goatfarmer

It can be linked to climate change if 'climate change' means whatever you want it to mean.

Seven (out of 9) in my household tested positive for covid a few weeks ago, all at the same time. None of them had had it before. All were vaccinated (sino+astra). They were all sick in various degrees from mild to moderate, but all of them were back on their feet within a week and tested negative five or six days after testing positive. No one was freaked out about it, as they would have been a couple of years ago. They just treated it like any other respiratory infection and waited for it to pass, which it did. Ok, this is just an anecdote, but it tends to suggest that Covid is no longer the emergency that it was when it started. It's spreading like wildfire because there is no widespread immunity, but it is not the threat that it was last year and the year before. Slowing down the spread now is only prolonging the agony and promoting fear. The sooner we all get it and get herd immunity the better. We can then find something else to freak out about.

Straw man. We've known for years that some diseases, like flu, can't be prevented by vaccines.

Two weeks ago, seven of my nine staff had covid. All of them had sailed through the previous two years without a sniffle. Some had mild symptoms, others suffered a bit, coughing and feverish. All of them were negative after a week and back to work, albeit not at full steam.

So if all of these questions have been addressed by climatologists and your man, Richard, is one of them, you should have a ready answer to my point. But you haven't. Instead of making a polite, rational, respectful, civilized, reply, we see, as is usual with alarmists, name calling, vague reference to an authority, ad hominem, and dummy- spitting rants. It's so ludicrous as to be almost satirical.

I wasn't addressing Richard Muller. You left that paragraph off without making a point.

Here we go. When the alarmists are challenged, it's 'hit the panic button', hurl abuse, anything but rational, civilized conversation.

Ok. We can make a point with confidence without spitting the dummy.

Difficult to take seriously such patronising conceit. "Do you really believe that the thousands upon thousands of data points captured daily won't overcome the statistical noise of the factors you've cited.?" Yes, volume does not remedy methodological flaws.

Good questions. 1. There is too much uncertainty to have an actionable number. There is no reliable set of data for the whole globe before the 1980s. Everything before that is patched from disparate sources. Patching introduces error. Errors compound. Even with the satellite record, the areas covered by each grid are something like 8x8sq km. Temperatures can change vastly over such distances, certainly more than 0.1C. If we want to make a global average temperature, fine, but not to 0.1C, as it currently is. Secondly, the average applies to nowhere in particular. Regions have their own climates with their own temperatures. The idea of a global average suggests a global trend. Alarmists would have us think that there is a single trend based on the uniformity of CO2 spreading in the atmosphere, but that is reductionist thinking and, as always in the case of a complex system, implausible. 2. I haven't seen any data, other than anecdotal. But the claim is plausible and easily explained by urban development. 25% of weather data collections are in cities. Urban development generates heat. Cities have been growing steadily in the last few decades. Inevitably, they will generate higher highs.

Well, it did say something like 0.65C. If that's not 'a bit of warming' I don't know what is?

So that's a yes, or a no?

I guess it's plausible if you have a big enough thermometer and it's properly calibrated. But we're not talking so much about the accuracy of thermometers. The issue is more one of accurately covering the globe and representing it to 0.1C, which is implausible, given the variability of temperature within short distances of a few meters. The lack of coverage in the 19th century and the 'merging' of various methods used to collect water samples back then, such as leather bags tossed over board, makes the enterprise dubious.

Sure. A bit of warming in the last few decades in some places. But this is an average of the globe, a dubious concept at best. It's not like a pot of water heating up on the stove, which is the way it's presented.

Yes, but will increasing the dye by 30% make a substantial difference?

If you read them critically, you'll come to the conclusion that the process of 'calibration' is just another example of magical thinking. Do you really believe it possible to determine the temperature for an interval of years, thousands of years ago, to 0.1C, from tree rings, sediment cores, coral or ice samples and then extrapolate a global average temperature to 0.1C from these few, disparate sites to the whole world? If so, you are not only conceited (in casting aspersions of 'willful(sic) ignorance' but credulous as well.

Why not? Alarmists would have us draw similar magical conclusions of the global temperature a century or two ago from the paltry data derived by a few random, desultory, clippers and steam ships patrolling a similar percentage of the 350m sq km of sea water that makes up the bulk of the earth's surface.

Nonetheless, it is a bit undignified calling someone a liar. This is the tactic employed by the alarmist mob when they disagree with you. If you disagree you must be lying because everyone knows they are right: a bit self-serving. There are more dignified ways of disagreeing with someone.

Fair point. Even if the claim were true for the particular satellite, there was a major change from infrared to microwave sea surface temperature measurement which meant that data had to be 'merged', or in lay language, 'fixed'. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10872-005-5782-5 Similarly, Nasa explains how its data is "... quality controlled, calibrated, remapped and merged to provide nearly Global coverage of equal-angle uniform observations." https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/metadata/landing-page/bin/iso?id=gov.noaa.ncdc:C00830 Sounds like a lot of 'fixing' of data.

... after it was fixed. The 1990 IPCC chart tells a far different picture. https://climateaudit.org/2012/10/09/the-afterlife-of-ipcc-1990-figure-7-1/

And you have data from across the globe to support such a bold claim?

Like is for the first observation: fired for not getting vaccinated. I wonder if they are a significant proportion of the deficit?

1. The more of us get vaccinated the weaker the virus will be doesn't follow. Some will have natural immunity. 2. Everyday life will only be disrupted if you let it be disrupted. Sitting here in Greece, there are very few people wearing masks, restaurants are full and covid seems to be the last thing on people's minds. 3. Offit and TWIV are very authoritative sources. I will listen to the one you mentioned. Thanks for that. 4. BA.5 may be a different subvariant but it's still omicron. If you've had omicron recently you should still have antibody protection. "The body's antibodies" is a misnomer. Antibodies are variant specific. I recommend listening to Monica Ghandi on one of Peter Attia's The Drive podcast. She explains how T cells created after an infection with any variant will create antibodies for any other variant. That takes time - maybe a week, so it won't prevent getting sick, but it should prevent the more severe outcomes. This might be the link to the Monica Ghandi interview: https://peterattiamd.com/covid-part2/ It was a while ago.

The question is, "Is it a public health emergency?"

Great click bait. Remarkable how many punters, ignorant of basic market principles, fell for it. There is no way this is going to happen. The market is too free and the hoteliers are too clever to implement such a silly scheme.