EV drawbacks

Fast Eddie said:
What that article does more than anything is show that both sides are as bad as each other with the fact that they both pick holes in each others arguments that they then both ignore / say are irrelevant, etc.

Look at the C02 effect on plants and food… the green mob say that increased warming is going to be harmful to plant life and that is a potential catastrophe. But when the sceptics point out that C02 (and warming) will actually be very good for plant life, the greenies then say ‘there’s no proof that is of any benefit’ !!

Thats a ridiculous argument, if you’re arguing one way (harm = bad) you have to accept the other (benefit = good). I would have thought the benefits of more / bigger / healthier trees, healthier rain forrest’s, faster crop growths with greater yields, etc, would have been obvious… ESPECIALLY TO GREENIES FFS… but obviously it’s NOT when it doesn’t fit their arguments agenda.

However… that said… I wish there was more such open debate. It would be painful in the short term but we would get to a balanced and more truthful position sooner.
Click to expand...
The subject of CO2 levels and the effect on crops and plant life is confusing. This article is in plain language and easily understood. Apparently the positive elements of increased CO2 (related to crops/plants) is often looked at in isolation, which doesn’t tell the whole story. Lots to read on this subject - most follow this line.

www.scientificamerican.com

Ask the Experts: Does Rising CO2 Benefit Plants?

Climate change’s negative effects on plants will likely outweigh any gains from elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide levels
www.scientificamerican.com www.scientificamerican.com

I don’t really see the climate debate as a ‘both sides‘ proposition, at the level that matters anyway (read beyond the common debate). In essence, we rely on science in all things where their specialised expertise is pre-eminent. Occasionally politicians override scientific advice, because it’s expedient (for them) to do so; it usually ends poorly.

The overwhelming majority of the worlds actively publishing Climate Scientists and their peer reviewed research has provided our pollies (across the globe) with information on which they are taking climate action (with varying degrees of urgency/success) to meet agreed targets. There‘s definitely room for criticism on the direction, rationale and means by which some have sought to achieve these targets - EV’s included.

Scientists of any note that are sceptical of thIs consensus (as with Happer above)) often appear to be given a podium and their view elevated and aired (loudly) because it’s newsworthy and to meet alternate narratives for interested parties. I know that this happens on both sides of the public debate.

To my mind, if our leading Climate Scientists are wrong then we have to ask why - in simple terms. If wrong about man’s influence on warming then what does that mean: they are incompetent?; illegitimate in some way?; compromised (by politicians) in their findings/reporting?; spreading disinformation to some conspiratorial end?

Or, of course, they are right and the world isn’t being ‘led up the garden path. I guess we better hope they are right, because it’s gonna change the way we live our lives and there ain’t no going back.
 
Last edited:
Stephen_Spencer said:
The subject of CO2 levels and the effect on crops and plant life is confusing. This article is in plain language and easily understood. Apparently the positive elements of increased CO2 (related to crops/plants) is often looked at in isolation, which doesn’t tell the whole story. Lots to read on this subject - most follow this line.

www.scientificamerican.com

Ask the Experts: Does Rising CO2 Benefit Plants?

Climate change’s negative effects on plants will likely outweigh any gains from elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide levels
www.scientificamerican.com www.scientificamerican.com

I don’t really see the climate debate as a ‘both sides‘ proposition, at the level that matters anyway (read beyond the common debate). In essence, we rely on science in all things where their specialised expertise is pre-eminent. Occasionally politicians override scientific advice, because it’s expedient (for them) to do so; it usually ends poorly.

The overwhelming majority of the worlds actively publishing Climate Scientists and their peer reviewed research has provided our pollies (across the globe) with information on which they are taking climate action (with varying degrees of urgency/success) to meet agreed targets. There‘s definitely room for criticism on the direction, rationale and means by which some have sought to achieve these targets - EV’s included.

Scientists of any note that are sceptical of thIs consensus (as with Happer above)) often appear to be given a podium and their view elevated and aired (loudly) because it’s newsworthy and to meet alternate narratives for interested parties. I know that this happens on both sides of the public debate.

To my mind, if our leading Climate Scientists are wrong then we have to ask why - in simple terms. If wrong about man’s influence on warming then what does that mean: they are incompetent?; illegitimate in some way?; compromised (by politicians) in their findings/reporting?; spreading disinformation to some conspiratorial end?

Or, of course, they are right and the world isn’t being ‘led up the garden path. I guess we better hope they are right, because it’s changing the way we live our lives and there ain’t no going back.
Click to expand...

You make it clear in your undertones that one ‘group’ of scientists are right, and others are obviously not.

I disagree, quite strongly actually.

Many specific points have been put forward so far in this thread, you simply gloss over them or ignore them and revert to the mantra of ‘overwhelming majority / consensus’.

I‘m not even sure how true that simple claim is. How many opposers does it take before something is not a consensus? How do you count them? How do you know how many opposers there are, they usually don’t have the funding, the media backing, the platform, so they are difficult to count.

I doubt that you have any experience in how academic research funding works? Funds are often biased, they want research to prove something, so those looking to question this basis, or possibly seek to disprove it, don’t get funded. People have reputations and a careers and livelihoods at stake… and they need the funding. It’s a political minefield. So science is actually hampered by politics, even at the very beginning of the scientific process (this is a generic challenge and not limited to the climate situation), Kommando has given examples of this already.

I‘m staggered that you cannot see a ‘both sides‘ situation at play here frankly!

On one side you have those who say we are facing urgent impending doom and must do everything, without delay and without question, right up to stop oil, stop agriculture, etc. Some of these people would destroy human life as we know it!

On the other side you’ve got people saying maybe it’s not so urgent, maybe we should proceed with caution, maybe we should try and achieve a balance, maybe some of the measures are not as clear cut as we’re lead to believe, maybe we should allow science and technology to do its thing without aggressive government interference , etc.

If the hard core greens get their way without an opposition countering them, we’d be in big trouble, and folk like us who burn fossil fuels for fun would be the very first to be outlawed. So even if it’s only for self preservation, I urge you to consider that there are indeed two (or more) sides to this and that there is most certainly not a monolithic religion called ‘The Science’ which thou shalt not debate with !
 
Last edited:
rweb said:
Move along, nothing to see here. The three top selling vehicles in the U.S. are Ford F 150, Chevy Silverado and Ram pick up, all weighing from 4,000 pounds to 5,500 pounds. Why haven't we been warned of tire particle pollution generated by this larger and heavier group of vehicles that have been around a lot longer?
Click to expand...
Possibly COMPLETELY different tires/construction/compounds?

(would be my guess)
 
The Canadian academic in this clip is not talking about EVs or climate, but he IS talking about allowing science to work without interference and about the dangers of not doing so.

Its the same topic I keep banging on about when I say there is no such thing as ‘The Science’ and that the whole point of science, if it is to work, is to allow, indeed facilitate, open critical debate.

He puts things far more eloquently and powerfully than I can:

 
Fast Eddie said:
The Canadian academic in this clip is not talking about EVs or climate, but he IS talking about allowing science to work without interference and about the dangers of not doing so.
Click to expand...
By "interference", you couldn't POSSIBLY be referring to the boatloads of cash they get for 'research' as long as it is the government-approved research?

No, no, I'm sure that's not it. Totally unrelated.
 
Fast Eddie said:
You make it clear in your undertones that one ‘group’ of scientists are right, and others are obviously not.

I disagree, quite strongly actually.

Many specific points have been put forward so far in this thread, you simply gloss over them or ignore them and revert to the mantra of ‘overwhelming majority / consensus’.

I‘m not even sure how true that simple claim is. How many opposers does it take before something is not a consensus? How do you count them? How do you know how many opposers there are, they usually don’t have the funding, the media backing, the platform, so they are difficult to count.

I doubt that you have any experience in how academic research funding works? Funds are often biased, they want research to prove something, so those looking to question this basis, or possibly seek to disprove it, don’t get funded. People have reputations and a careers and livelihoods at stake… and they need the funding. It’s a political minefield. So science is actually hampered by politics, even at the very beginning of the scientific process (this is a generic challenge and not limited to the climate situation), Kommando has given examples of this already.

I‘m staggered that you cannot see a ‘both sides‘ situation at play here frankly!

On one side you have those who say we are facing urgent impending doom and must do everything, without delay and without question, right up to stop oil, stop agriculture, etc. Some of these people would destroy human life as we know it!

On the other side you’ve got people saying maybe it’s not so urgent, maybe we should proceed with caution, maybe we should try and achieve a balance, maybe some of the measures are not as clear cut as we’re lead to believe, maybe we should allow science and technology to do its thing without aggressive government interference , etc.

If the hard core greens get their way without an opposition countering them, we’d be in big trouble, and folk like us who burn fossil fuels for fun would be the very first to be outlawed. So even if it’s only for self preservation, I urge you to consider that there are indeed two (or more) sides to this and that there is most certainly not a monolithic religion called ‘The Science’ which thou shalt not debate with !
Click to expand...
With respect FE, you continue to read what you want (to respond to) ‘into’ my posts and maybe not what I’ve actually written.

My post reduced the ‘both sides’ reference down to what I believe to be an important fundamental question at the heart of this debate - and I say that. Do we accept our climate scientists findings or not and if not, why? Trying to frame it ‘in simple terms’ - as I said. I’m not suggesting it’s an all or nothing proposition - just that it might be informative.

You have chosen to frame that as though I am too blind to see other issues that form the broader debate, which is again a mis-characterisation. My post was specifically aimed beyond the broader debate to get at my question - and I say so.

There is definitely room to criticise the ‘direction, rationale and means’ being taken by some - and I say so. We all know the Green nutters are saying ‘stop coal now’ and the dire implications of that.

It’s your characterisation (of my supposed intent) in saying one group of scientists is right and the other is wrong. But let’s run with it. Climate scientists are the worlds leading experts in their field (obviously). Which other credible ‘group’ of scientists am I said to be referring to. You can definitely find plenty of opposition. I am more than happy for Happer to have his voice - ‘it’s important to listen to both sides of the climate debate’ (which I’ve said on numerous occasions).

But, in the final analysis, do we accept (or for some even acknowledge) the expert scientific advice (that we asked and paid for - through our elected reps) from their field of expertise or not - which leads us back to the question I was trying to get to.

You ‘indirectly’ answer my question through your comments about research funding. I can only assume, reading your comments on how this can be biased and manipulated, that you believe current climate science outcomes have been reached through those means. Whilst I have no doubt that does happen in science - I’m not completely ignorant of such things, inexperienced as I am - but that is a big call.

That the pre-eminent climate scientists from around the globe have colluded in producing their independent(?) findings, to allow the most important research (potentially) in history to be unduly influenced by the worlds governments - some of whom won’t even sit in the same room together - is a difficult proposition at best.

If this is so, to what end? The microcosm of this forum shows just how staggeringly unpopular many of these climate initiatives are, not to mention other political and financial upheaval that will result from implementation. Politicians famously dislike that stuff.

Has the IPCC, the science they draw from and implementing governments got it all right - of course not! Will serious mistakes be made - without doubt! Will some elements change as science receives further information over time - almost certainly!

Do we have plenty of time to work it all out? Well, that rather depends on which scientists we choose to give credence to.

NB. Hopefully to be read in the spirit in which it was written - open friendly debate.
 
Stephen_Spencer said:
With respect FE, you continue to read what you want (to respond to) ‘into’ my posts and maybe not what I’ve actually written.

My post reduced the ‘both sides’ reference down to what I believe to be an important fundamental question at the heart of this debate - and I say that. Do we accept our climate scientists findings or not and if not, why? Trying to frame it ‘in simple terms’ - as I said. I’m not suggesting it’s an all or nothing proposition - just that it might be informative.

You have chosen to frame that as though I am too blind to see other issues that form the broader debate, which is again a mis-characterisation. My post was specifically aimed beyond the broader debate to get at my question - and I say so.

There is definitely room to criticise the ‘direction, rationale and means’ being taken by some - and I say so. We all know the Green nutters are saying ‘stop coal now’ and the dire implications of that.

It’s your characterisation (of my supposed intent) in saying one group of scientists is right and the other is wrong. But let’s run with it. Climate scientists are the worlds leading experts in their field (obviously). Which other credible ‘group’ of scientists am I said to be referring to. You can definitely find plenty of opposition. I am more than happy for Happer to have his voice - ‘it’s important to listen to both sides of the climate debate’ (which I’ve said on numerous occasions).

But, in the final analysis, do we accept (or for some even acknowledge) the expert scientific advice (that we asked and paid for - through our elected reps) from their field of expertise or not - which leads us back to the question I was trying to get to.

You ‘indirectly’ answer my question through your comments about research funding. I can only assume, reading your comments on how this can be biased and manipulated, that you believe current climate science outcomes have been reached through those means. Whilst I have no doubt that does happen in science - I’m not completely ignorant of such things, inexperienced as I am - but that is a big call.

That the pre-eminent climate scientists from around the globe have colluded in producing their independent(?) findings, to allow the most important research (potentially) in history to be unduly influenced by the worlds governments - some of whom won’t even sit in the same room together - is a difficult proposition at best.

If this is so, to what end? The microcosm of this forum shows just how staggeringly unpopular many of these climate initiatives are, not to mention other political and financial upheaval that will result from implementation. Politicians famously dislike that stuff.

Has the IPCC, the science they draw from and implementing governments got it all right - of course not! Will serious mistakes be made - without doubt! Will some elements change as science receives further information over time - almost certainly!

Do we have plenty of time to work it all out? Well, that rather depends on which scientists we choose to give credence to.

NB. Hopefully to be read in the spirit in which it was written - open friendly debate.
Click to expand...

Once again sir, kettle and pot!

You ask “Do we accept our climate scientists findings or not and if not, why”?

How can you seriously ask that question in response to me, given the points I’ve made?! Obviously, I’m going to say WHICH f*cking scientists !?!

And I do not believe the level of urgency the doom mongers are pushing. Nor do I believe the magnitude of forecasted rise. Nor do I believe the C02 contributes anywhere near as much to the problem as is being pushed. All of these points have ALREADY been countered in this thread.

I have already written what I believe in and how I believe it should be tackled / addressed, as clearly as I can.

Despite your desperate desire to paint the picture that the global scientific community is all in agreement, over one of the most complex and multi faceted problems that science has ever faced… my overriding point is that that is simply not the case.

Did you even watch the last video clip I posted ???

Please do so. You’ll see credible scientists very concerned indeed. They are concerned partly because they are being marginalised, labelled and pushed out because their primary data does not support the established position (DATA not opinion). But worse, in some countries (not N*** K****, or R*****, or C****… but Canada) it is illegal for scientists to argue against what the state has decided is true. This is the bigger issue behind the “miss information” topic. Many countries are talking about outlawing miss information. These scientists are asking “who is the arbiter of truth”? Science should decide this scientifically, it’s the definition of the purpose of science! It is NOT the job of government to decide! If this doesn’t demonstrate the extent to which govts are prepared to interfere with science, and if this doesn’t concern you, then that’s your choice.
 
Last edited:
"Your Science"
@Stephen_Spencer How much personal capital/s have you invested in your beliefs .???..or noise as i see it here... if you are convinced about $the science$....f¥€k off ya gas gobbling Norton and GET with the program then....its really simple....that in my mind is called practicing what ya preach..cause...dooms days coming remember...thats if you are truly serious about the research you have conducted and to lead by example of your conviction...
Now please explain this to me 👇because im sure you watched F.E's video he tabled..which was a great contribution to this discussion.

Heres "my" conspiracy fodder prediction for ya...the next "health emergency" like we recently experienced will be "climate" related and simular measures/tools implemented in the past...some of which they will try to become the forefront of their continued agenda as we have seen in Geneva this week....
 
Stephen_Spencer said:
The subject of CO2 levels and the effect on crops and plant life is confusing. This article is in plain language and easily understood. Apparently the positive elements of increased CO2 (related to crops/plants) is often looked at in isolation, which doesn’t tell the whole story. Lots to read on this subject - most follow this line.

www.scientificamerican.com

Ask the Experts: Does Rising CO2 Benefit Plants?

Climate change’s negative effects on plants will likely outweigh any gains from elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide levels
www.scientificamerican.com www.scientificamerican.com

I don’t really see the climate debate as a ‘both sides‘ proposition, at the level that matters anyway (read beyond the common debate). In essence, we rely on science in all things where their specialised expertise is pre-eminent. Occasionally politicians override scientific advice, because it’s expedient (for them) to do so; it usually ends poorly.

The overwhelming majority of the worlds actively publishing Climate Scientists and their peer reviewed research has provided our pollies (across the globe) with information on which they are taking climate action (with varying degrees of urgency/success) to meet agreed targets. There‘s definitely room for criticism on the direction, rationale and means by which some have sought to achieve these targets - EV’s included.

Scientists of any note that are sceptical of thIs consensus (as with Happer above)) often appear to be given a podium and their view elevated and aired (loudly) because it’s newsworthy and to meet alternate narratives for interested parties. I know that this happens on both sides of the public debate.

To my mind, if our leading Climate Scientists are wrong then we have to ask why - in simple terms. If wrong about man’s influence on warming then what does that mean: they are incompetent?; illegitimate in some way?; compromised (by politicians) in their findings/reporting?; spreading disinformation to some conspiratorial end?

Or, of course, they are right and the world isn’t being ‘led up the garden path. I guess we better hope they are right, because it’s gonna change the way we live our lives and there ain’t no going back.
Click to expand...
If you believe that governments follow the science that's fine
If we all change our ways and net zero is achieved and nothing happens then that's great
But it puts me in mind of the two blokes driving down a motorway
And every mile the driver rolls up a sheet of newspaper and throws it out the window onto the central reservation
After a few miles his mate asked what the hell he's doing that for?
The driver replied "it's to stop elephants from grazing on the central reservation" his mate replies "well I've never seen elephants grazing on the central reservation ever?"
The driver replied"yes I know,it works dosent it"
 
Fast Eddie said:
Once again sir, kettle and pot!

You ask “Do we accept our climate scientists findings or not and if not, why”?

How can you seriously ask that question in response to me, given the points I’ve made?! Obviously, I’m going to say WHICH f*cking scientists !?!

And I do not believe the level of urgency the doom mongers are pushing. Nor do I believe the magnitude of forecasted rise. Nor do I believe the C02 contributes anywhere near as much to the problem as is being pushed. All of these points have ALREADY been countered in this thread.

I have already written what I believe in and how I believe it should be tackled / addressed, as clearly as I can.

Despite your desperate desire to paint the picture that the global scientific community is all in agreement, over one of the most complex and multi faceted problems that science has ever faced… my overriding point is that that is simply not the case.

Did you even watch the last video clip I posted ???

Please do so. You’ll see credible scientists very concerned indeed. They are concerned partly because they are being marginalised, labelled and pushed out because their primary data does not support the established position (DATA not opinion). But worse, in some countries (not N*** K****, or R*****, or C****… but Canada) it is illegal for scientists to argue against what the state has decided is true. This is the bigger issue behind the “miss information” topic. Many countries are talking about outlawing miss information. These scientists are asking “who is the arbiter of truth”? Science should decide this scientifically, it’s the definition of the purpose of science! It is NOT the job of government to decide! If this doesn’t demonstrate the extent to which govts are prepared to interfere with science, and if this doesn’t concern you, then that’s your choice.
Click to expand...
Fast Eddie said:
Once again sir, kettle and pot!

You ask “Do we accept our climate scientists findings or not and if not, why”?

How can you seriously ask that question in response to me, given the points I’ve made?! Obviously, I’m going to say WHICH f*cking scientists !?!

And I do not believe the level of urgency the doom mongers are pushing. Nor do I believe the magnitude of forecasted rise. Nor do I believe the C02 contributes anywhere near as much to the problem as is being pushed. All of these points have ALREADY been countered in this thread.

I have already written what I believe in and how I believe it should be tackled / addressed, as clearly as I can.

Despite your desperate desire to paint the picture that the global scientific community is all in agreement, over one of the most complex and multi faceted problems that science has ever faced… my overriding point is that that is simply not the case.

Did you even watch the last video clip I posted ???

Please do so. You’ll see credible scientists very concerned indeed. They are concerned partly because they are being marginalised, labelled and pushed out because their primary data does not support the established position (DATA not opinion). But worse, in some countries (not N*** K****, or R*****, or C****… but Canada) it is illegal for scientists to argue against what the state has decided is true. This is the bigger issue behind the “miss information” topic. Many countries are talking about outlawing miss information. These scientists are asking “who is the arbiter of truth”? Science should decide this scientifically, it’s the definition of the purpose of science! It is NOT the job of government to decide! If this doesn’t demonstrate the extent to which govts are prepared to interfere with science, and if this doesn’t concern you, then that’s your choice.
Click to expand...
Hey FB, we’ve reached our usual spot.

You are free to use an exasperated immunologist railing about scientific freedom within the Covid space in Canada, to represent what is occurring in the climate space in the rest of the world if you so choose. The point about scientific freedom is very valid - is what’s happening in Canada ref covid representative of what’s happening elsewhere in the climate space though?

Genuine question, not sarcasm - why not use a climate example. Where is the meeting of opposing Climate Scientists coalescing to stand up for their contrary opinion on climate action - railing against scientific freedom in the climate space?

This is obviously were we diverge in our thinking and that’s ok. You appear to see the climate denier (for want of a better term) grouping of scientists to be equal in number and expertise to the climate consensus. Where is the proof of that?

I could post two dozen fact checks from reputable sources that put climate science consensus at really high levels - but what’s the point. Someone would throw up a single article to contradict that mountain of analysis. That said, I could not really find a legitimate example - maybe you can. I don’t know how else to answer your “WHICH f*cking scientists“ comment.

Nor do I believe the magnitude of forecasted rise. Nor do I believe the C02 contributes anywhere near as much to the problem as is being pushed.
Click to expand...
All of these points have ALREADY been countered in this thread.
Click to expand...

I’m not sure that is accurate - happy to be proved wrong without the need for me to re-read the entire thread. Is this the first time that you have ‘written what you believe’ in these terms? In fact, other than some in-depth science that Kommando posted, I’m not sure that anybody has directly addressed the where/how/why current climate science is flawed in any meaningful way at all - I may have missed it.

If governments are directly interfering with current climate science findings I’d love to see the evidence, any evidence. I really am open to being 100% wrong here and will gladly admit so if that is the case.

Maybe then I could come in from the cold and join the club, rather than being the pariah on the periphery of every conversation. It gets lonely out here you know and I’m drinking way more red wine than I should! Sniff!😢

Steve.
 
Stephen_Spencer said:
Hey FB, we’ve reached our usual spot.

You are free to use an exasperated immunologist railing about scientific freedom within the Covid space in Canada, to represent what is occurring in the climate space in the rest of the world if you so choose. The point about scientific freedom is very valid - is what’s happening in Canada ref covid representative of what’s happening elsewhere in the climate space though?

Genuine question, not sarcasm - why not use a climate example. Where is the meeting of opposing Climate Scientists coalescing to stand up for their contrary opinion on climate action - railing against scientific freedom in the climate space?

This is obviously were we diverge in our thinking and that’s ok. You appear to see the climate denier (for want of a better term) grouping of scientists to be equal in number and expertise to the climate consensus. Where is the proof of that?

I could post two dozen fact checks from reputable sources that put climate science consensus at really high levels - but what’s the point. Someone would throw up a single article to contradict that mountain of analysis. That said, I could not really find a legitimate example - maybe you can. I don’t know how else to answer your “WHICH f*cking scientists“ comment.




I’m not sure that is accurate - happy to be proved wrong without the need for me to re-read the entire thread. Is this the first time that you have ‘written what you believe’ in these terms? In fact, other than some in-depth science that Kommando posted, I’m not sure that anybody has directly addressed the where/how/why current climate science is flawed in any meaningful way at all - I may have missed it.

If governments are directly interfering with current climate science findings I’d love to see the evidence, any evidence. I really am open to being 100% wrong here and will gladly admit so if that is the case.

Maybe then I could come in from the cold and join the club, rather than being the pariah on the periphery of every conversation. It gets lonely out here you know and I’m drinking way more red wine than I should! Sniff!😢

Steve.
Click to expand...
You are not reading what people post Stephen, that is abundantly clear.

If you think it’s my job to re-read and re-post all the points that have been made that you have either missed or ignored, you are mistaken.
 
Fast Eddie said:
You are not reading what people post Stephen, that is abundantly clear.

If you think it’s my job to re-read and re-post all the points that have been made that you have either missed or ignored, you are mistaken.
Click to expand...
Fair enough FE - although I had re-read it; just trying to be conciliatory. Please ignore everything else I had to say - I’m quite sure that none of it was valid.

Who knew my (majority held) view would be so obviously wrong.

We’ll agree to dissagree as usual.

Steve.
 
Stephen_Spencer said:
Fair enough FE - although I had re-read it; just trying to be conciliatory. Please ignore everything else I had to say - I’m quite sure that none of it was valid.

Who knew my (majority held) view would be so obviously wrong.

We’ll agree to dissagree as usual.

Steve.
Click to expand...
To anyone seeking a career in passive aggressive behaviour
See above
 
baz said:
To anyone seeking a career in passive aggressive behaviour
See above
Click to expand...
Your passive-aggressometer is way off Baz. Just a bit of sarcasm.

I’m guessing that you alone have thrown much more than that in my direction.

No harm, no foul - just pub talk.

Steve
 
Stephen_Spencer said:
Fair enough FE - although I had re-read it; just trying to be conciliatory. Please ignore everything else I had to say - I’m quite sure that none of it was valid.

Who knew my (majority held) view would be so obviously wrong.

We’ll agree to dissagree as usual.

Steve.
Click to expand...
Indeed, we appear to be accusing each other of the same things, so have arrived at a stalemate situation. So time to move on.

FYI, one of my earlier comments was incorrect, some of the posts and arguments I referred to as being in this thread are not, they are in the other long similar thread.
 
Last edited:
"The Silence"
So @Stephen_Spencer has climate change or excessive CO2 in the atmosphere caused the excess deaths in Australia and around the world...remember you defended that science as well

"The Silence"

Last year, 20 to 25,000 more Aussies died compared to historical averages, bringing the nation’s death rate past 190,000. It was a surge of about 15 per cent compared to baseline mortality – normal variation in the excess death rate is only about 1 or 2 per cent.

"To Silence"
The death toll is evidently disturbing, but the federal government in Australia recently voted down an inquiry into the reasons behind the increase.???

 
KiwiShane said:
"The Silence"
So @Stephen_Spencer has climate change or excessive CO2 in the atmosphere caused the excess deaths in Australia and around the world...remember you defended that science as well

"The Silence"

Last year, 20 to 25,000 more Aussies died compared to historical averages, bringing the nation’s death rate past 190,000. It was a surge of about 15 per cent compared to baseline mortality – normal variation in the excess death rate is only about 1 or 2 per cent.

"To Silence"
The death toll is evidently disturbing, but the federal government in Australia recently voted down an inquiry into the reasons behind the increase.???

Click to expand...


The good doctor (or nurse I seem to remember) has an awesome business model peddling the latest covid ’facts’! You and I have discussed him before - would you like me to re-repost it - or just a handful of the many fact checks calling him out.

I’m sure he appreciates your support though and he is getting better at padding out his content and massaging the data to fit the needs of his followers. I’ve always liked the way he often pulls out bullet points onto his own document - that works well to remove context. Watch the last 30 secs again Shane; the key words are ‘his interpretation’.

For an ‘authority’ (well almost) he is very bashful about covering what is causing the excess deaths though - just innuendo. Not making the claim keeps the fact checkers, YouTube (and authorities?) at bay - clever.

Turn, look, see - I love his backdrop with sheep😄!

There have been excess deaths around the world - this Reuters document covers it reasonably well, although there are many (many) more if you want to ‘pop your head up’.

www.reuters.com

Fact Check-No evidence COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are significant contributing factor to UK’s 30,000 excess cardiovascular deaths

Millions of people have viewed a BBC News interview with a British cardiologist who used the broadcast to spread misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines.
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com

Steve
 
Stephen_Spencer said:
www.reuters.com

Fact Check-No evidence COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are significant contributing factor to UK’s 30,000 excess cardiovascular deaths

Millions of people have viewed a BBC News interview with a British cardiologist who used the broadcast to spread misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines.
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com

Steve
Click to expand...
"HEAD LINE"
Fact Check-No evidence COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are significant contributing factor to UK’s 30,000 excess cardiovascular deaths

Ok so can you ask your fact checkers since they know so much ...please explain what is causing the 30,000 UK excess deaths then ????
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top