Which is a bold faced lie. The medical and scientific world evaluated the evidence and the evidence showed a dna strand that would be coming from an animal such as a pangolin. NOT a biological weapon. Being able to sequence DNA, and debunk the bizarre Alex Jones conspiracy theories you believe in isn’t the same thing as having a universal scientific fact established about every single detail around how Covid 19 became a global pandemic. Virologists were always clear that without being able to trace back to patient zero making contact with the original specimen, they’ll never be able to say with 100% certainty. It is with 100% certainty though that the genetic sequencing does prove the bio weapon conspiracy theory nuts to be idiots.
We all know what you are referencing when you claim that the origins aren't known, or that scientists were somehow claiming something was scientific fact when it wasn't. For the sake of the Conspiracy theory agenda you obviously want to traffic in, it's convenient to frame the scenario in: -Did it originate from an animal -Did it originate from a "lab leak" The "lab leak" theory is one that tries to play in a broad playground of conspiracy theories so you give yourself side doors to exit and enter into at different times, but at the same time give the "originated from an animal" consensus very narrow parameters to play in. For "the scientists" to be trusted, the evidence has to show clearly that Covid came from a Pangolin that was bit by a bat, and then the Pangolin was served to a person at the Wuhan wet market who then passed it along to the world. When in reality virologists, and scientists have never said that this is exactly what happened for sure. They've only definitively said here is the genetic sequencing, and here's what that likely means. It does NOT mean that it's a virus that originated from a bat virus that mutated upon transmission that then was mishandled and escaped the Wuhan lab. ......... Likewise this is exactly how you guys on the right like to propagate with Climate Change. Climate Scientists NEVER claimed that it would NEVER snow again in California. They only lay out evidence of the climate changing globally, and how that can trigger environmental challenges. However when it does snow in California or rains in Arizona you guys love to run out and claim that the scientists were obviously incorrect, and because they are incorrect under your narrow parameters then it's obviously a conspiracy theory unfolding.
Ummm... that was my point hahaha. Good lord. Those aren't mutually exclusive just as snow in California is not mutually exclusive with Climate Change Science being incorrect which is exactly what you've done here in this thread.
last I checked the Sierra Nevadas are in California, and it snows quite frequently there. I could send you some pictures from Donner pass. I've also been caught in a snowstorm in Flagstaff, which has a higher elevation than Denver. again, snow. so I have no idea what you're talking about.
Yes this has been a wet year for the west but as stated it doesn’t offset decades of drought. 2016 was a wet year also with a big Sierra sno pack but the following years after that saw record low rainfall. in Minnesota this has been a cold spring with it being 16 degrees in St Patrick’s day, FYI my band played an outdoor show and it was brutal. It also though rained in January and February here. Neither the cold March or January rain prove or disprove climate change. The evidence in just Minnesota alone is that the average daily low temperatures have been rising. https://www.pca.state.mn.us/air-water-land-climate/climate-change-impactsAlso the environment has been changing with pine forests becoming deciduous forest. In places like Florida things like increased beach erosion, saltwater infiltration and more red tides. All of the things are measurable and visible. Climate change isn’t based on the temperatures and snowfall of one day, one season or even one year. It’s based off of decades. From decade to decade it’s obvious.
most of what you describe falls into the category of "weather", and whether the weather is a dangerous hurricane or tornado, or a big snow storm or heat wave, its significance depends on which side of the climate change debate you're on. I'm bemused at how easily we've elided from "global warming" to "anthropomorphic climate change" to just "climate change". the terms of the debate continue to shift. climate has changed throughout human history, and has had a profound effect on human migration patterns, politics, war, country boundaries, disease...it's a natural aspect of the human condition. certainly some of what we're experiencing now is inconvenient, perhaps even dangerous. but it's not unprecedented.
Ah the good ol "climate always changes" argument. The manner in which these talking points are phrased leaves out such significant context that it basically is an ingenious tactic to just shut down conversation because where do we even begin? Like is there even an ounce of intellectual curiosity within you to actually see relative differences between this era of change vs previous ones? No, because at the end of the day the only talking point you need to completely dismissing having any intellectual curiosity is some person backed by a trillion dollar industry to tell you ""cLiMaTe cHaNgEd bEfOre" and that's it... Fini. **** off the ol noggin because problem solved.
Now express these points in a non tweet format and explain in your own words how he formed these conclusions. In your own words is a key part here. I want to figure out of you actually read and are intellectually curious or if you just peruse talking points that agree with your preconceived biases.
And ironically, even when you go to the energy conferences nowadays, you find consensus among fossil fuel companies too that climate change is real. They spend their time discussing how quickly and in what ways we need to decarbonize, but its a foregone conclusion that decarbonization must happen. I'm not sure who the climate change deniers are even fighting for at this point.
At this point climate denialism isn't about defeating the science. It's about making fun of the entire concept of activism because the trillion dollar industry people like ATW bootlick for understand defeating the science is a losing battle. The new battle ground is making fun of people who care too much.
Lololololol you're funny man. I doubt @Commodore knows how to bake a cake without instructions from foxnews
Has the IPCC Outlived its Usefulness? The empty exhortation and missing science of the IPCC Synthesis Report https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/has-the-ipcc-outlived-its-usefulness
I said specifically this is measured over decades which isn’t weather. Yes the climate has shifted over dramatically over the history of the earth that thought is often on geological time scales of at least centuries. In some cases a major event like an asteroid strike or massive volcanic event will lead to a sustained climate change. Since the Industrial Revolution there hasn’t been an event like that. The only major factor has been the byproducts of human industrialization.
I don’t know who that is but if he thinks that CO2 doesn’t play a role in global climate just need to look at Venus to see the role that CO2 plays.
