a silly tactic to dismiss video that doesn't agree with a world view so they don't even have to engage with it. Twitter meme's are nothing but sh!@posting that can be funny or not funny depending on the person, but even video of testimony and other events is repeatedly dismissed out of hand in the same way because... it is posted on a large video archive that has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the testimony is true or the documentation correct. The only content that can be engaged with on any level is the state and parties narrative or that of other approved institutions and their propaganda outlets; nothing else, no matter the evidence. Actually reading bills to see what they actually say instead of listening to the propaganda is also very very bad, I have learned.

I miss the days when there were often reasonable sides to a debate and the debate was sometimes rooted in some semblance of facts that were acknowledged by all, the debate mostly stemming from details and differing values rather than the outright refusal to use an evidentiary basis whatsoever all around. It was not very long ago when many issue debates were reasonable and rooted in a basic evidentiary basis, but differing values and weights of priorities. We're down now to a total appeal to the authority of the state on most issues vs. a reactionary opposite belief.

I can't wait to see what the next hot topic is. Can people be otters? Are you as good as committing murder if you don't take a basic flu vaccine? What is going to kill us all in just 10 years if we don't act right now?

I am continually surprised at how others are "shocked to learn how corrupt our left media is". Our media has always been this way. They named their highest award after Joe Pulitzer, one of the two men responsible for popularizing what we call yellow journalism. I mean that right there tells ya all need to know.

Yellow journalism was a style of newspaper reporting that emphasized sensationalism over facts. During its heyday in the late 19th century it was one of many factors that helped push the United States and Spain into war in Cuba and the Philippines, leading to the acquisition of overseas territory by the United States.
https://history.state.gov/milestones...nited%20States.

Some (most now, maybe?) have woken up to the fact most of MSM is nothing but propaganda and is the reason why other entities outside of MSM have become so popular now. But, I guess we'll always have a few, like has been evident in these covid, climate and vaccine threads, that will not believe that and will continue to hang on no matter what.
https://fortune.com/2023/02/15/trust...s-poll-gallup/
https://news.gallup.com/poll/403166/...ecord-low.aspx

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by irv

I am continually surprised at how others are "shocked to learn how corrupt our left media is". Our media has always been this way. They named their highest award after Joe Pulitzer, one of the two men responsible for popularizing what we call yellow journalism. I mean that right there tells ya all need to know.

Yellow journalism was a style of newspaper reporting that emphasized sensationalism over facts. During its heyday in the late 19th century it was one of many factors that helped push the United States and Spain into war in Cuba and the Philippines, leading to the acquisition of overseas territory by the United States.
https://history.state.gov/milestones...nited%20States.

Some (most now, maybe?) have woken up to the fact most of MSM is nothing but propaganda and is the reason why other entities outside of MSM have become so popular now. But, I guess we'll always have a few, like has been evident in these covid, climate and vaccine threads, that will not believe that and will continue to hang on no matter what.
https://fortune.com/2023/02/15/trust...s-poll-gallup/
https://news.gallup.com/poll/403166/...ecord-low.aspx

maybe they are so called journalists like the twitter people were accused of being..

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Maybe, maybe not but it is very obvious you posting the same exact thing over and over is not getting the response you are hoping for.

You have also never once answered my question or denied you are just trolling for work.

I do think i am getting the answer I am looking for actually, i dont see any disagreement. Not sure about your big question but i am not trolling for work, i happen to think that you should be able to sue if you get sick from the covid vaccine and the money can be taken from a percent of the profits, i guess everyone that agrees with me is trolling for work? Now do you work for the drug companies?

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

I do think i am getting the answer I am looking for actually, i dont see any disagreement. Not sure about your big question but i am not trolling for work, i happen to think that you should be able to sue if you get sick from the covid vaccine and the money can be taken from a percent of the profits, i guess everyone that agrees with me is trolling for work? Now do you work for the drug companies?

Nope, been retired for close to a decade now.

Taking the vaccine WAS a choice. It was also known upfront there would be no way to sue anyone. So NO you should not be able to sue anyone over the vaccine no matter how many ambulance chasing lawyers want to make money off it.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

It is basic science that CO2, methane and other greenhouse gases exist and trap heat. Without them our planet would be a frozen ball of ice.

CO2 comprises LESS THAN one half of one tenth of one percent of our atmosphere.

Let's pause for a moment to digest that.

Now, consider, on a planet with carbon-based life forms, this naturally occurring form of carbon is essential for all green plant life on earth - all trees, grasses, plants, vegetables, algae, and so on.

Don't worry about your frozen ball of ice theory. Without CO2, everything on this planet dies, from plant life all the way up the food chain.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

It does still matter. The worst of the effects can be delayed, maybe even avoided.
It is not an all or nothing concept.

That is very simply not the narrative that has been pushed for decades, and you surely know it. This version here is impossible to reconcile with the 1989 argument (who didn't read it, again?) and the fear narrative that has predominated. Hell, I might even sign on and agree with this position you've softened so much.

This is my entire point. There may be some kernels of truth or much truth in a more moderated position, but that isn't what we get, we don't have a reasonable debate. We get a constant series of panic fear narratives, appeals to authority, and hysterias that breed a reactionary opposite that is no more rooted in logic. Whether it's 10 years until "beyond human control", flu's killing, radical Islam, Russians, and a host of other things I have watched this same arc play out with, it's almost never true. The great horror never comes to be, and we end up looking back and thinking people went too far and extreme. We all now reject Patriot and the fear that drove the Middle Eastern wars, but statistically the vast majority were all on board that train at the time as that is what our experts and authorities pumped out. It happens over and over and over and over and over again. We are already seeing the Covid hysteria quickly give way and the majority in the middle switching to living normal life and rejecting the madness that made them hide away from a disease with a minuscule risk rate.

It was not beyond human control and the beginning of the end in 1989. Or 1999. Or 2009. Everybody would get closer to the truth by trimming off the 20% most extreme parts of their narrative. Through it all, my idiotic self has lived my life free of fear from Russians, Islam, the flu, and the planet. You don't have to buy into every fear pumped by the state; history shows it is the naysayers that time has born out to be factually correct almost every time. See you at the beach in 10 years, exactly where it is today.

[packs]

I'm just wondering what it would take for people who don't agree with climate change to acknowledge the climate is changing. That's a sincere question too. What would have to happen?

I guess what I mean is for the sake of argument, if a massive piece of the ice shelf breaks off and large swaths of coastland is submerged indefinitely underwater, would you consider that to be evidence of climate change? Or how about if ocean temperatures rose high enough that entire species of marine life go extinct? Would something like that be an indicator of climate change or is the position always going to be that nature is natural?

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by packs

I'm just wondering what it would take for people who don't agree with climate change to acknowledge the climate is changing. That's a sincere question too. What would have to happen?

I guess what I mean is for the sake of argument, if a massive piece of the ice shelf breaks off and large swaths of coastland is submerged indefinitely underwater, would you consider that to be evidence of climate change? Or how about if ocean temperatures rose high enough that entire species of marine life go extinct? Would something like that be an indicator of climate change or is the position always going to be that nature is natural?

When China stops building a new coal plant a week or whatever it is and the people on TV and the radio who are telling me there is a Climate Crisis start living their own personal lives like there really is one rather than flying all over the world on private jets and owning multiple oceanfront mansions without a solar panel or a windmill in sight and I swear to you I will be all in as a Climate Warrior.

[packs]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

When China stops building a new coal plant a week or whatever it is and the people on TV and the radio who are telling me there is a Climate Crisis start living their own personal lives like there really is one rather than flying all over the world on private jets and owning multiple oceanfront mansions without a solar panel or a windmill in sight and I swear to you I will be all in as a Climate Warrior.

But this is a planet-wide and cross-species issue so again I'm just wondering why you would put so much emphasis on a few individual people. Most of us aren't taking private planes, right? Animals certainly aren't.

[irv]

Originally Posted by packs

I'm just wondering what it would take for people who don't agree with climate change to acknowledge the climate is changing. That's a sincere question too. What would have to happen?

I guess what I mean is for the sake of argument, if a massive piece of the ice shelf breaks off and large swaths of coastland is submerged indefinitely underwater, would you consider that to be evidence of climate change? Or how about if ocean temperatures rose high enough that entire species of marine life go extinct? Would something like that be an indicator of climate change or is the position always going to be that nature is natural?

I believe in climate change, always have always will. The climate is cyclical, always has been always will be.
Throwing money at it will not change a thing.

Speaking of money, if there was no money in it (money to be made) would we even be talking about it?

[packs]

I'm pretty sure we would be because if the ocean temperature rose and emptied of fish, what would be left to eat? I think that would make the news in any society.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

I'm just wondering what it would take for people who don't agree with climate change to acknowledge the climate is changing. That's a sincere question too. What would have to happen?

I guess what I mean is for the sake of argument, if a massive piece of the ice shelf breaks off and large swaths of coastland is submerged indefinitely underwater, would you consider that to be evidence of climate change? Or how about if ocean temperatures rose high enough that entire species of marine life go extinct? Would something like that be an indicator of climate change or is the position always going to be that nature is natural?

If 'climate change' was used only in the strictly literal sense, i.e. that the climate has changed over time, you would have something like 98% agreement. I don't think a single person here has disagreed with that and the anti's have specifically said that it has changed with time.

We are all surely very well aware that the term is used to denote human responsibility for it, and it is usually paired with some kind of doomsday scenario, in the near future for the climate extremists and in the long term for the moderates. EDIT: and now absurd amounts of billions to be spent on left favored businesses to address it.

[packs]

But how do you get to that conclusion? Until the Industrial Revolution there was relatively little pollutants in the environment. Rubber and oil weren't being manufactured. Fossil fuels were not being used to power anything. Plastic didn't exist.

So I'm just having a hard time understanding your POV. If the world is now full of manufactured pollutants and it was once free of them entirely, how could human industry not be affecting the planet? The planet is facing a host of new problems but you're suggesting there is no relation between environmental disregard and environmental changes.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

But how do you get to that conclusion? Until the Industrial Revolution there was relatively little pollutants in the environment. Rubber and oil weren't being manufactured. Fossil fuels were not being used to power anything. Plastic didn't exist.

So I'm just having a hard time understanding your POV. If the world is now full of manufactured pollutants and it was once free of them entirely, how could human industry not be affecting the planet? The planet is facing a host of new problems but you're suggesting there is no relation between environmental disregard and environmental changes.

I'm not clear which poster this is directed too.

[packs]

Originally Posted by G1911

I'm not clear which poster this is directed too.

I'm asking you because I'm not sure what you meant when you said "the term is used to denote human responsibility for it".

It sounded like you were doubting that humans can have an affect on the health of the planet.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

I'm asking you because I'm not sure what you meant when you said "the term is used to denote human responsibility for it".

It sounded like you were doubting that humans can have an affect on the health of the planet.

That was simply a statement of actual fact. The climate change argument is not that the climate changes, it is that the climate changes and its primary driver is humans, that this change will have massive consequences, within a time frame of just a few generations (and this is the conservative version), and we take very expensive quick action to stop this catastrophe. That is the climate change argument actually made. The debate can be over if this is true, but that this is the basic argument is not really up for debate. Everyone here agrees with your postulation if it is simply the literal meaning of the two words.

My present thoughts are still:

Originally Posted by G1911

My only opinion on Global Warming is that I have been told we are just 10 years away from uncorrectable disaster that will reshape the world and life as we know it for my entire life. The narrative is evidently overblown, as most fear screeching narratives always have been, and has not born out. Temperatures have risen slightly in the last century. Whether this is A) entirely or almost entirely the result of humans and B) it's effects will be hugely significant and reshape human life and organization I am not convinced one way or another. Objective research that isn't rooted in A) affirming institutions views and keeping the scientists career and reputation intact or B) contradicting institutions views would be great.

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by packs

But this is a planet-wide and cross-species issue so again I'm just wondering why you would put so much emphasis on a few individual people. Most of us aren't taking private planes, right? Animals certainly aren't.

You asked what it would take for me to get on board and I told you. Your argument and Carter’s 98% of scientists in consensus will never convince me. I know there is a zero chance of China doing its part or DiCaprio and Obama giving up their massive consumption of fossil fuels and living modest lifestyles dependent on ‘clean renewable green energy’ so I have nothing to worry about. Speaking of animals, are you aware of the unfathomable mistreatment of them in China?

[irv]

Originally Posted by Mark17

CO2 comprises LESS THAN one half of one tenth of one percent of our atmosphere.

Let's pause for a moment to digest that.

Now, consider, on a planet with carbon-based life forms, this naturally occurring form of carbon is essential for all green plant life on earth - all trees, grasses, plants, vegetables, algae, and so on.

Don't worry about your frozen ball of ice theory. Without CO2, everything on this planet dies, from plant life all the way up the food chain.

There was a well documented time in earth's history, the life of this planet, where CO2 was quite a bit higher than what it is today, but, of course, that is never talked about. There were also a few times when this planet was also much warmer than what it is today, but, of course, that is also not talked about either.
CO2 is injected into many greenhouses throughout the world because it is beneficial to the plants, crops and the like. If it were, CO2, as high now as it was back then, then our crops, forests, etc, would all be thriving more than they currently are now. The Medieval warming period was known as a time of prosper, a time of good things filled with abundance, but, of course, that is not talked about either and they, the alarmists/grifters would like that removed from our history books.

Originally Posted by packs

I'm pretty sure we would be because if the ocean temperature rose and emptied of fish, what would be left to eat? I think that would make the news in any society.

It sounds like you are living in a constant state of fear and have been gut hooked by the alarmists words in "If" "Could" "Might" "Maybe" We're not sure" ?
What's your answer to all this; to eliminate all forms of fuel and go back to living in the dark, prehistoric era or would you prefer man and animals not be living on this planet at all?

[packs]

I still don’t understand your position. Climate change advocacy isn’t relegated to one ideology or one person’s individual beliefs. Climate advocacy comes in the form of regulating things like industrial waste too. I just feel like I’m reading polemics and not any actual debate on why it’s not helpful to regulate things like industrial waste, for example.

[irv]

Originally Posted by packs

I still don’t understand your position. Climate change advocacy isn’t relegated to one ideology or one person’s individual beliefs. Climate advocacy comes in the form of regulating things like industrial waste too. I just feel like I’m reading polemics and not any actual debate on why it’s not helpful to regulate things like industrial waste, for example.

Like I told you before, you and I are basically on the same page as far as things like that go but since the left, the alarmists, have turned it into something it isn't in order to make massive amounts of cash, that is where I draw the line.

You seem to think/believe man is the sole reason the earth has warmed up since the last ice age.
You seem to believe, in order to reverse this, man has to pay large amounts of cash and give up the life we've become accustomed too.

I've said, numerous times now, that this whole thing is nothing but a lie, nothing but a political tool, a grift, etc, and I will continue to say/believe that until those people, the alarmists and our crooked and corrupt politicians have a reasonable debate, an objective debate about it, but until then, as long as they continue to fill us with lies, continue to brainwash us, I will not partake in any part of it.

[packs]

I believe man is self-aware in ways animals like dogs and cats are not so yeah I do think man should play a disproportionate role in managing it’s ill affect on the planet.

I also don’t see the issue in dollars the way you do. I don’t think scientists are gathering en masse to discuss ways to make money and then delivering reports to that end. The only relationship between making climate and planet health a priority and money to me is that there isn’t another planet to buy.

[irv]

Originally Posted by packs

I believe man is self-aware in ways animals like dogs and cats are not so yeah I do think man should play a disproportionate role in managing it’s ill affect on the planet.

I also don’t see the issue in dollars the way you do. I don’t think scientists are gathering en masse to discuss ways to make money and then delivering reports to that end. The only relationship between making climate and planet health a priority and money to me is that there isn’t another planet to buy.

And what ill affect, exactly, are we having on the planet currently?
Try to think of something real, something visible, something that isn't happening naturally rather than what your govt daddy and their funded MSM sites spew to you?

Do you not understand funding? This has been discussed. In order for those with the money to spready/spew their lies, they need people, scientists to be on board and if those choose to not be on board, then they don't get paid. It's as simple as that.

Just how many lies do you need to hear/see before you figure this out? Australia is on fire, California wildfires, Lake Mead is disappearing, the polar bears, Hurricanes/tropical storms are increasing and are more powerful than ever, snow and cold will be a thing of the past, oceans are warming and rising, NY City will be underwater by 2000, Florida will suffer the same fate, glaciers are melting and will disappear by 2010, all of it. All lies and not a single thing has been true or has come true.

When they decide to be honest, non corrupt, crooked and evil and admit they have been all along, maybe I'll listen but until then, just like covid and the vaccines, I'll continue to listen to and believe those that have been silenced, shunned and shamed instead.

[packs]

I'm just going to list one ill affect and leave it at that: the great Pacific garbage patch.

I assure you it exists and it is man-made and cleaning it up or making sure there never is another one again isn't a political ploy. It would just be the right thing to do because what good is a giant floating pile of trash?

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by packs

I'm just going to list one ill affect and leave it at that: the great Pacific garbage patch.

I assure you it exists and it is man-made and cleaning it up or making sure there never is another one again isn't a political ploy. It would just be the right thing to do because what good is a giant floating pile of trash?

I hear what you're saying. There are legitimate concerns regarding mankinds' effect on the planet. Plastics, in particular, are actual pollution and a legitimate concern. If you want to focus on real things like that, we'd probably agree on quite a bit.

Carbon Dioxide is not pollution. It is plant food. Plants are good for absorbing heat and cycling H2O through the atmosphere, which also has a cooling effect, and distributes water across vast areas which further spurs vegetation.

If the activists would focus on real things, like needing to clean up oceans of plastic and old nets, and landfills of tires and chemicals, I'd buy into it. But when they push a doom and gloom impending catastrophe based on forcing us to radically change our lifestyles (while the elite aren't about to change theirs) then I can see the scam a mile away.

Don't be fooled. Believe what's real, and oppose what's a big, giant hoax.

[ALR-bishop]

Read an article ( No I do not know if true or correct) in National Geographic that the vast bulk of ocean trash, including that in the great pile, comes from China and Asia. I have also traveled there a lot, and India as well. Whatever savings we achieve here in terms of trash and carbon footprint ( another National Geographic article sourced carbon efforts) will have a very minor impact. Not a reason not to do our best here, but the main contributors seem to lie beyond our efforts

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Read an article ( No I do not know if true or correct) in National Geographic that the vast bulk of ocean trash, including that in the great pile, comes from China and Asia. I have also traveled there a lot, and India as well. Whatever savings we achieve here in terms of trash and carbon footprint ( another National Geographic article sourced carbon efforts) will have a very minor impact. Not a reason not to do our best here, but the main contributors seem to lie beyond our efforts

And the Supreme Legislation of the Environmental Movement specifically exempts India and China as "developing" nations. What a joke. China is a world power with a massive economy. The only reason they are exempted is because they won't play along with the wacko environmentalist agenda. Or... maybe behind the scenes, China has something to do with promoting environmentalism in the West, to hinder our economy.

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Read an article ( No I do not know if true or correct) in National Geographic that the vast bulk of ocean trash, including that in the great pile, comes from China and Asia. I have also traveled there a lot, and India as well. Whatever savings we achieve here in terms of trash and carbon footprint ( another National Geographic article sourced carbon efforts) will have a very minor impact. Not a reason not to do our best here, but the main contributors seem to lie beyond our efforts

Over 70% of the floating trash islands in the oceans come from five countries, China by far the worst offender, Vietnam, Philippines, Sri Lanka, and another Asian country that I always forget.

[G1911]

No one has said there should be no regulation of industrial waste or that giant trash piles hauled into the ocean is good. If this was the climate change argument almost everyone would be on board. This is not the agenda and narrative, or their bill proposals.


The nations doing the vast majority of the polluting are those we have chosen to outsource our manufacturing and industry too.

[irv]

Originally Posted by packs

I'm just going to list one ill affect and leave it at that: the great Pacific garbage patch.

I assure you it exists and it is man-made and cleaning it up or making sure there never is another one again isn't a political ploy. It would just be the right thing to do because what good is a giant floating pile of trash?

And, what exactly does that have to do with global warming?

Ever heard of this kid? Ever seen him on the news, ever see the news show you how much progress he's made and the difference he is making? I'm going to assume no to all of it and then ask you why?
Why isn't he popular, why isn't he being hailed a hero and a true environmentalist like Greta is?