Climate deniers don't deny climate change any more

So how will you power the Earth when the fossil fuels are depleted?

 

Why do you love lying and cheating to get your way?

Drop the subsidies and government mandates that your side created and let the chips fall where they may. Make your case and let people decide for themselves if they want to buy what you're trying to sell.

It's really just that simple.

 

And when do you think that will be?

 

If you are going to make unsubstantiated claims about vaccines you need to do some research.

If you are unable to substantiate your claim a virus in your body constitutes an infection, you have conceded that you are the one who doesn’t understand how viruses work.

Just for fun, how can we (those of us who understand virology and immunology) quantify something you say doesn’t exist (prevention of infection)?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8863502/

 

So how will Earth be powered when they are depleted?

 

Bye Bye.
You obviously know nothing about how vaccines work.

 

???? Id say the departure from that correlation between CO2 and temperature in the last 100 years shows manmade CO2 has minimal effect. Weve had a 50% increase in CO2 with a 1 degree temperature increase

 

What Id says doesn't change the strong correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures.

 

Sure. Obviously the guy who understands how neutralizing antibodies produced by natural infection and vaccination prevent attachment of viruses to human cells and entrance to those cells by viral genetic material necessary to viral replication is the one who knows nothing about how vaccines work. The guy who believes resident gut bacteria are an infection is obviously the one who understands the difference between infection, residency, and disease.

The guy who presents peer reviewed research quantifying protection against INFECTION with SARS-CoV-2 after vaccination is the one who doesn’t understand how vaccines work. The guy who claims vaccines don’t prevent what peer reviewed research can quantify is obviously the one who understands virology.

I accept your concession that your posts on vaccines are your unsubstantiated personal opinions that can not be supported by evidence. I accept your concession that your unsubstantiated opinions conflict with peer reviewed research.

Come on over Monday. I’ll be administering around 350 doses of three different vaccines that prevent infection and severe diseases from over a dozen pathogens, both viral and bacterial. I’ll fill you in on how vaccines work.

 

Already posted. Repeated here as a courtesy.
Marcott, S.A., et al., 2013. A reconstruction of regional and global temperature for the past 11,300 years. science, 339 (6124), pp.1198-1201.

 

So how high will the global temperatures rise in the next 100 years from the manmade increase in atmospheric CO2 ?

 

And when do you think that will be?

 

And doesn't change the very strong correlation between global temperatures and atmospheric CO2.
So how high will the global temperatures rise in the next 100 years from the increase in manmade atmospheric CO2?

 

In a blink of an eye compared to the age of Earth.

 

No you are not. Assuming some are Covid vaccines.

 

Correlation is not causation, and please note that CO2 lags temperature; it does not lead it.

 

Which, here on the actual Earth, is meaningless. So what's the rush?

 

Are you missing the dramatic rise in CO2 in your lifetime on the far right of the graph and the absence of temperature rise? Id say recent history has CLEARLY demonstrated that the correlation between temperature and CO2 ONLY applies to naturally produce CO2

 

None will be Covid vaccines. I only give coronavirus vaccines to select newborn calves. Usually based on genetic predisposition to severe disease or calves whose immune system is compromised by being twins etc.

Covid vaccines are not particularly good at preventing infection, but they do prevent infection for a period of time in a percentage of recipients.

The definition of “vaccine” has had to evolve over time. Not all vaccines come from “cowpox” as it was originally believed the first “vaccine” was derived from. Actually, the first smallpox “vaccines” were more genetically related to horsepox virus than actual cowpox virus. So the term “vaccine” didn’t even start out as a perfect representation of what it attempted to describe.


The term evolved when modified live vaccines were developed. It evolved when subunit vaccines were developed. When toxoid vaccines were developed. When mRNA and other gene therapies were adapted to use as vaccines. It will evolve again when something new neither of us can conceive of is developed that can elicit an immune response and acquired immunity through the adaptive immune system without causing severe disease in the process.

 

No. The definition of vaccine was changed to match what was being sold as a Covid "vaccine"

 

Of course. That’s how it’s always been. That’s the history of advances in vaccine technology.

 

From ACIP's charter in 1964 until 2021 vaccines provided immunity to disease.

 

What did you think the term “immunity” meant if not “stimulate the body's immune response against diseases”?

I don’t see the conflict. Did you believe immunity means 100% prevention of infection? No vaccine has ever achieved that.

Immunity has always, does, and will always mean protection from specific disease.

 

Why keep repeating the same proved-false claims after you have seen them proved false multiple times?

 

Sorry, that is both a completely true statement, and a completely silly one at the same time.

That is like saying there is enough water to quench the thirst of the entire world. A completely true statement, and a completely silly one.

Just spouting off nonsense like that is kinda like whistling in the dark.