2023-05-28
Is the CO2 greenhouse effect saturated?
7 minutes ago (edited)
We have almost doubled the CO2 level already from the preindustrial level, and we aren't experiencing a 2 to 4 degree increase in temperature. Instead, we are looking at a 1 to 1.1-degree increase. The current rate of change is barely over 1/100th of a degree per year. Climate Alarmism depends upon as-of-yet unproven positive feedback effects, which likely exist, but we also have to factor in the negative feedback.
Right now we should be in the rapid cooling phase of the Milankovich Cycles and headed toward the next period of mass glaciation, except that those pesky humans have warmed the planet a tiny bit. Thank goodness for that.
2023-05-27
"I looked at the recent bird flu data, and now I'm really scared."
An elderly friend of mine in Salt Lake City died from the flu.
According to the video, there is no pandemic of the Bird Flu right now, but conditions are ripe for one to happen. It has infected animals close enough to humans for it to have the potential to spread to people.
The video claims that public officials are trying to prevent an outbreak. It would be good if we could avoid another pandemic.
2023-05-26
2023-05-25
2023-05-24
They Went With The Blindfold (Climate Alarmism)
This chart affirms what I have been saying for years...
2023-05-23
Ray Stevenson
Anyone who has seen the series "Rome" would probably be a fan of Ray Stevenson He passed away a couple of days ago at the age of 58 while filming in Italy. He has appeared in other shows and will be in the Star Wars Ahsoka series coming out in August.
2023-05-22
2023-05-21
Carlsen: Haven’t Studied Chess Recently; It Showed.
Paul Morphy was considerably better than his contemporaries. So was Bobby Fischer. Neither benefited from computers, databases, or modern opening theory. For this reason, it is harder to compare the skill level of their play with the level of the top current players.
Gary Kasparov was only a bit better than his contemporaries but remained World Champion for 15 years.
Magnus Carlsen is the closest thing to a perfect human chess player. He knows more about chess than anyone ever. He definitely would lose to a computer, but that would be like a math contest against a scientific calculator, or a boxing match with a brick wall. Computers really are perfect, or at least close enough that we can't tell the difference, whereas all humans make mistakes, including Magnus.
As good as Magnus is, he is only a bit better than his contemporaries. There are a number of players who are not far behind.
Bobby Fischer reportedly had an IQ of 180. He was incredibly brilliant. I have heard that Magnus Carlsen has an IQ of 190. He is also incredibly brilliant. I don't know how one quantifies the difference between 180 and 190, especially half a century apart.
Magnus Carlsen once admitted that he had to drink less to play chess well. I have seen him play speed chess online while apparently drunk but he still won because he can play intuitively almost perfect chess. I've seen Russian Grandmasters also win while drunk. So, therefore, I've been wondering if Magnus Carsen is an alcoholic.
In this interview, he looks more disheveled than usual. It is also a bit odd that he decided not to participate in the World Chess Championship, giving up the World Chess Champion title that he has held for ten years.
2023-05-20
2023-05-19
Your Brain Is Shaped Like Nobody Else’s - Nautilus
A growing body of research now confirms there are plenty of physical dissimilarities between individual brains, particularly when it comes to white matter—the material nestled beneath the much-prized gray matter. And it's not just anatomical. White matter hosts connections between the brain's sections, like a city's streets and avenues. So behavioral patterns can arise from even small physical differences in white matter, according to a late 2022 Science paperpenned by Forkel and a colleague.1
https://nautil.us/your-brain-is-shaped-like-nobody-elses-297950/
2023-05-17
John Durham’s Report and a Presidency in Crisis - WSJ
"Mr. Durham's findings will be old hat and ignored by a media that ignored such information even when it was new hat. Even to the most receptive audience, the news will be eclipsed by what has happened since. The Clinton campaign engaged in good, old-fashioned political smears, albeit helped by fellow travelers in the FBI. This new low in American politics has since been succeeded by the layer cake of falsehood cooked up by 51 former top intelligence officials, including three former leaders of the CIA, to flaunt a new fake Russia conspiracy to get Joe Biden elected.
Because of Mr. Durham's timing, you're reading an expurgated version of a column that would have noted that, in any universe where news reporting hadn't been corrupted by the need to appear anti-Trump, Mr. Biden's would be a presidency in crisis.
Even so, the news blackout can't conceal the suspicious details unearthed by congressional investigators about Biden family bank accounts, shell companies and transfers from shady foreign actors. It can't conceal that Mr. Biden may owe his presidency to a de facto U.S. intelligence agency operation to bamboozle voters about his son's laptop.
A Dixie-whistling press can't suppress a whopping factoid: Though Mr. Biden's likeliest opponent has been found liable for sexual assault, is under indictment for payoffs to a porn star, and soon may face various federal charges, Mr. Trump is still beating Mr. Biden in some national polls.
Last week's CNN town hall, despite much huffing and puffing, rightly frightens Democrats. It shows Mr. Trump ambulatory and energetic, qualities that no amount of pharmaceutical intervention can supply Mr. Biden.
For several days the New York Times featured prominently on its home page the headline "As Biden Runs Again, Black Voters' Frustration Bubbles." Mr. Biden thereupon ran off to frighten the graduating class of Howard University, who likely have their pick of job offers from name-brand employers, with imaginary white supremacists hiding under every bridge.
Outrage and mockery alternate when Russia characterizes its enemies in Ukraine as Nazis. But of course if the Putin regime characterized its Ukrainian opponents as they actually are, the Russian people might start questioning their own government. Mr. Biden engages in the same dodge with his constant invocations of white racism. Don't kid yourself. This is political desperation at work."
Because of Mr. Durham's timing, you're reading an expurgated version of a column that would have noted that, in any universe where news reporting hadn't been corrupted by the need to appear anti-Trump, Mr. Biden's would be a presidency in crisis.
Even so, the news blackout can't conceal the suspicious details unearthed by congressional investigators about Biden family bank accounts, shell companies and transfers from shady foreign actors. It can't conceal that Mr. Biden may owe his presidency to a de facto U.S. intelligence agency operation to bamboozle voters about his son's laptop.
A Dixie-whistling press can't suppress a whopping factoid: Though Mr. Biden's likeliest opponent has been found liable for sexual assault, is under indictment for payoffs to a porn star, and soon may face various federal charges, Mr. Trump is still beating Mr. Biden in some national polls.
Last week's CNN town hall, despite much huffing and puffing, rightly frightens Democrats. It shows Mr. Trump ambulatory and energetic, qualities that no amount of pharmaceutical intervention can supply Mr. Biden.
For several days the New York Times featured prominently on its home page the headline "As Biden Runs Again, Black Voters' Frustration Bubbles." Mr. Biden thereupon ran off to frighten the graduating class of Howard University, who likely have their pick of job offers from name-brand employers, with imaginary white supremacists hiding under every bridge.
Outrage and mockery alternate when Russia characterizes its enemies in Ukraine as Nazis. But of course if the Putin regime characterized its Ukrainian opponents as they actually are, the Russian people might start questioning their own government. Mr. Biden engages in the same dodge with his constant invocations of white racism. Don't kid yourself. This is political desperation at work."
2023-05-16
2023-05-15
2023-05-13
Oklahoma researchers find possible link between diet, MS | KFOR.com Oklahoma City
I'm not a doctor, so I am not giving medical advice. This needs more research.
2023-05-09
2023-05-08
2023-05-06
2023-05-05
2023-05-04
"76% of the people in Hong Kong who died of COVID were vaccinated"
There are problems with this idea. People in Hong Kong don't get the same vaccine as Americans. Most get the ineffective Chinese vaccine. You would have to compare the death rates with other people in the world.
The overall mortality rate in the United States among the unvaccinated has varied from 2 to 10 times as much.
How the ‘Unvaccinated’ Got It Right
https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/how-the-unvaccinated-got-it-right_5238208.html?utm_campaign=socialshare_email
I am disturbed by how every commentator on the political right has turned anti-COVID-vaccine to one degree or enough. While most are against the vaccine, some think it should only be given to the most vulnerable population because of reported vaccine risk.
The article cherry-picks its data and makes a number of false claims. It hits every anti-vaccine point that has come up over the last three years and relies on emotional language to make its points.
1. It is not true that the vaccinated die at a higher rate than the unvaccinated. The data shows so much the opposite that it takes extreme mental gymnastics to come to this conclusion.
The article points to data from the vaccine trial. The problem with this is that the vaccine trial was given to a wide range of people, including nursing home patients who might have died anyway, so any discussion of the death rate from the initial trial is not proof of anything. https://www.oregonlive.com/coronavirus/2021/08/no-more-vaccinated-people-didnt-die-from-covid-in-pfizers-vaccine-trial.html
There has been a ton of research after the initial trial. I have read a number of papers that support the safety and efficacy of the vaccines.
I saw one study that indicated that 1 out of a million people might die from the vaccine, usually people with comorbidities. This is roughly the same risk of death every time you get in a car. However, the disease has killed 1 out of 92 infected people in the United States, usually people with comorbidities. Young healthy people have also died from COVID. Nobody claims that the vaccine is perfectly safe, or effective, but the relative risk is much lower. One out of every 285 Americans has died from COVID. I lost a cousin to COVID.
The efficacy of the vaccine has changed as the disease has evolved. Because of this, many people claim that the government lied to us about the efficacy of the vaccine. Although the vaccine is now less effective at preventing the disease, the data shows that it is still 97% effective at preventing hospitalization and death.
2. It is not true that the vaccine is untested.
3. The vaccine was not tested for stopping the spread of the virus.
Although initially true, there wasn't time before the Emergency Use Authorization to determine whether the vaccine stopped the spread of the virus. Most commentators take this to mean that it doesn't. However, I have read more recent scientific studies that show that vaccinated people are much less likely to spread the disease.
If a member of your family has COVID, wouldn't you prefer that they be vaccinated? According to at least one study, the vaccinated are less likely to spread the disease to a family member.
4. The article claims that the vaccine mRNA might not be eliminated inside the body, without offering any proof, further making the unsupported claim that this could harm our health.
It is a well-known medical fact that mRNA is destroyed in less than a second after it is used. Your body is making and disposing of mRNA every microsecond.
Even if some of the vaccine mRNA stays around, there is no vehicle for the mRNA to enter other cells. The vaccine needs a lipid delivery mechanism to work. Once the mRNA enters the cell, it loses this mechanism.
5. The article claims that there are no long-term vaccine risk studies.
This is most likely true, although it depends upon what you mean by long-term. There have been more studies on the COVID disease and vaccination than any other disease.
"no long-term side effects have been detected. "
https://portal.ct.gov/vaccine-portal/Vaccine-Knowledge-Base/Articles/Long-Term-Effects?language=en_US
However, the long-term effects of the COVID disease have been severe, with about 11% of the infected getting "long covid". This can be life-threatening or completely debilitating.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpjGLLbWZJ0
6. The article claims that the government violated people's civil liberties and engaged in censorship, and this is a good reason to not get vaccinated.
The first part of this statement is true, but it would be like saying that because you live in communist China you should not get vaccinated. The efficacy and safety of the vaccine is a completely different issue from the oppressive nature of governments.
I am disturbed by how every commentator on the political right has turned anti-COVID-vaccine to one degree or enough. While most are against the vaccine, some think it should only be given to the most vulnerable population because of reported vaccine risk.
The article cherry-picks its data and makes a number of false claims. It hits every anti-vaccine point that has come up over the last three years and relies on emotional language to make its points.
1. It is not true that the vaccinated die at a higher rate than the unvaccinated. The data shows so much the opposite that it takes extreme mental gymnastics to come to this conclusion.
The article points to data from the vaccine trial. The problem with this is that the vaccine trial was given to a wide range of people, including nursing home patients who might have died anyway, so any discussion of the death rate from the initial trial is not proof of anything. https://www.oregonlive.com/coronavirus/2021/08/no-more-vaccinated-people-didnt-die-from-covid-in-pfizers-vaccine-trial.html
There has been a ton of research after the initial trial. I have read a number of papers that support the safety and efficacy of the vaccines.
I saw one study that indicated that 1 out of a million people might die from the vaccine, usually people with comorbidities. This is roughly the same risk of death every time you get in a car. However, the disease has killed 1 out of 92 infected people in the United States, usually people with comorbidities. Young healthy people have also died from COVID. Nobody claims that the vaccine is perfectly safe, or effective, but the relative risk is much lower. One out of every 285 Americans has died from COVID. I lost a cousin to COVID.
The efficacy of the vaccine has changed as the disease has evolved. Because of this, many people claim that the government lied to us about the efficacy of the vaccine. Although the vaccine is now less effective at preventing the disease, the data shows that it is still 97% effective at preventing hospitalization and death.
2. It is not true that the vaccine is untested.
3. The vaccine was not tested for stopping the spread of the virus.
Although initially true, there wasn't time before the Emergency Use Authorization to determine whether the vaccine stopped the spread of the virus. Most commentators take this to mean that it doesn't. However, I have read more recent scientific studies that show that vaccinated people are much less likely to spread the disease.
If a member of your family has COVID, wouldn't you prefer that they be vaccinated? According to at least one study, the vaccinated are less likely to spread the disease to a family member.
4. The article claims that the vaccine mRNA might not be eliminated inside the body, without offering any proof, further making the unsupported claim that this could harm our health.
It is a well-known medical fact that mRNA is destroyed in less than a second after it is used. Your body is making and disposing of mRNA every microsecond.
Even if some of the vaccine mRNA stays around, there is no vehicle for the mRNA to enter other cells. The vaccine needs a lipid delivery mechanism to work. Once the mRNA enters the cell, it loses this mechanism.
5. The article claims that there are no long-term vaccine risk studies.
This is most likely true, although it depends upon what you mean by long-term. There have been more studies on the COVID disease and vaccination than any other disease.
"no long-term side effects have been detected. "
https://portal.ct.gov/vaccine-portal/Vaccine-Knowledge-Base/Articles/Long-Term-Effects?language=en_US
However, the long-term effects of the COVID disease have been severe, with about 11% of the infected getting "long covid". This can be life-threatening or completely debilitating.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpjGLLbWZJ0
6. The article claims that the government violated people's civil liberties and engaged in censorship, and this is a good reason to not get vaccinated.
The first part of this statement is true, but it would be like saying that because you live in communist China you should not get vaccinated. The efficacy and safety of the vaccine is a completely different issue from the oppressive nature of governments.
2023-05-02
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)