If I’m supposed to trust the science, show me data on climate change and China virus

Hell, prove to me that chromosomes don't determine gender anymore.

"Science" is nothing but shite now. A political revolutionary movement. Our "Science" is becoming as valid as "Scientific Socialism" in the Ooo Ess Ess Rrr.

I'm not going down the climate change rabbit hole tonight.

With respect to the COVID PCR and cycle threshold, the range of positivity is determined by the various manufacturers and varies from test to test and lab to lab. Generally speaking, lower cycle thresholds correlate with higher viral loads and (more loosely) disease severity, but nobody can give a uniformly definitive "A Ct above this threshold represents a negative test result" type answer simply because of the nature of lab test variability. This is true of virtually all tests, as values and positivity ranges are going to vary based on who is producing the various tests.

And "trust the science" is a purely political term. It's so nonspecific as to be rendered meaningless in any practical sense. I have to know what or whom I'm being asked to trust in, what the person making the statement defines as "science", etc. And even then we're only getting started.

The problem with science as it relates to human perception is that, as it progresses, it tends to slowly encroach upon and violate many of our sacredly held political/social/religious/etc. beliefs. That means that both those conducting the investigations (ie the scientists) and those receiving and evaluating their findings often have a vested interest in NOT agreeing with what the data shows. This leaves open both the possibility of internal corruption, and (much more commonly) external defense mechanisms by the population at large to disprove uncomfortable realities. This is made even worse by the fact that the vast majority of people are entirely unqualified by their academic/knowledge background to even intelligently evaluate any given claim to begin with, regardless of how they feel about it. The number of people actually qualified to assess the nuance of the climate change debate, for instance, is exceedingly small relative to the number of people who attempt to speak definitively on the matter.

This explains "climate change":
LINK

Prior to reading this, Use extreme caution if you are a liberal. Liberals heads might explode, if they try to read it.

folks truly interested in following the climate change should log on to the Whats Up With That site. over the years they have tended to provide facts rather than opinion.

I'm old enough to remember the Michael Mann "Hide the decline" scandal.

You're not supposed to look into the science or challenge it.

What they mean when they say "trust the science" is translated to "listen and obey but do not question" in Totalitarianism

Daily Signal article

Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg each, independently funded, climate change reports a few years back. Of course they found that the Earth was doomed. And, of course they each had organizations that could profit from saving the planet.

This is like having a home security firm research the crime statistics in your neighborhood. But dont worry, they have the perfect system that will keep your family safe!

quote:

---

quote:

---

the fact that the vast majority of people are entirely unqualified by their academic/knowledge background to even intelligently evaluate any given claim to begin with, regardless of how they feel about it. The number of people actually qualified to assess the nuance of the climate change debate, for instance, is exceedingly small relative to the number of people who attempt to speak definitively on the matter.

---

Now you've done it. You've insulted the education level of the basement dwelling masses. And insinuated that maybe they're nothing more than keyboard experts after all.

Prepare for the hate.

---

It doesn't take someone with even an average intellect to understand that conclusions based on false and manipulated data are wrong. Keep listening to the "experts" though. Your appeals to authority are quite evident to people with greater than average intelligence.

A person with a PhD in climate science is still wrong when they use falsified data. If you've done any semblance of research into the global warming hysteria, you would know that temperature readings have been manipulated and even downright made up in order to support the theories in complete contradiction to the scientific method.

I researched global warming for the decade of the 90s.
Hundreds of scientific articles with data. Here is the short story:

1. Global warming is natural. So is cooling. Human activity has no effect.

2. Thousands of scientists have written about man's irrelevance but they are banned from international conferences that are run by globalists who want money from the U.S.

3. Greenhouse effect happens. It is caused by water vapor. CO2 is so small it has no effect.

4. The push for controlling the climate coincided with the fall of communism in USSR/E. Europe. Perhaps that's a coincidence.

People don’t enter the field of climate science unless they are passionate about climate change. This leaves them trying to prove a preconceived notion instead of looking at the science impartially.