143 Brits died shortly after their jabs

  • Thread starter Thread starter JMP2203
  • Start date Start date
CoolGuitarGear said:
How do you think they form their opinions? How can you discount the archived information that then changed in the past 10 years? You don't think that is suspicious? OK, whatever. FYI... there are several scientific organizations and scientists who have and continue to challenge the current 'narrative,' who then are blackballed from YouTube, mocked by those other organizations, etc. There is no consensus, understand.
Click to expand...
97-98% of climate scientists agree humans are contributing to climate change. That is consensus.

If you are sick and you go to a medical doctor, and he says you have cancer, then you get 99 more opinions, and 97 doctors tell you that you have the exact same cancer diagnosis, but 3 tell you it is just the pharmaceutical industry trying to make profit, which one do you believe? More importantly, it doesn't matter if you preach about people charging a "cancer tax" if you are dying anyways. You can start a NPR channel and rant about how doctors don't know what they are talking about. You still have cancer.

As I said earlier, I don't care if you believe me. Just realize that pushing the agenda of 2% is doing nothing constructive to addressing the problem even if you don't believe the problem exists.
 
fantom said:
97-98% of climate scientists agree humans are contributing to climate change. That is consensus.

If you are sick and you go to a medical doctor, and he says you have cancer, then you get 99 more opinions, and 97 doctors tell you that you have the exact same cancer diagnosis, but 3 tell you it is just the pharmaceutical industry trying to make profit, which one do you believe? More importantly, it doesn't matter if you preach about people charging a "cancer tax" if you are dying anyways. You can start a NPR channel and rant about how doctors don't know what they are talking about. You still have cancer.

As I said earlier, I don't care if you believe me. Just realize that pushing the agenda of 2% is doing nothing constructive to addressing the problem even if you don't believe the problem exists.
Click to expand...
LOL... that stat of 97% came from a self-employed cartoonist... and if you actually check those studies, some did not concur, and MOST indicated they had no idea to what extent (particularly compared to the Sun, Earth tilting, etc.). Just like other BS in the media, people swallowed that whole. Research it. Here's something to help you.
 
Last edited:
CoolGuitarGear said:
LOL... that stat of 97% came from a self-employed cartoonist... and if you actually check those studies, some did not concur, and MOST indicated they had no idea to what extent (particularly compared to the Sun, Earth tilting, etc.). Just like other BS in the media, people swallowed that whole. Research it. Here's something to help you.
Click to expand...

No, it comes from a peer reviewed paper.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
"Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming"

And the study debunking that scientists aren't agreed shows that consensus is only disagreed with by scientists that don't have expertise in climate science.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
 
fantom said:
No, it comes from a peer reviewed paper.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
"Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming"

And the study debunking that scientists aren't agreed shows that consensus is only disagreed with by scientists that don't have expertise in climate science.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
Click to expand...
Peered reviewed, lol. Having had research published, I can tell you a few things about this. First, it was a paper that looked at other papers, then made a decision as to how to categorized things. FACT: Several of those scientists were pissed that their papers were included or that the 97% bullshit, including placing those scientists with certain categories (research it) and watch the cartoon. Second, amazing how scientists who are peer reviewing the work of others are basing an opinion on information they likely know nothing about, SINCE THE 'RESEARCH' HAS NOT BEEN CONFIRMED THROUGH REPETITION/EXPERIMENT. Do you not recall a few years back that group (three) of researchers who MADE UP research papers and had them published? I guess not.

Consensus: the Earth is flat
Consensus: 'heavier than air' flight is impossible
Consensus: we need two weeks to flatten the curve, then we can go back to normal

In the past 20 years, name a scientific 'model' that was anywhere close to being accurate, and still today, the 'experts' talk about models predicting more covid and global warming hoopla. Yes, trust the scientists, the politicians and the consensus.

As the cartoon clarified (for libtards who only accept the consensus of those being paid the bucks to say what they're supposed to say), consensus means nothing in science... repetition of experiment is the only proof.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top