Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h/t Allan MacRae – Dr. Willie Soon an Dr. Ronan Connolly discussing the chilling effect on scientific inquiry, of Facebook’s apparent policy of shutting down mentions of published, peer reviewed papers their inexpert fact checkers don’t like.
‘Fact Checks’ by Non-Experts Are Shutting Down Genuine Scientific Inquiry
Willie Soon Ronan Connolly
September 22, 2021 Updated: September 22, 2021
We recently published a new climate change report in the peer-reviewed scientific journal
Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics (RAA). The nearly two dozen co-authors of
our paper are experts in solar physics and climate science from 14 countries.
We were looking at the role of the Sun in climate change. We found that,
depending on which scientific datasets you choose, you could explain the global warming
since the 19th century as being anything from mostly natural to mostly human-caused.
The huge uncertainty over such a key question is a major concern.
A few days after our paper was posted online, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC) published their 6th Assessment Report (AR6).
The IPCC AR6 concluded that it was “unequivocal” that recent global warming
was almost entirely human-caused.
The journalist Alex Newman was struck by the contrast between the two different reports.
He interviewed us, representatives for the IPCC, and several other scientists for
an article in The Epoch Times.
People began sharing Newman’s article on social media. One of Facebook’s “independent fact-checkers,” Climate Feedback, quickly stepped in. This “fact-checker” website, financially supported by Facebook, TikTok, Google News Initiative, and others, declared the article to be “incorrect” and “misleading.” Facebook then began censoring any posts sharing the link.
“Fact-checkers” claim to provide the solution. But a weaponized “fact-check” is nothing more
than a “narrative-check.”
Science thrives when scientists are allowed to investigate areas of scientific disagreement.Read more: https://www.theepochtimes.com/fact-checks-by-non-experts-are-shutting-down-genuine-scientific-inquiry_4008914.html
So, when journalists and social media platforms use “fact-checkers” to suppress genuine
scientific disagreements, they are effectively shutting down scientific inquiry.
Alex Newman’s Epoch Times article on the two contrasting views is available here.
The Facebook fact checkers might have asked NASA GISS Chairman Gavin Schmidt’s opinion on Dr. Soon et al’s solar paper. Epoch Times’ Alex Newman published Schmidt’s response in the original article: “This is total nonsense that no one sensible should waste any time on,”.
A strong view for sure. But is shutting down positions published in peer reviewed journals, which Gavin Schmidt thinks are wrong, really how science should work?
Science advances when mistakes are challenged and overturned, frequently against strong opposition from the scientific establishment.
Consider Dr. Barry Marshall, the hero who risked his own life, deliberately infected himself with Helicobacter pylori to prove that stomach ulcers are caused by bacteria, because the medical community refused to consider his work. Imagine if Facebook had asked establishment doctors their opinion, received the advice “this is total nonsense”, then decided to suppress any mention of the infection theory of stomach ulcers. Millions of people could still be suffering debilitating, lifelong medical problems, because the key to curing their condition had been suppressed.
Surely you don’t have to be a Dr. Soon or Dr. Connolly supporter to appreciate how wrong this is. Dr. Gavin Schmidt has expressed a strong opinion. But Dr. Gavin Schmidt recently admitted, his climate models are running hot.
But as climate scientists face this alarming reality, the climate models that help them project the future have grown a little too alarmist. Many of the world’s leading models are now projecting warming rates that most scientists, including the modelmakers themselves, believe are implausibly fast. In advance of the U.N. report, scientists have scrambled to understand what went wrong and how to turn the models, which in other respects are more powerful and trustworthy than their predecessors, into useful guidance for policymakers. “It’s become clear over the last year or so that we can’t avoid this,” says Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
…Read more: https://www.science.org/news/2021/07/un-climate-panel-confronts-implausibly-hot-forecasts-future-warming
Clearly there is something not quite right with Schmidt’s climate models.
I’m not saying that Dr. Soon and Dr. Connolly unequivocally have the answer, to what is off with Schmidt’s climate models. But if dissenting voices like Soon and Connolly are shut out of the conversation, then Schmidt might never find the missing piece to the puzzle, to why his climate models are running implausibly hot.
The missing piece to Schmidt’s puzzle could be something which Schmidt currently believes is nonsense – just as the missing piece to why stomach ulcers were so difficult to treat, was an insight which the entire medical community dismissed as nonsense, until
Dr. Barry Price Dr. Barry Marshall risked his own life and drank his toxic broth to prove them wrong.
Facebook and other communication platforms shutting down dissenting, peer reviewed views is a disservice to all science, not just to the scientists whose work is being censored.
Don’t use farcebook
Zukerberg’s fakebook was stolen IP from fellow college students anyhow.
We never needed this time wasting, life wasting “social garbage” 10, 20, 50 years ago.
Most farmers can tell the weather by just looking up in the sky, morning and evening, and we don’t need “influencers” to tell the time of day.
As far as I can tell, Facebook’s business model is designed to make people miserable. They seem to do it deliberately. That’s just evil. link
According to one insider, FB is driven by:
1) the bottom line
2) growth at all cost
3) brand and reputation
One must realize that 90% of FB users are outside US & Canada so that factors big time in their decision making. BTW, I had a FB post of a pear-reviewed article from the American Journal of Medicine censored earlier this year.
Fubarbook was hurting from loss of revenue as big companies stopped advertising on it, because of its trashy nature.
Zuckerberg should be in a Siberian Gulag getting ass pounded by HepC+ and HIV+ Russians with bad tatts. Maybe one day, along with Twitter’s Dorsey. Though Dorsey looks like he’d enjoy it.
Then again, you could take the hard line.
Thats what Dorsey said
I take it you’re not a fan.
What was your first clue?
Zuckerberg is scum IMJ – but your language is bad, apparently you can’t make rational argument for whatever you believe. You could be a member of Extinction Rebellion climate catastrophist outfit, violent people.
And he copied it from the UK’s early start up ‘Friends Reunited’ , which preceded Facebook by 3-4 years, directed at colleges and universities graduates. I used it for a short while about a year or before Facebook appeared.
In 2005, MySpace turned down Zuckerberg’s offer to sell it Facebook for $75 million.
Just because someone is rich doesn’t mean they are smart.
This social network was founded Feb 4, 2004–the same day the Pentagon’s Lifelog Project was shut down. Lifelog was designed and under control of the C_A under those circumstances American citizens would never stand for it. So they turned it over to a Rockefeller descendant to make it “cool”and restrict its use initially so the terminally stupid would clammer to use it. A article found on line at wired.com explains some of the problems with public trust in DARPA’s Lifelog.
The documentary ‘The Social Network’ covers origin of FubarBook and a key lawsuit against Zuckerbleep over that.
My sentiment exactly Pat.
Just the facts …
These “fact checkers” are much more widespread (and harder to avoid) than just farcebook.
Just don’t believe/use “fact checkers”! Use your intelligence, check the facts yourself!
Except once FB “fact checks” something all links to it are blocked. I cannot send a link to it to any friend or colleague who might have interest in reading it for themselves. Not exactly problem solved.
send it via email.
That multi-function device you cannot live without has a voice communication channel for direct communication between you and your friend and/or colleague.
Stop using fascist book – I’m sick to death hearing people complaining about censorship by companies and then still using them.
While I agree to a point, the problem is that by doing that you leave the remaining users in an increasingly smaller ideological bubble with absolutely NO challenge or outside thought.
Same with all around Corona, these “fact-checkers have all the long liar nose.
For COVID-19 ‘Fact-checkers’, ‘google search engine’ etc all are stopping many important news, those are extremely beneficial for people. Recently, ‘Retraction’ is a new technique to stop all crucial published research, those give cure/solution to stop this pandemic other than ‘Vaccines’. No open public debate is allowed for those retracted papers. Also, any crucial/critical papers are suppressed even sending for peer review. No wonder huge powerful groups are behind all these and need investigation.
It is already proved (while speculated long ago) that vaccine is a false hope, though it is promoted extensively as numerous people are getting rich following that agenda. Hence it is clear that Retractions are now another new means of protecting an agenda so as various forms of censorship. I gathered in ResearchGate also there are mechanisms to suppress useful Covid related comments.
People need to step up in stopping all those untoward censorships both in Climate and COVID.
I don’t and never have! Not on Twitter either! Never will be on them for the same reason the CB is off in my truck most the time. Arguing with idiots and liars tends to lead to one to becoming like them.
Gosh, and I’m one of those Odd Persons who can’t stand Fakebook, because it attracts tol many colossal idiots desperate for attention who by far outnumber anyone who has anything useful to post.
Fakebook is fine for someone who has something to sell or promote, as in books and artwork, but the bulk of people on it aren’t doing that.
“Climate Feedback” is a tool of the Climate Mafia. They obviously get paid to troll all the articles that present scientific facts and opinions that do not support the climate Mafia’s dogma. The fact that this is true is demonstrated by the fact that they never “fact check” even the most outrageous claims of doom and disaster coming out of the various Marxist institutions of “learning” that used to be our universities.
No surprise there. The human race has been corrupted by greed. The UN tried the ‘CO2 causes global warming’ scam. When that did not give them world dominance, they turned to medical science by using the World Health Organisation to introduce the Covid 19 bioweapon followed by the mRNA gene therapy bioweapon to kill off a large proportion of the human race, destroy capitalism and democracy and give them their elite heaven foolishly forgetting that it is the great unwashed that provides them with the goods and services that they hope to enjoy.
When exactly is the COVID vaccine going to start killing people? Right now unvaccinated people are far more likely to die from COVID than the vaccinated. Hard to imagine a worse bioweapon than a vaccine that has saved millions of lives.
Utter nonsense. As any look at death rate figures will tell you.
Israel: Why Is All-Cause Mortality Increasing?
Is that according to Israel 😉
Izaak – Here are some facts about the fake vaccine:
1. During the first six months of 2021, the Office for National Statistics revealed that 30,305 people died within twenty-one days of having the Covid-19 fake vaccine in England,
2. Between December 8th 2020 and June 11th 2021, Public Health Scotland reported that 5,522 Scots had died within 28 days of having the Covid-19 fake vaccine,
3. Through to September 11, 2021, the 27 nations comprising the European Union reported via the EudraVigilance database, that there had been 24,526 fatalities and 2,317, 495 injuries following Covid-19 injections,
4. At http://vaersanalysis.info/2021/08/20/vaers-summary-for-covid-19-vaccines-through-8-13-2021/
“Note that the total number of deaths associated with the COVID-19 vaccines is greater than the number of deaths associated with all other vaccines combined since the year 1990.”
5. A major promoter of the Covid-19 fake vaccine, Dr. Anthony Fauci of the US
National Institutes of Health, is reported as boasting on February 15, 2021 to a group of about 9 NIH laboratory workers that he has not taken and will not take the Covid jab.
I am a covid sceptic.
However, are you familiar with the phrase : “correlation is not causation”?
If not, may I suggest that you familiarise yourself with the concept before attempting to persuade others by using examples of the fallacy?
I’ve lost count of the number of times in the last week or two that I have been presented with the “30,305 people died within twenty-one days of having the Covid-19 fake vaccine in England,” fact.
So what ?
Isn’t the “died within 28 days of a positive PCR test” also the same thing
Absolutely it is. Yes.
PCR test that shouldn’t be run more than 10 times vs 40 times as is current?
Sparko asked: “Isn’t the ‘died within 28 days of a positive PCR test’ also the same thing?”
Absolutely NO, it is NOT. Not everyone who signs up for a Fauci Ouchi does so as a result of having received a “positive PCR test”. And not all people that receive a “positive PCR test” end up dying, or even being hospitalized, or even displaying symptoms of sickness.
Furthermore, even after having received a COVID-19 full vaccination, one can still have a positive PCR test for the SARS-CoV-2 virus. This is commonly referenced in discussions regarding asymptomatic carriers of the virus.
These are known facts. Look ’em up!
Why is it not obvious to some here that if you vaccinate the majority of the elderly population (numbering many millions), who are by definition close to the end, then there will be a large number who indeed do die within days of having the vaccine.
“Viewed more than 21,000 times on Facebook, a video showing data collected by the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) claims that thousands of people died from receiving COVID-19 vaccines. The video, which fails to mention that anyone can report events to VAERS and that the database contains unverified information, describes reported deaths of individuals who died after receiving the vaccine as deaths caused by the vaccine, when the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has so far found no evidence that vaccinations led to patient deaths.”
of course Autopsies need to be performed and many are NOT being done
Obviously there is no interest in autopsies, wasn’t there even a sort of prohibition ?
Medical authorities were only authorized to perform a blood test. Dead persons showing Retro-virus antibodies were automatically included as positive COVID-19 infections and their deaths no matter how false are considered due to COVID-19.
This even after it was discovered that any Retro-virus infection causes the same antibodies within the bloodstream.
Now, Government and medical authorities claim that the two part vaccines lose effectiveness over time. Which is a major reason why the same authorities are demanding “Booster Shots”.
This only refers to the immediate deaths, not those left with neural or cardiovascular infirmities that disable or greatly shorten lives.
While banty wails about “unverified” entries, people are left permanently disabled or dying!!
Such are the alarmists.
The stats are indicating that the Moderna juice has twice the occurrences of heart damage in males compared with the Pfizer; the Moderna also contains 2 or 3x the amount of mRNA material. But still nothing will cause them to admit defeat and pull the plug on this gigantic experiment.
I now suspect that another side effect is stupidity.
According to a study conducted by the University of California
I don’t suppose you have a link to the study? I searched but couldn’t find anything more than this exact report repeated in a few places.
Also, “University of California” consists of several institutions. The specific one producing this study was not mentioned. Makes it even more difficult to find.
I would like to see the actual data behind this.
Canada prohibit autopsies when even COVID could be suspected.
So much for Trump’s America being anti science!
You haven’t shown the elderly who were vaccinated died of natural or other illnesses, the fact that many died within a few days of having the vaccine is at the least extremely suspicious,
And should of at least put a stop to vaccination till it was investigated, that never happened..
How you can justify this banton as a coincidence is truly evil.
You really are a company ,government man aren’t you banton.
What is important is the “statistically excess” mortalities, not some big number taken out of context. Throwing out big numbers, like the tons of ice melting in Greenland, is what alarmists do routinely. Hold yourself to higher standards!
Heres some numbers Clyde
Factcheckers are 99.9% liars
come on – its not over 97%
Banton is another idiot from the idiot bullpen.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
But it is evidence of absence of evidence.
Logical fallacy Argumentum ad Ignorantiam; i.e. “‘Appeal to Ignorance’ the fallacy that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false or that it is false simply because it has not been proved true.”
Reuters is not a neutral fact check corporation, nor are they authorized to fact check anything.
Reuters went full leftist during the Trump Administration. Notice that they utterly fail to publish negative news regarding the empty head clown or inconvenient facts about GND, wind turbines, massive solar arrays or renewable bankruptcies.
Sounds like the reason the Government and AMA discourage medical personnel from entering COVID-19 case information is so idiots and mental midgets can pretend the information is inaccurate.
Perhaps the unenlightened banty can point everyone to a government agency authorized to verify VAERs information? One that actually and accurately performs the work?
Why would you give such a wonderdrug to people so near their death bed? (With vaccine advocates admitting that he vaccine is so great it can cause serious side effects and that weak people will die from the vaccine, and that’s a good thing for vaccine advocates. Just quoting vaxxers here.)
Yes, correct, Anthony Banton.
I also do wish the the rabid anti-vaccinators could make their minds up about which one they think is the problem. There are several different ones, using different technologies.
Or perhaps they know something everyone else doesn’t showing that all Covid vaccines are harmful/useless?
Mark, your abstract formulation is right, but it does not apply here: there is no “causation through correlation” involved. I explain:
It is not argued by Bevan that the “vaccines” kills. What is argued is that the “vaccine” does not protect (does not prevent deaths).
As there is no cause->effect hypothesised, “causation through correlation” is notinvolved. You can analyse the data with a simple chi-square contingency test (non-parametric, no assumptions regarding distribution of data or error).
The implied argument is in fact the correlation vs causation fallacy.
Folk die all the time.
Simply stating that 30,000 folk died within 21 days of eating baked beans infers nothing about the risk of eating baked beans.
To quantify mortality in relation to eating baked beans, implies a mortal risk from eating baked beans and therefore invoked the correlation vs causation fallacy.
I can tell you for sure, after 30 000 people eat baked beans it certainly smells like someone has died!
The causation is peer reviewed science and the correlation is 100%
Just like the deaths (from any cause) that are chalked up in the UK as “death from Covid” because the casualty happened to test +ve for the wu-flu within the past 28 days. You could have died in a car crash and they’d register it as a covid death
A COVID vaccine only protects against COVID deaths.
Bevan did not show that anyone who died after receiving the vaccine died from COVID.
Yes, you are right!
An unusual rise in death within one/two months after vaccination, though from different diseases (mainly heart related, aggravating old forms of diseases etc. ). Many old cancer patients found their cancer back with much aggravated form. Many old diseases relapsed.
Authorities can simply bypass those issues saying all those are unrelated; however, very hard to digest by common people who can think independently.
Does anyone have any statistics on people who have already been infected with the Wuhan virus and then get infected again, after recovering the first time?
I would like to know how many people have been infected one or more times after having been infected initially.
And I would like to know the effect of a second infection on those people. Was it a mild infection or a serious infection?
The powers-that-be seem to want to ignore those who have immunity because they were infected with the Wuhan virus and have recovered. Why would these people need to be vaccinated when they already have a better immunity than the vaccination gives?
With any disease or traditional vaccination (with classic weakened or dead virus) there are a certain number of people whose immune systems “mis-train” or trigger on the wrong part of the pathogen. As a result they have the wrong immune response. These people sometimes can be infected (or vaccinated) 3 or 4 times before the proper antibodies are established and they become in fact immune – some never do. So if the reinfect numbers stay down in the 2 to 5 % range, it is likely down to those individual’s improper immune response rather than some repealing of the rules of immunity.
Might be something in here
One of the things that we learned early about COVID was that a significant number of people have a natural immunity so that they don’t become sick, and if they do acquire COVID 19, they are often asymptomatic!
The thing that make the practice of medicine so challenging is that it seems everyone is different. Some are more susceptible to a particular disease than others, and people have different side-effects associated with medications.
The best we can do is to use robust statistics to analyze what is happening. I often criticize alarmists for throwing out a single big, scary number without respect to the uncertainty or of significant figures. I’m seeing the same behavior among many here with respect to their dislike and/or distrust of vaccines. You are being logically inconsistent.
I’m not against vaccinations, I’ve been vaccinated myself.
I was just wondering what the re-infection rate was for vaccinated people verses people who have recovered from the virus.
One talking point for the last few weeks is how those who have been vaccinated were getting infected anyway, but I haven’t seen or heard of similar numbers for people who have the natural immunity given them by already having been infected with the virus.
I saw where it was claimed that natural immunity acquired by catching the disease is about 25 times better than the immunity given to one by the vaccination.
The Biden Administration seems to be ignoring this fact and insisting that those who have had the virus already should still get a vaccination. That seems like a little bit of overk!ll to me.
Here’s one data point – this summer our family and others we were with had CV-19. One lady (age ~70) w/o vax tested positive but had no symptoms. She had CV-19 last winter with symptoms so this was her second infection.
I hope she is doing ok.
It would be very interesting to have those data! And a clear discrimination of c19 deaths between vaccinated and non-v. Every country publishes (when it publishes) the data arranged in a differente way.
It has already been proven that having and surviving COVID-19 provides a far better and more effective antibody response against future COVID-19 exposures.
Government mandates are irrational despotic tyranny.
Are you saying that you expect any and all vaccines to be 100% effective, regardless of when it is administered, and without concern for the state of the immune system of the recipient?
The question is not so simple. It depends on the vaccines. Those for C19 are mainly of two “kinds”: those that use whole, inactivated C19 virus; and those that use some piece of nucleic acid (mRNA in the vaccine or a complemantary DNA when they use an adenovirus as a vector). The last (nucleic acid) will make the human organism react against a SMALL portion of the virus, a protein that after the jab is being synthesised in the human body by human cells. The problem is, that part of the virus (proteines from the spikes) changes very quickly through mutation (a natural process). I would expect that the first kind of vaccine (whole, inactivated virus) would give a wider protection (wider, i.e., considering the ever-appearing new “variants”), so with much less infections that “jump the fence” in vaccinated people. As the situation stands, my feeling (I suppose that the relevant data are not available) is that most vaccinated people all over the world were jabbed with nucleic acid vaccines, so I expect that this immunization will not protect them for long and this may also explain the great proportion of vaccinated people admitted in hospitals with C19 (in Israel, UK, and other places; but those statistics are not reliable for many countries).
Your point is ignored by those who have an agenda against the vaccine.
Its a personal choice, keep the wooden spoon out of play.
Sorry but we play by these rules now: any death after the so called, ill defined COVID “disease” is a COVID death… any death after a vaccine is a vaccine death.
That’s a hill worth dying on!
in aus today the reported clot cases are at 141 not all dead but some died and the rest in hosp and some will have ongoing issues for some time. most of those people if theyd got covid would have been fine
That is an easy claim to make, but where is your evidence to support it?
Based on the history of COVID19 infections so far, you have all pop odds of 99% survival. Broken down by age, people over 100 fare poorly, children under 10 are more likely to get hit by a bus. So yes, odds are that any one of those specific people would have been better off not getting the vaccine. (since we know now that they react poorly to it).
Which vaccine? You need to be specific as there seem to be different side effects for each.
The oldest and most ill were given the COVID vaccine first. They were the ones dying at the highest rate from the disease.
They’d have died soon anyway, and for most, the hastening of a lingering death by Covid would have been merciful. No use to wasting vaccine on this group of people, and the easiest explanation is the greed of the vaccine makers being able to sell a large number of doses without any danger of the non-effectiveness or even toxicity of the stuff ever showing up (because this particular group of vaccinated would die from other causes quickly enough to neither catch Covid nor develop long-term complications from the vaccine).
I’m pushing 80 years of age and in reasonably good health. I want to thank you for your empathetic assessment of the treatment protocol. It sounds like if it were your choice to make, you would have denied me the choice of vaccination. I find that offensive!
If it were his choice, he would have denied everyone the vaccine.
Out of the millions of elderly, you are quite confident that you can determine which ones are going to die in the next month and deny them the vaccine?
And when it is your time to renew, perhaps the Sandmen won’t come after you.
Under age 55 and without co-morbidities the chances of dying from Covid-19 are less than 3%. That chance declines as the age declines so that babies through teenagers rarely die and have a COVID-19 morbidity ratio less than 1%.
As the age increases from 55, the chance of dying from a COVID-19 infection rapidly ramp up to a greater than 50% chance.
Why vaccinate those who have a miniscule chance of dying from COVID-19?
Especially when the majority of vaccines provide poor immunity and that level declines rapidly. Which is why the governments are mandating “Booster Shots”.
Where the government acknowledges immunity provided by infection far exceeds immunity provided by their vaccines.
Never mind that previous vaccine deployments were halted for causing mortality or infirmity to tens of people, while the current governments ignores negative vaccine reactions in the tens of thousands.
First you claim the older persons will not die quickly. Even if they could live for decades…
Instead you propose that the most susceptible should not receive the vaccine in favor of those least susceptible…
Most antisocial of you.
So why is the death rate for those who took the jab increasing when those who are now getting the jab are the young and those least likely to die. If you’ve taken the jab … sorry … it wasn’t a great idea.
I’m not a big vaccine fan but here’s my story. I had CV-19 this summer in Alaska along with wife & two adult children (40ish). Daughter had no vax – the rest of us had two Moderna jabs. All four of us acquired CV-19 confirmed by either rapid or PCR tests. Daughter’s case (no vax) was slightly worse than mine but her fever was gone after 5 days w/ zinc sulfate and hydroxychloroquine. Those of us w/ vaccines had milder cases that tended to last longer. I’ve personally known several people who have died from CV-19 but no one from the vax. My relatives had pretty significant cases w/o vax including 55-yr-old niece who had to be life-flighted to a hospital in Oregon. She was released after nearly 4-weeks in the hospital. My advice – get the vax, or have some zinc & HCQ on hand, or get the antibody treatment.
being in Alaska perhaps a Vitamin D3 supplement could have helped.
We live in middle Tennessee and visit your panhandle beaches as often as possible. Preemptively, we’ve been on supplemental D3 for over a year so yes, D3 may have helped us. Not so sure about my niece who did have some preexisting conditions.
Tests proven to have extreme false positives.
Your having the symptoms is far more reliable indicator than the tests.
Though government assigns all pneumonia and influenza cases to the COVID-19 column. Both illnesses essentially vanished from charts as the COVID-19 numbers rose.
99% of them died within 24 hours of drinking water…(a lot of scottish only imbibe in stronger drink)
Belarus :No lockdowns ,no masks,no vax.
Covid victims so far > 5000.
For covid vaccine killing people:Watch the new project veritas video.
A vaccine takes a minimum 3-5 years to develop .
This crap was developed within a few month = you are the guinea pig.
Am i anti vax?
Hell no- i would vax guys like you and your family 10* a day.
Am i anti covid vax?Absolutely.If someone does not belong to a risk group=stay away from stuff that would have been considered criminal and against all scientific standards until the covid era.
It was actually devised in 2002 for the first SARS scare. They just tweaked the genetic sequence for the new virus spike protein and went forward.
I won’t argue with the position that we are all being guinea pigs. The clinical trials were not performed before going ahead. The toxicity of the spike protein itself was never investigated. The adverse event reporting system is showing an unacceptable level of events. Politics seems to be playing an outsized role in the approval process at the FDA.
Even with all of that known going in, I got the shot as I interact with too many high-risk individuals on a routine basis. Though the part about the shot causing you to be an asymptomatic carrier for a few days after exposure might have changed my decision.
But the vaccine they devised for Sars never worked. These don’t either: https://gloria.tv/post/b7DNghBWGpiQ6F69obnivbuK6?fbclid=IwAR0cpKGVn1k0MicQTmDIslaQFNjUcfuEbi92d9jJerISaOKVRkm-PNTBFxY
How does that shoe leather taste, Izaak the Idiot?
In March 2021, the CDC issued an advisory changing the way doctors should fill out death certificates.
In the new protocol, any death in which a person tested for Covid should be listed as a Covid death. The CDC has since admitted that 95% of the deaths listed as due to Covid involved an average of four comorbidities.
In past years, such cases would have been listed as virus-associated deaths. The cause of death would have been the most pertinent morbidity.
Using pre-2021 death certificate protocols as standard, the death rate of Covid-alone is about 35,000, a moderate flu year.
The CDC has thereby falsely inflated the Covid death rate by a factor of ~20.
Kostoff, et al., 2021 evaluated the validity of the VAERS adverse effect rate using several approaches. They estimated a ~1% event report rate.
The VAERS report of mRNA deaths stands at about 15,000. Applying the correction of Kostoff, et al., one can generously estimate somewhere between 150,000 and 1.5 million deaths due to the mRNA inoculation.
It seems very likely that far more Americans will die from the mRNA inoculation than from Covid-19 alone. The ratio just now is the jab leading by 4.3-43×.
Sick stuff—counting lead poisoning (i.e. gunshots) as WuFlu deaths just to boost the virus fear p0rn.
As have skydivers with failed chute deployment, suicides by any cause, jay walkers and crosswalk car accident victims, drownings, all pneumonia and influenza patients, etc. etc.
All because a blood test known to have excessive false positives showed retro-virus antibodies.
The inventor of the test has stated multiple times that using PCR to detect WuFlu is totally bogus and should not be done.
The most recent figures in Scotland, albeit low numbers, suggest you are 50% more likely to die from covid if you have had the jab. That can still be explained by the fact more elderly got the jab, but the trend is toward a higher percentage of those with the jab dying … when it is the young who are now getting the jab. Together with other data, that appears to show that we are heading toward the jab being a net killer.
Or to put it more simply, I would not want to be someone who got the jab
When 100% of the people have been vaccinated, and a single person dies from a breakthrough covid infection, then the percentages will show that only the vaccinated die.
Be wary of percentages if you do not have all the pertinent raw numbers.
There is no evidence the so called vaccine saved even one person.
COVID is a moronic fake “disease” apparently defined almost in all cases by a positive RT-PCR test – PCR: that invention deserving of a Nobel prize in … chemistry, not medicine -, a test for forensics not for medical diagnosis.
So if you assume a person is protected from “COVID”, there is no test and no “disease”. The person might still be seriously ill, but not from “COVID”, almost by definition.
So you have a “by definition vaccine“: the vaccine works by the definition of the (fake) diagnostic; being vaccination prevents the diagnostic.
It’s very telling that positivity rates, the big hit of 2020, has disappeared.
it worries me that on this site of all the skeptical sites that comment could get three ‘likes’. There are enough idiots prepared to believe dubious “pseudo-scientific” nonsense without adding off-the-wall conspiracy theories.
I am sorely tempted to take my ‘custom’ elsewhere, which would be a big step since I have backed this site for years.
So much of the Climate Scam runs on garbage proclamations from “fake-it till I make it” scientists like NASA’s Gavin Schmidt. Schmidt is the exactly the person Upton Sinclair had in mind when he said (over 100 years ago):
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”
— Upton Sinclair
“Clearly there is something not quite right with Schmidt’s climate models.
I’m not saying that Dr. Soon and Dr. Connolly unequivocally have the answer, to what is off with Schmidt’s climate models. But if dissenting voices like Soon and Connolly are shut out of the conversation, then Schmidt might never find the missing piece to the puzzle, to why his climate models are running implausibly hot.”
I know the missing piece of the puzzle. Just take anything to do with carbon dioxide out of the models.
Why do we care what Facebook do? It is, quite frankly, the toilet of humanity anyway.
Because whether we like it or not that’s where young people get brainwashed into believing tripe
Young people are not on Facebook
You have no idea how many people get what they think is news from crap apps running in the back ground on their phones.
I could go on about this obvious observation but I will not bore you with the obvious.
Young people are on TikTok, Instagram and Snapchat. However, FB owns Instagram.
There are laws that regulate hate speech.
It’s interesting, then, that governments think social media should control content on their platforms whether or not such communications are illegal. link
The proper way to deal with a criminal act is for the authorities to lay charges and prosecute the individuals responsible. The courts then decide, among other things, whether the alleged actions were indeed illegal. In other words, the courts act as a check on the power of the government.
The EU is going to collapse because of the power it has given unaccountable bureaucrats. America might not collapse because of the power it is giving to unaccountable social media idiots but the result is going to be ugly anyway. The storm before the calm.
If George Friedman (author of the above link) is correct, Facebook will just be a bad memory in ten years. I sure hope he’s right.
problem is? fbk is a nightmare NOW
This climate change farce is going to be such a hoot to watch as it unravels.
electroverse is already documenting the observed changes during the current GSM. It will be interesting to watch the greenies in europe get skidmarks when the Arctic’s “Ticking Climate Bomb” finally goes off. Good thing our Oz farmers are getting decent crops – they are going to need them to survive.
Doesn’t the attempt at censorship make Fbk etc liable for things which they check and allow, but which turn out to be wrong or defamatory or illegal in some way. They are no longer neutral but take on part of the guilt for getting it wrong
Facebook is not only no longer neutral, it is now blatantly partisan, actively promoting the Leftwing narrative and suppressing the Rightwing narrative.
Additionally, it appears they do some of the censoring at the request of government. In the US, that makes them an agent of the government. Any censoring at all would be a First Amendment violation.
Buy some popcorn; some interesting lawsuits are working their way through the court system.
In the article, the second mention of Dr Barry Marshall he becomes Dr Barry Price?
I don’t know, but isn’t Farcebook, Twatter, Instacrap etc vicariously liable for this censorship?
They should be.
What it takes is someone, who thinks that they have standing for litigation, to bring suit against one or more of these ‘social media.’ Who is going to claim injury and put up the money to hold them liable for injury?
Trump already has sued: Twatter at least, and it might be FakeBook as well.
Read more: https://www.theepochtimes.com/fact-checks-by-non-experts-are-shutting-down-genuine-scientific-inquiry_4008914.html
Wish I could. TheEpochTimes itself seems to have been shut down/ up.
Working fine for me
Shutting down EpochTimes is good, but Facebook, shutting down things you agree with is bad.
Pay- / register wall
Seemed to glitch a bit earlier for me, but back online. Maybe they’ve had a busy day.
Or a victim of a DDoS attack from the righteous progressive klimate kooks.
In my entirely unscientific, layman’s opinion, the problem doesn’t lie with what modellers know, it’s what they don’t know that has their models running hot. Not just hot, but so wildly inconsistently hot.
Unless the world were brought to a halt, no one can guesstimate the effect clouds have on the earths temperature to any degree of certainty, and as soon as the world restarts, the effect of the clouds instantly changes.
Now, forgive me if I’m wrong but, I’m not aware of any acceptable, universal formula to measure the effects of clouds that’s used consistently across all climate models. My suspicion is, an arbitrary sum is used by every modeller, plucked from thin air, which would probably in itself explain the wild variation across the models. I mean, you would expect some outlier results on any given experiment with known and agreed variables, but not one model appears to agrees what the variables are. Consequently, there seems to be an awful lot of ‘creative science’ going on with these things.
What QC is applied to the consistency of data these models run on? Any at all? Not being a scientist I wouldn’t, of course, understand however, it would appear at least logical that there are internationally agreed guesses for something as knowingly influential and variable as clouds.
There is, of course, solar irradiation which seem largely ignored as well, but even that’s more measurable than cloud activity.
Yep, clouds are “parameterized”. Which means than rather than being modeled on first principles, they are assigned some (hopefully not too arbitrary) numbers for reflection, transmission, persistence, size and location. Or they just say that 70% is transmitted, 20% reflected, 10% absorbed and re-radiated to make it 75/25 in/out and ignore the clouds entirely.
So what can we do ? Already in Switzerland, they’re talking about the “growing number of violent anti-vaccine protesters” who have been brought so far “due to the unacceptable lies of the alternative media”. That’s their next move: a crackdown on all “alternative websites”, in other words: full blown censorship like in China. Another thing that’s going on: it’s almost impossible to get tested anymore. Week long delays, and long distances and so on, although now you will soon have to pay for it. They’re saying “the vaccine isn’t mandatory since you can get tested” but in reality this option is becoming ever more difficult to implement. Early treatment of Covid is also forbidden in this country.
After a quite successful protest demo in one city, a planned demo in Berne was unexpectedly cancelled, and by the organizers themselves. I wonder what pressure the State used to achieve this?
Its very sad that Switzerland appears to have bought into the European idea of trading freedom for safety.
Its difficult to imagine Switzerland successfully cutting access to “alternative media”. Even China has failed to do that. But they could make it a bit more difficult.
I guess do what you can within the law, and if the law becomes impossible to live with, vote with your feet.
Something that the protestors don’t acknowledge is that there is a long tradition that freedoms and rights only extend so far as when they infringe on the rights of others.
Who among you would say that it was wrong for the courts to try to protect the populace from Typhoid Mary? How is it any different that people who could be asymptomatic carriers of COVID (as Typhoid Mary was of typhus) should be allowed to roam freely without concern for their danger to others? Why do we put down rabid dogs? Because they are a menace to the populace. We have reduced the need for that by creating a vaccine for animals to prevent rabies. Why are people so concerned about their supposed freedoms, and so little concerned about their danger to others? I don’t advocate inoculation under the duress of the barrel of a gun, but it is perfectly reasonable to impose restrictions on the movement of people who refuse to get vaccinated, just as they would have their pets vaccinated.
But that presumes that the vaccinations will somehow prevent people from being carriers. Meanwhile, we are also told that getting the vaccine does not mean you won’t transmit the virus while being asymptomatic, and that getting the vaccination will reduce the severity of the illness. Which of course means that the vaccinated would be asymptomatic carriers, who are those you are trying to restrict.So by your logic, we should lock down the vaccinated since they are more likely to be asymptomatic COVID Marys.
New plan, those who are susceptible should get vaccinated, and take precautions. Those who are sick should stay home and get treatment. Meanwhile, everyone gets on with life.
So, you equate the effect of Saars-CoV-2 to the human population to dogs getting rabies? Come on! In this view there would be no restraint on either the mob of socialist government because anything I do may affect another human, tree, insect, fish, air, etc (the list is endless). God-given rights are paramount in this world to your opinions and your mob rule. You have to live with your fellow citizens having inalienable rights and human rights.
In this case, though, part of their argument is, since we don’t know who Typhoid Mary is, everyone must lose freedoms. That’s quite different, and imo, unacceptabl.
“Why are people so concerned about their supposed freedoms, and so little concerned about their danger to others”
I f.cking don’t care if others die. It’s their f… health. I don’t have to give a sh*t.
“but it is perfectly reasonable to impose restrictions on the movement of people who refuse to get vaccinated”
Once we decide that it’s ok for the government to censor opinions because those “opinions” are dangerous, where does it stop?
There are many government who would love to outlaw any group that disagrees regarding global warming.
So peer-review is a guarantee of quality now? Noted.
The paper is nonsense. Pointing this out is not censorship.
Define censorship phillips.
They didn’t point that out, moron, the blocked the link altogether.
Untrue. I just shared the link on FB. I got a warning about the fact check but nothing stopped me posting a link to the paper. Note the ‘Share Anyway’ button.
(Natch I deleted the post. Don’t want that schist that on my timeline!)
Thank you for demonstrating that the link can in fact be forwarded. Almost no one believes FB’s rating of the veracity of content. Caveat emptor.
You deleted the post phillips , that was a warning before you posted, you have not shown your post was posted, you have not shown if the post was allowed after the warning,nor have you shown any evidence of deletion .
I don’t buy the share anyway button, I certainly don’t believe you would of posted something you don’t believe in,for however long.
I am not lying. Try it yourself.
Freudian slip there phillips, the onus is upon you to prove ( the posting)
As for being on FB don’t think so .
Why would that be? The article claims FB disallows linking to the Epoch Times piece. I thought that unlikely and so I tried it and provided a screenshot demonstrating that it is possible.
What do you think ‘Share Anyway’ means? Lol.
Answer the questions phillips
That’s too technical for someone like Phillip.
That Phillips is a customer of
FZuckerberg/Fakebook is evidence enough to round-file it all.
I did not criticise Schmidt offering an opinion, I criticised the censorship.
What censorship? I was able to post a link to the ET article on my FB page. I was warned about the existence of the factcheck and appraised of the mainstream science on solar forcing, but still able to post the link. If you’re on FB try it yourself.
Someone is not being totally honest here.
Gavin’s opinion is just that. If he has a problem with the paper than he can write a paper refuting it and get it published in a peer reviewed journal, although the subject matter may not be his specialty. Or if he prefers, he can debate Lindzen…oh wait….
So peer-review is a guarantee of quality now? Noted.
That is tongue in cheek?
The media overhype your message and when the papers are rightly retracted no corrections are ever printed – the narrative stands. Examples include
Resplandy et al claimed to have found rapid warming in the oceans as a result of manmade global warming, and was withdrawn after major errors in its statistical methodology were found by an independent scientist.
Gergis et al claimed that temperatures in the last 60 years were warmest in the last 1,000 years. Busted by an independent scientist.
There’s plenty more on retraction watch
Pal review gets found out in the end.
Gergis et al 2012 was withdrawn at the authors’ request when a methodological flaw came to light. However after four years of review and rework…
“Finally, today, we publish our study again with virtually the same conclusion: the recent temperatures experienced over the past three decades in Australia, New Zealand and surrounding oceans are warmer than any other 30-year period over the past 1,000 years.”
There are indeed numerous papers that should never have seen the light of day but which somehow passed peer review at reputable journals
Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model.
Monckton, Soon, Legates and Briggs Science Bulletin 2015.
That paper was nonsense. A response in the same journal found it assumed “near-instantaneous response to forcing, implying no net energy imbalance for the Earth. This contributes to their low estimates of future warming and is falsified by Argo float measurements that show continued ocean heating and therefore a sustained energy imbalance. M15’s estimates of climate response and future global warming are not consistent with measurements and so cannot be considered credible. ”
Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature” by J. D. McLean, C. R. de Freitas, and R. M. Carter. GRL 2009
Basically found the ENSO dominated tropical temperatures leaving no room for AGW. That paper was nonsense, it concluded that de-trended data um, has no trend. “The suggestion in their conclusions that ENSO may be a major contributor to recent trends in global temperature is not supported by their analysis or any physical theory presented in their paper, especially as the analysis method itself eliminates the influence of trends on the purported correlations.”
A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions.
Singer et al International Journal of Climatology November 2008
Widely trumpeted as the final nail in the coffin for the models, the paper was nonsense. It mishandled uncertainties and made a complete shambles of statistical tests. A response paper found ” This claim was based on use of older radiosonde and satellite datasets, and on two methodological errors: the neglect of observational trend uncertainties introduced by interannual climate variability, and application of an inappropriate statistical ‘consistency test’”
None of the above has been retracted.
Peer review as a guarantee of quality and truth is how AGW supporters have portrayed things for years, to the extent that in the ClimateGate emails the scientists discuss how to keep things out of the peer reviewed literature they don’t like or agree with.
Certainly the BBC and UK MPs regard “peer review” as a gold standard, beyond reproach and representing scientific truth. BBC has even used it to defend putting up something on their website which I have pointed out even the original author (Marcott) has admitted is misleading/invalid. They defended it by saying “its in a peer reviewed paper” in their response to my complaint.
Unlike myself, I doubt anyone at the BBC has actually had a peer reviewed paper published, or acted as a peer reviewer for any journals. I have on both counts, so I fully understand what peer review really means.
So I agree with you that peer review is no guarantee of quality, but on the other hand supporting the claim that it is has been a mainstay prop of the AGW propaganda stream. Pot, kettle and all that.
“Peer review as a guarantee of quality and truth is how AGW supporters have portrayed things for years”
Like this? Peer Review: A Necessary But Not Sufficient Condition.
in the ClimateGate emails the scientists discuss how to keep things out of the peer reviewed literature they don’t like or agree with.
Both the parties to that conversation knew fine well that they had no power to ‘redefine’ peer review and so were clearly being hyperbolic and/or comical (that’s one problem with eavesdropping on private conversations, you can easily be misled). Both the papers being recommended for exclusion were in fact cited and discussed in the IPCC report, so it was a singularly unsuccessful conspiracy. BTW neither study has fared particularly well since.
Sorry John, your argument simply is not supported by fact.
I have first hand knowledge of one of the papers excluded from peer review. It was a geostatistics based paper and I was independently asked to review it privately by one of the authors following all the difficulties in getting it published due to Jones and his ilk blocking it. I saw no reason to not publish it from a technical standpoint. But it never was – Jones et al saw to that.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that is what they were doing and as I say I have first hand knowledge, directly corroborated from the ClimateGate emails (ie author names and paper content), that that is indeed what happened. People attempting to submit papers at the time were getting them rejected and were struggling to understand why there was so much pushback. For those of us with an inside view it became obvious once the ClimateGate emails were published.
“Sorry John, your argument simply is not supported by fact.
I have first hand knowledge of one of the papers excluded from peer review.”
I suspect you are shifting the goalposts. You specifically said..
“in the ClimateGate emails the scientists discuss how to keep things out of the peer reviewed literature they don’t like or agree with.”
which I took as a reference to this quote from Phil Jones
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin (Trenberth) and I will keep them out somehow even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is”
Neither Jones or Trenberth actually has the power to ‘redefine peer review’ and both well knew that so the remark is obviously meant as a hyperbolic comment on the quality of the papers. The studies in question were McKitrick and Michaels (2004) and Kalnay and Cai (2003), both of which did actually make it into AR4 so there is no actual evidence from this email of a successful conspiracy to keep things out of the literature. My point is 100% ‘supported by fact’.
I am guessing the study you are referring to is neither of these? Do I have the wrong mail?
” I have first hand knowledge, directly corroborated from the ClimateGate emails (ie author names and paper content),”
Is there a reason you do not supply these key details? You have the evidence, apparently, so why not share?
Pointing out that you disagree with something is not censorship.
Banning any mention of something you disagree with is censorship.
The mere fact that you can’t tell the difference tells us all we need to know about your morality, or lack there of.
Banning any mention of something you disagree with is censorship.
So where has this actually occurred?
Define climate denial .
Anyone who doesn’t agree that fossil fuels need to be banned immediately.
I was hoping he was going to say anything but I shouldn’t of hoped.
Hope none of my friends saw this.
You could of done that in the last 5 mins phillips it means nothing were is the time stamp? And again it does not show you posted anything ,that could of been deleted before posting = preview.
No preview on Facebook. It is clear nothing would ever convince you however it is the case that FB has not banned linking to the article.
Why don’t you want your friends to see that you are smart? Are you so deeply involved with the corruption that putting something honest on your FB timeline puts you in danger? I pity you.
Perhaps you could enlighten us with your expert scientific opinion as to what precisely is wrong in the paper?
What does Willie Soon know about Climate? Obviously nothing. Does he not know the Sun is over 100 million miles away from Earth so how can that have any effect on our Climate?? These Fact Checkers have 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒑𝒆𝒓 𝒅𝒆𝒈𝒓𝒆𝒆𝒔 such as ‘The Simpsons’ from the Uni of California and even more relevant ‘Clownology’ from the Uni of Missouri and they can, obviously, certainly understand this simple fact. It has to be something closer to home that Bart or Coco are involved in. Naughty boys releasing all that poisonous, dreadful CO2 gas into the atmosphere! (Although that said I see Coco is planning to set up a factory in England to produce this nasty gas as, unbelievably, they are short of CO2 in the UK. One extreme to the other!! One moment it’s ‘too much’, and they spend Billions of Dollars to get rid of it (and want Trillions more to ensure it’s all gone which the nice UN will, of course, strictly control spending) and the next, produce more of it because they have run out!) Just who can you believe anymore??
I despair. I just don’t know what they are teaching Scientists anymore!! /sarc
Only two simple questions, what heats the earth in daytime and where the light dies come from ?
As I have said before, as an engineer I find it difficult to believe that the giant fusion reactor in the sky at the centre of our Solar System, possessing in excess of 99.9% of the mass of this Solar System, has absolutely no effects whatsoever on the Earth’s climate, it defies rational & logical thought!!! These warmunista scientists reminds me of the the likes of Lord Kelvin, who is on record in the late 19th & early 20th century, such as “there is nothing more to discover in science, only ever greater accuracy of measurement!”, & “Heavier than air flying machines are impossible!”, he was President of the Royal Society at the time, I suspect with their current viewpoints on globul warming the have changed very little in the intervening centuries!!!
“I find it difficult to believe that the giant fusion reactor in the sky at the centre of our Solar System, possessing in excess of 99.9% of the mass of this Solar System, has absolutely no effects whatsoever on the Earth’s climate”
Whoever claimed that? The point is that the recent trend in solar activity is actually of the wrong sign to explain the warming climate.
The Lord Kelvin quote is seductive, particularly as the next few decades brought us quantum mechanics and relativity, however it is likely apocryphal.
…and he never said flying machines were impossible – just that they would never be a success. Hey, win some, lose some.
Another idiot with shoe leather in his mouth.
Not to be picky butTo be picky:
“The sun contains 99.8 percent of the mass of the entire solar system.”
— source: https://www.space.com/17001-how-big-is-the-sun-size-of-the-sun.html
And soon (in astronomical terms) to be 99.7.
“social media “
Anti-social and specifically designed for 2 minutes hate – or more.
once more zuck n the minions show abysmal IQ levels
how do i LOATHE thee? let me count the ways
for the bigheaded Z
Fascist dictators cannot allow any dissent from the official propaganda narrative.
It always amuses me how the vast majority of libs equate conservatism with fascism, and always use the slur “fascist” to describe any who don’t subscribe to their propaganda.
It is easy enough to look up the meaning of fascism, as the fascists adopted it. “Fasci” is Latin for sticks. The Fascist Party logo was a bunch of sticks tied together in a single bundle. It represented their notion that individual sticks have no strength and are easily broken, while a bundle of sticks is very strong.
The motto of the Fascist Party was “All for the state .. and nothing for the individual”.
Boy that sure sounds a LOT more like today’s liberal weanies than any conservatives that I have ever known. Conservatives and their cousins the libertarians are the ultimate individualists – in other words, the opposite of fascists.
The only difference between 20th century fascists – which by the way did NOT include the Nazis – and communists was their justification for total state control of the individual. Commies justified it as their “revolution of the proletariat” with class warfare being the motivator; fascists did not emphasize class warfare but were simply dedicated to dictatorship by the state.
The liberal fascists are out to destroy any dissent from their warmunista propaganda. Their Orwellian “thought police” work at Facebook.
By the way, as I wrote above, the Nazis were never fascists. Fascists worshipped the state. Naziism worshipped Hitler, period. It was all about one particular individual, Hitler, not the power of the Nazi state. When Hitler committed suicide, Naziism died with him.
Naziism died with him.
Can you name a single Nazi state? Or even a single organized Nazi party in any state in the world? Naziism died with Hitler.
Fascism lived on long past Mussolini – it continued to control Spain for several decades thereafter.
Antisemitism didn’t die with Hitler, nor was it born with Hitler – antisemitism has been a major force since the Romans conquered Palestine.
Antisemitism has nothing to do with Fascism as an ideology, but everything with Marxism: “Jews”, at least in 19th century Western Europe when and where the Marxist doctrines were written, was pretty much synonymous with “Bourgeoisie” – successful Jewish entrepreneurs and investors ruled the finance and industrial sector, while the superior talents of Jewish artists and performers dominated the fields of music, art and entertainment. The tale of evil bourgeois Capitalists that have to be conquered and overthrown by the working class is but a very thin and transparent disguise for the much older call to exterminate the Jews, carefully avoiding to ever call a spade a spade because most working-class people didn’t care much about Jews and were easier to mobilize for a violent antisemitic movement by talking in terms of class war. But Marx’ goal was the same as Hitler’s: Destroying the superiority of Western civilization by systematically removing the most intelligent and successful group: The Jews (who just happened to be rich and successful men because of their abilities, and Marx used this secondary attribute as a decoy while Hitler was brutally honest).
Nazism is nothing more than national socialism, with some systemic bigotry thrown in. Almost all socialist countries are national socialists, with anyone who opposes them, and their corporate partners, the bogeyman. Thomas Sowell writes eloquently about nations that are socialist with systemic racist tendencies; which, by the way, destroy economies. This hurts all lower and middle income people, who are 90% of populations, which makes socialism and it’s adherents “they who should not be obeyed!”.
Thinking national socialism doesn’t exist is putting one’s head in the sand.
You need to read “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich”, by William Shirer, who reported on the rise and fall of naziism in real time as it was happening, from Germany. He makes it clear that Naziism was nothing but a personality cult. Hitler had no interest in the state except as a tool to carry out his agenda. He demanded personal loyalty and oaths to himself. When it was apparent that Germany was on the verge of losing the war, he directed his last remaining loyal subordinate, Albert Speer, to literally destroy what was left of the nation and all its infrastructure, claiming that the German people and the state did not deserve his personal greatness.
That’s why there has never again been a Nazi state or organized Nazi party. Without Hitler, naziism was an empty vessel.
All the rhetoric of anti-semitism was just a tool Hitler used to gain power.
You conveniently forget that the Allies imposed a harsh “de-nazification” program in the post-war occupation of Germany.
” By the way, as I wrote above, the Nazis were never fascists. Fascists worshipped the state. Naziism worshipped Hitler, period. It was all about one particular individual, Hitler, not the power of the Nazi state. When Hitler committed suicide, Naziism died with him. ”
This is the most stupid, ignorant comment I ever read about Fascism, the Nazis and Hitler.
I live since over 50 years in Germany.
Fascism is full 100 % alive. You are an absolute ignorant.
Us libertarians are individualists. In fact I recently attended a local protest at city hall, “The One Man March for Individualism”…It was a big success!
To be fair, the standard global climate models are the total nonsense that no one sensible should waste their time on. It’s a projection.
Why is anyone surprised by this? Democrat Party leaders have ordered their minions, Zuckerberg, Dorsey, etc etc, to silence all facts and simply push the Democrat Party approved lies. And just as Faux Joe Xiden has usurped the authority of USG to order businesses to require people get the Chinese Disease shot.
From the paper:
“However, this new estimate suggests these two warming periods were separated by a pronounced cooling period during the 1950s–1970s and that the relative warmth of the mid-20th century warm period was comparable to the recent warm period.”
We know what caused both of those.
And it wasn’t the sun.
Else why is it doing it now.
The mid-20th cent warming was caused by +ve phases of the PDO and AMO and low aerosols
The later cooling was caused by aerosol from industry ramping up after WW2 and -ve PDO/AMO regimes.
As is often said here – there is more to the climate systems variability than CO2 -or the Sun.
” …. To disentangle surface solar and greenhouse influences on global warming, trends in diurnal temperature range are analyzed. They suggest that solar dimming was effective in masking greenhouse warming, but only up to the 1980s, when dimming gradually transformed into brightening. Since then, the uncovered greenhouse effect has revealed its full dimension, as manifested in a rapid temperature rise (+0.38°C/decade over land since mid-1980s). Recent solar brightening cannot supersede the greenhouse effect as main cause of global warming, since land temperatures increased by 0.8°C from 1960 to 2000, even though solar brightening did not fully outweigh solar dimming within this period.”
That’s BS and you know it, Bantam weight. The simple fact is that the error in the effect of aerosols is so large the Alarmists don’t even know for sure if aerosols in the cooling period from 1940 to 1970 had a negative effect on radiative forcing. There’s also no credible explanation for how the aerosol concentration and size distribution somehow magically changed in 1940 and magically changed back in 1970. I know that you know this isn’t a reliable explanation of the cooling because you posted the MODEL results just yesterday that had the HUGE error in Aerosol effects marked right on the plot and, despite the error being huge, aerosols DID NOT overcome the putative effect of CO2 during the cooling period. Plus, it’s dishonest to post modeling results from models that don’t work, as Gavin Schmidt himself has admitted.
By representing this as a fact when you know that it’s just a shaky theory unsupported by any data, you’re lying. Why are you lying?
Cut out the ad hom.
It’s not big, and it’s certainly not clever.
Look, choose to believe what you think.
That is the science, like it or not.
I try so much then it’s your problem.
When it comes to denizens being abusive then it’s goodbye.
The last resort of a desperate man/woman.
I don’t give a flying f*** what you think, and I don’t come on here to change minds, just to point out the bollocks they reflexively believe, because it fits their bias while they only get their “science” from a sceptics blog.
Meanwhile how are the baby eaters doing in that there pizza parlour?
So, Bantam weight, lets summarize. You knowingly lied and got called out on it.
I do ad hom when a troll such as yourself knowingly deceives or lies. It’s to let you and everyone else know that you’ve been discredited.
No spaghetti today, Banton?
In other words, you can’t refute the claims.
Not doing it now
Oh dear dums toys out the pram
It really is frightening the number of people who have been trained to believe that government is the ultimate decider of truth.
And this, my friends, says it all.
Roger Waters has clear thoughts about Facebook. (Warning: coarse language, NSFW, rock ‘n’ roll):
I had a response on a newspaper Facebook page that used an EPA graph and NOAA temperature data removed because the data didn’t fit the Facebooks fact checker perscribed narrative. Was told that appeal was not possible because of COVID.
I seriously doubt that Dr. Schmidt is spending much time or thought trying to find what is wrong with his models.
The models are doing what they were designed to do, so there isn’t anything wrong with them. (The models were never designed to accurately predict climate, they were written to prove that CO2 controls the climate and to justify the left wing take over of everything.)
Stop using Web 2.0. Web3.0 should clear things up (e.g. look for the SPK network on the Hive blockchain to be uncensorable)
I like this John Stossel video. John was censored likely because he doesn’t have the tone of a crazy climate fanatic. If you don’t want to be censored, you have to jump up and down and act like the sky is falling. Facebook is becoming a commie hangout.
FZuckerburg and FakeBook, don’t let them have any ad revenue.
They do it because they want to and can.
Sir Walter Scott, way back in 1808, summarized what would be the net effect of this current censorship mess, which is caused by the likes of Facebook, TikTok, Google News Initiative, Wikipedia, YouTube, MSN and others:
Congress needs to remove the special protections given to “neutral platforms of content” once they start acting as “publishers and editors of content”. Until this is done, powerful companies will continue to control the message (i.e. propaganda).
Of course. But it will never happen with democrats in charge as they are beholden to the campaign money they receive from these same companies.
It shouldn’t be necessary for congress to do anything, since fakebook et. al. have long since behaved as publishers and editors, not platforms. If only we still had an honest court system.
If you dare to defy Big Tech, you will be eliminated. No dissent allowed.
And “we” (as a whole) are welcoming it and demanding more.
Sue the bas$ards….
John Stossel Sues Facebook Alleging Defamation Over Fact-Check Label, Seeks at Least $2 Million (yahoo.com)
Good for him. That’s what it usually takes to make the fact-checkers run. More people ought to do this. I noticed not just Facebook, but Emmanuel Vincent slams Stossel on his company website as well.
Science is not necessarily good just because it is peer-reviewed. I remember WUWT article writers criticizing lots of peer-reviewed science. Some peer-reviewed papers get retracted, and I think more should be, for example Li & Chakraborty’s 2020 one on hurricanes and the 2019 Zhang et al. metastudy on glyphosate.
I listed three above. I could have included this one.
You mentioned ‘WUWT article writers criticizing lots of peer-reviewed science’. Many scientists including me will strongly agree that those criticisms were very sensible and true. Many of those discussed published papers had flaws and real grounds for retraction.
Was any of those papers ever retracted? If not, why? Hence proved again Retractions are a means of protecting the agenda rather than findings errors in the published papers. It is simply a form of censorship.
Is one group with particular agenda is trying to overpower the whole system using the tool of ‘Retraction’ and ‘Censorship’?
WUWT pointed out many flaws in papers of ‘Climate propaganda group’ and has a single paper been retracted yet from that group?
It is then a great worry for science and evil censorship should be stopped by all means.
Don’t you love how some people conflate criticism with censorship? They aren’t even vaguely the same, but those who defend Facebook etc. constantly scream that they are.
Fascism is on the rise again. A sure trademark of fascism is censoring. Big Tech has taken it on themselves to divide true from false in all matters. They are now indistinguishable from Stasi in the socialist red fascist nightmare regime of DDR.
I have never had a Facebook account and I have never agreed to their terms of service.
Therefore, I’m now investigating a class action lawsuit against Facebook for tracking non users like me around the internet using third parties and then selling that data to other parties without my permission.
You must have missed the memo:
Things must be peer reviewed by the right peers.
Fascist book, Google-you-censor and the other social mafia.
A true badge of honour – I have been banned from The Conversation for point out the starting points for global warming as being the end of the Little Ice Age coinciding with the start of the Industrial Revolution; the BOM/CSIRO using 1910 as a start date for their projections (another dip in the warming cycle) and that excellent physicist Br R Spencer coincidentally starting his work about 1975 soon after Newsweek felt compelled to warn the populace of the pending Ice Age.
I thought Dr Soon and his colleagues had an extraordinarily well argued paper almost to the point of being bullet proof.
Facebook is a political ideology site as much as anything else, just like Twitter.
I think they’d “fact check” a thermometer
They called Trump an “anti intellectual” and here we are: no nothing buffoons who probably can’t even tell the diff between a change of power MW per hour and the energy of a MWh censor actual scientists.
That’s what actual decadence is.
The Facebook Fact Checkist are not interested in actual facts or truth. They are all about the Leftist agenda.
FubarBook’s fact checkers have been revealed as biased leftward, given where they are employed or came from.
(FB uses checking services, they and FB direct hires come from activist organizations.)