The US heat dome is a warning for the 2024 elections

[Crick]

As is, so far, always the case, the "failed predictions" deniers claim have failed are not the predictions of climate scientists or were predictions made with serious qualifications that deniers ignore. But let's take a tour of your list.

You begin with Paul Ehrlich. Ehrlich was an ecologist. He didn't know diddly squat about climate science or much of anything else except how to sell books. Ehrlich is the author of the first four of your predictions.

The next three predictions come from a biologist, an "organizer" and another ecologist.

Next comes Kenneth Watt, a retired zoologist.

Next we get the Boston Globe, The Guardian, Time and Newsweek. Being reputable news sources, their articles have reasonable sources.

The first is James Lodge of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) who, in 1970, warned that unaddressed air pollution could obscure the sun and reduce temperatures by the first third of the 21st Century. The problem with this prediction, of course, is that air pollution WAS addressed.

Next is a 1974 article by Anthony Tucker, the Guardian's Science Correspondent claiming that satellite data show that fall and winter are getting longer.

Time magazine from 1974 gets an entry for an editorial wondering if the bizarre and unpredictable weather the world had seen lately is indication of a coming ice age.

Next is a Newsweek article citing unnamed scientists to wonder aloud if the Earth is approaching a new ice age.

The next four are New York Times articles.

So, we've covered the first 18 of your "failed predictions" and found only one authored by someone even faintly resembling a climate scientist and his prediction was perfectly valid when made and failed because the air pollution that concerned him 54 years ago was dealt with. Not one, so far, is making predictions about global warming.

Surely we've seen enough of this claptrap.

Having read a little further I find another category. Individuals will make predictions based on a tipping point. That is they will opine that if some action is not taken by time X, then something bad will happen by time Y. Unfortunately, the article with the 50 failed predictions claims they've failed by time X which is, of course, wrong at best.

 

[eagle1462010]

Show us one lying.

Hockey Stick.

70s ICEAGE. Oh we will be underwater by now


Blah Blah Blah

 

[Nobody911]

Opinion | The U.S. heat dome is a warning about the 2024 election

And there may be no policy area with a clearer divide between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump.

www.msnbc.com

No one would describe Saudi Arabia in the summer as chilly, but pilgrims at this year’s Hajj experienced something unusual even for this largely desert nation. According to the Saudi weather service, temperatures at the Grand Mosque in Mecca reached an astonishing 125 degrees Fahrenheit on Monday; 2,700 people reportedly were overcome by heat exhaustion, and dozens of pilgrims died from the temperatures.

If you have grandchildren and you want them to see a bright future, you will not vote for trump. He has vowed to roll back all environmental efforts to battle climate change. His view into the future extends no farther than the end of his orange nose. With trump is is all about power and money. He is thinking of his Saudi friends and their dependence on fossil fuel revenue.

Within five years, we may be seeing 120+ degrees temperature in the US, on a regular basis. Then the repubs will come up with another excuse to deny climate change.

Climate change is a well-established scientific reality supported by overwhelming evidence. The US Republican party's stance on climate change denial is influenced by various factors, including political ideology, financial interests, and skepticism towards government intervention.

Some Republicans may deny climate change due to their belief in limited government regulation and opposition to policies that may restrict economic growth, such as environmental regulations.

Additionally, some individuals and organizations within the Republican party have financial ties to industries that benefit from the status quo and may therefore downplay or deny the existence of climate change.

However, not all Republicans deny climate change, and there are members of the party who support taking action to address this critical issue.

Overcoming climate change denial requires a coordinated effort to educate and engage individuals across the political spectrum, as well as to promote policies that balance environmental protection with economic interests.

 

[odanny]

Right, so only one point of view is permitted to speak. That's not science, that's tyranny.

No, any scientist who disavows actual science to promote an alternate theory and cannot scientifically validate his research should not be taken seriously because............science.

 

[odanny]

I'm old enough to remember "climate cooling" which was another attempt to scare people.

This was never a widespread belief, and would remain completely unknown had it not appeared on the cover of TIME and is now used to promote doubt in what scientists have been telling us for 50 years: The earth is warming because of carbon emissions from all of us.

 

[Crick]

Hockey Stick.

MBH 98 and MBH 99 were not lies. Both have been validated by dozens of different researchers.

70s ICEAGE.

No climate scientist ever predicted an ice age in the 1970s.

Oh we will be underwater by now

No climate scientist ever predicted we would be underwater by now.

Blah Blah Blah

An excellent summation of your presentation.

The challenge was intended to mean you would try to identify a climate scientist and a lie that they had told. You've failed.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Climate change is a well-established scientific reality supported by overwhelming evidence. The US Republican party's stance on climate change denial is influenced by various factors, including political ideology, financial interests, and skepticism towards government intervention.

Some Republicans may deny climate change due to their belief in limited government regulation and opposition to policies that may restrict economic growth, such as environmental regulations.

Additionally, some individuals and organizations within the Republican party have financial ties to industries that benefit from the status quo and may therefore downplay or deny the existence of climate change.

However, not all Republicans deny climate change, and there are members of the party who support taking action to address this critical issue.

Overcoming climate change denial requires a coordinated effort to educate and engage individuals across the political spectrum, as well as to promote policies that balance environmental protection with economic interests.

The US Democrat party's stance on climate change worship is influenced by various factors, including political ideology, financial interests, and belief in government intervention.

Overcoming climate change idiocy requires a coordinated effort to educate and engage individuals across the political spectrum, as well as to promote policies that balance environmental protection with economic interests.

 

[Delldude]

View attachment 965884


''Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025''...

Defense Technical Information Center

apps.dtic.mil

View attachment 965890

About DTIC

I've posted that same info on other forums, previously. Interesting......Notice the contrail thing has become open admissions of cloud seeding by insane rich people?
Remember for many years in a row, flooding in the upper Midwest area, excessive rain. Now, over the years weather extremes have all been labeled climate change. 20-30 years from now, we'll find it was a cover for the military.

I've seen claims of HAARP heating the ionosphere. Even found a patent by the head in the project, posted it a long time ago.

If the military was involved in these 'experiments'......they would have to test it on the US, or get caught doing it to another country and start a war.

Russia, China and others are conducting similar 'research'.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I've posted that same info on other forums, previously. Interesting......Notice the contrail thing has become open admissions of cloud seeding by insane rich people?
Remember for many years in a row, flooding in the upper Midwest area, excessive rain. Now, over the years weather extremes have all been labeled climate change. 20-30 years from now, we'll find it was a cover for the military.

I've seen claims of HAARP heating the ionosphere. Even found a patent by the head in the project, posted it a long time ago.

If the military was involved in these 'experiments'......they would have to test it on the US, or get caught doing it to another country and start a war.

Russia, China and others are conducting similar 'research'.

I've posted that same info on other forums, previously. Interesting......Notice the contrail thing has become open admissions of cloud seeding by insane rich people?

Who openly admitted it? Where?

 

[Crick]

MBH 98 and MBH 99 were not lies. Both have been validated by dozens of different researchers.

No climate scientist ever predicted an ice age in the 1970s.

No climate scientist ever predicted we would be underwater by now.

An excellent summation of your presentation.

The challenge was intended to mean you would try to identify a climate scientist and a lie that they had told. You've failed.

Rather than leave me a Fake News icon, how about telling us why you believe what you believe?

 

[Crick]

Right, so only one point of view is permitted to speak. That's not science, that's tyranny.

Every point of view is allowed to speak, but if they want to speak in a refereed journal, they need to convince the journal that their research was conducted properly and their conclusions are supported by their results. If not, then they don't get published. There are lots of failed hypotheses out there that don't get published because the research just doesn't meet the bar. Alternatives to AGW tend strongly to fail because the evidence for AGW is far superior in quality and magnitude than the evidence against.

 

[Crick]

Oh I don't know, perhaps: Covid didn't escape from the lab;

There are still some variety in the opinions of the actual experts and Fauci is certainly earned the right to hold one. Here is the latest assessment from the Director of National Intelligence and the National Intelligence Council

---

---

This assessment responds to the President’s request that the Intelligence Community (IC) update its previous judgments on the origins of COVID-19. It also identifies areas for possible additional research. Annexes include a lexicon, additional details on methodology, and comments from outside experts. This assessment is based on information through August 2021.

The IC assesses that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, probably emerged and infected humans through an initial small-scale exposure that occurred no later than November 2019 with the first known cluster of COVID-19 cases arising in Wuhan, China in December 2019. In addition, the IC was able to reach broad agreement on several other key issues. We judge the virus was not developed as a biological weapon. Most agencies also assess with low confidence that SARS-CoV-2 probably was not genetically engineered; however, two agencies believe there was not sufficient evidence to make an assessment either way. Finally, the IC assesses China’s officials did not have foreknowledge of the virus before the initial outbreak of COVID-19 emerged. After examining all available intelligence reporting and other information, though, the IC remains divided on the most likely origin of COVID-19. All agencies assess that two hypotheses are plausible: natural exposure to an infected animal and a laboratory-associated incident.
 Four IC elements and the National Intelligence Council assess with low confidence that the initial SARS-CoV-2 infection was most likely caused by natural exposure to an animal infected with it or a close progenitor virus—a virus that probably would be more than 99 percent similar to SARS-CoV-2. These analysts give weight to China’s officials’ lack of foreknowledge, the numerous vectors for natural exposure, and other factors.
 One IC element assesses with moderate confidence that the first human infection with SARS-CoV-2 most likely was the result of a laboratory-associated incident, probably involving experimentation, animal handling, or sampling by the Wuhan Institute of Virology. These analysts give weight to the inherently risky nature of work on coronaviruses.
 Analysts at three IC elements remain unable to coalesce around either explanation without additional information, with some analysts favoring natural origin, others a laboratory origin, and some seeing the hypotheses as equally likely.
 Variations in analytic views largely stem from differences in how agencies weigh intelligence reporting and scientific publications and intelligence and scientific gaps. The IC judges they will be unable to provide a more definitive explanation for the origin of COVID-19 unless new information allows them to determine the specific pathway for initial natural contact with an animal or to determine that a laboratory in Wuhan was handling SARS-CoV-2 or a close progenitor virus before COVID-19 emerged.
 The IC—and the global scientific community—lacks clinical samples or a complete understanding of epidemiological data from the earliest COVID-19 cases. If we obtain information on the earliest cases that identified a location of interest or occupational exposure, it may alter our evaluation of hypotheses.

China’s cooperation most likely would be needed to reach a conclusive assessment of the origins of COVID-19. Beijing, however, continues to hinder the global investigation, resist sharing information, and blame other countries, including the United States. These actions reflect, in part, China’s government’s own uncertainty about where an investigation could lead as well as its frustration the international community is using the issue to exert political pressure on China.

---

---

So, there is certainly no strong consensus that COVID-19 came from a lab.

he wasn't funding gain of function research;

No, he wasn't.

Allegations of a cover-up​

Fauci, who stepped down from his role at NIAID in December 2022 after leading the agency for almost 40 years, was the face of the US pandemic response during both the Trump and Biden administrations.

Some critics have accused Fauci of suppressing the idea early in the pandemic that China might have accidentally or intentionally released SARS-CoV-2 from a laboratory in Wuhan, the city where the first cases of COVID-19 were detected. Some have alleged that Fauci, along with Francis Collins, former director of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) — of which NIAID is a part — encouraged a group of virologists to publish an article in Nature Medicine1 concluding that a lab-leak scenario was not plausible. (Nature is editorially independent of Nature Medicine, and Nature’s news team is independent of its journals team.)

These critics also say that Fauci and Collins were motivated to suppress the lab-leak theory because, before the pandemic, the NIAID had awarded a research grant to the New York City-based non-profit organization EcoHealth Alliance, which had been partnering with the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) to study coronaviruses in bats. They have raised the possibility that the WIV used NIAID resources to conduct research that could have spawned SARS-CoV-2. At the hearing, Fauci responded that the available genetic data indicate that the viruses investigated at the WIV “could not be the precursor to SARS-CoV-2”.

Most virologists say that although a lab-leak origin is possible, the preponderance of scientific evidence points to a zoonotic origin for the COVID-19 pandemic, meaning that the virus spread to humans from wild animals. At the hearing, Fauci said he has always been open to both origin hypotheses, pointing to a February 2020 e-mail he sent to a prominent scientist who was alarmed that SARS-CoV-2 could have leaked from a lab. In the correspondence, Fauci said that any concerns should be reported to intelligence officials if they were substantiated. “It is inconceivable that anyone who reads this e-mail could conclude that I was trying to cover up the possibility of a laboratory leak,” he testified.

Raul Ruiz, a Democratic representative from California and ranking member of the subcommittee, said at the hearing that House Republicans have used the guise of investigating the pandemic’s origins to weaponize “concerns about a lab-related origin to fuel sentiment against our nation’s scientists”.

‘Preposterous’: Anthony Fauci denies cover-up of COVID origins during tense hearing

Long-awaited testimony ends in fireworks as US lawmakers spar over the former infectious-disease official’s pandemic actions.

www.nature.com

6 ft distancing

Distancing undeniably reduces transmission

masks

Masks undeniably reduce transmission.

school closures

School closures and any action to reduce large gatherings will reduce transmission

the vaccinated can't spread the virus ...

Fauci never made that claim. It was made early in the vaccination effort by the director of the CDC, Rochelle Walansky and then retracted as more data came in.

CDC reverses statement by director that vaccinated people are no longer contagious

“We are continuing to evaluate the evidence,” a CDC spokesman said.

thehill.com

So, your contentions fail. Fauci has told no lies.

 

[Crick]

View attachment 965884


''Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025''...

Defense Technical Information Center

apps.dtic.mil

View attachment 965890

About DTIC

Whack job.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So, there is certainly no strong consensus that COVID-19 came from a lab.

 

[Crick]

Fauci isn't lying, he simply has an opinion and one a great deal more informed than almost anyone.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Fauci isn't lying, he simply has an opinion and one a great deal more informed than almost anyone.

LOL!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Every time it's hotter than normal or there's a hurricane or a blizzard, the climate change people blame climate change.

We just had the coldest Christmas on record in Tennessee in 2022. What's up with this climate change.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Nice video. Some minor details are incorrect, but they got the gist of the battle correct. I had left USS Wainwright the previous fall and was then in Recruiting.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Opinion | The U.S. heat dome is a warning about the 2024 election

And there may be no policy area with a clearer divide between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump.

www.msnbc.com

No one would describe Saudi Arabia in the summer as chilly, but pilgrims at this year’s Hajj experienced something unusual even for this largely desert nation. According to the Saudi weather service, temperatures at the Grand Mosque in Mecca reached an astonishing 125 degrees Fahrenheit on Monday; 2,700 people reportedly were overcome by heat exhaustion, and dozens of pilgrims died from the temperatures.

If you have grandchildren and you want them to see a bright future, you will not vote for trump. He has vowed to roll back all environmental efforts to battle climate change. His view into the future extends no farther than the end of his orange nose. With trump is is all about power and money. He is thinking of his Saudi friends and their dependence on fossil fuel revenue.

Within five years, we may be seeing 120+ degrees temperature in the US, on a regular basis. Then the repubs will come up with another excuse to deny climate change.

Moron.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

MBH 98 and MBH 99 were not lies. Both have been validated by dozens of different researchers.

No climate scientist ever predicted an ice age in the 1970s.

No climate scientist ever predicted we would be underwater by now.

An excellent summation of your presentation.

The challenge was intended to mean you would try to identify a climate scientist and a lie that they had told. You've failed.

Better check your sources, I was there. in the 1970s the Ohio River froze solid so you could walk from Kentucky to Indiana and Ohio! The so-called climate scientists cited that as proof we were heading for an ice age.