twistedcrankcammer
-
Posts
5230 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
44
Content Type
Forums
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by twistedcrankcammer
-
-
14 minutes ago, Deang said:
The proof is in the observations and measurements. You know, science stuff.
You are FUNNY LOL
-
41 minutes ago, Deang said:
You would be wrong, on both counts.
Quit pissing and moaning and prove it then !!!
Show us Proven Scientific Fact that supports your claims ??
I call Bullshit !!
Roger
[Moderator Edit: there is a thread in here on Global Warming/Climate change, go find it and post about it in there]
-
4 hours ago, jimjimbo said:
What's really laughable are your statements which you purport to be facts. I'll be interested to compare your "facts" right now to your "facts" in 3 or 4 months.
So the best you can come up with is an unprovoked attack without the ability to defend your own view point or provide any viable proof to an alternative belief..... Sad !!.....
Roger
-
4 hours ago, 000 said:
There is flooding every year in the springs in Canada now , and in the west or the east of the country --------a few years ago -all changed
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/flooding-fort-mcmurray-insurance-financial-aid-1.5554403
Climate continually changes, nothing new to that. Where is the proof that it was caused by man and that is only a change in your miniscule window of your experience.
Where does it fit as change over eons ??
Roger
-
28 minutes ago, dwilawyer said:
That's the definition of a "theory" in the scientific realm.
Here is a common definition which includes why some get confused on terminology.
Theory of Special Relativity, Theory of Gravity, Theory of Plate Tectonics, Quantum Theory, etc.
"A scientific theory is a well-tested, broad explanation of a natural phenomenon. In everyday life, we often use the word theory to mean a hypothesis or educated guess, but a theory in the context of science is not simply a guess—it is an explanation based on extensive and repeated experimentation,"
True and if had said there is scientific evidence that supports Climate change, that would be a correct statement and I would say there is also scientific evidence that says otherwise which would also be true. But there is no scientific fact...
Roger
-
The Murder Hornet proves no match for the Praying Mantis...
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, Jeff Matthews said:
To be fair, we debated this topic ad nauseum many times. There is far less denial that the climate is changing as opposed to denials that it is changing due to man's carbon footprint. By the way, there really is no "climate." There are thousands of climates. Some change for the better.
As far as measuring the changes, measurements are as accurate as the methods used. Gathering data is a human process. For comparison, look how certain the scientific community is with Covid data.
Jeff,
Yes, but only a minute picture is available of the minute time that Humans have existed.
Surely not enough to draw concrete conclusions let alone incorrectly stating them as "Scientific Fact"
Somebody around here needs some basic science courses.
(not you)
Roger
-
2 minutes ago, jimjimbo said:
Oh good, the ignorance has returned… I was getting worried there for a minute.
Ok then Jimbo....
You provide the facts that are both proven and repeatable.
LMAO !!
-
-
7 minutes ago, Deang said:
Oh brother. You need to look up “falsification”.Dean,
Then Show me the facts that are both proven and repeatable... You can't.
Furthermore there are plenty of scientists who say both Global Warming and Climate change are Bullshit !
People with a lot more experience and credentials than your Googling.
But that wouldn't fit you narrative now would it ??
Roger
-
6 minutes ago, Deang said:
I have yet to hear of a climate scientist (or any scientist), that believes that.
You are no scientist though are you ???
Roger
-
4 minutes ago, Deang said:
@Jeff MatthewsYou really want to go in this direction?
I didn't advocate getting rid of anyone. I'm advocating the advancement of scientific facts. One of the ways you do that is through things like peer reviewed papers that get published. If you can't do that, it's basically bullshit, and needs to disappear.
Things like denying climate change and creationism are holding us back. You can't advance if you are constantly accommodating nonsense.
Dean,
You need to read up on the difference between "Scientific Fact" and "Scientific Theory"
A "Fact" is both proven and repeatable science.
The "FACTS" are that there are no true Scientific "FACTS" about "Global Warming or Climate Change", ONLY Theory...
Roger
-
7 minutes ago, Deang said:
Deniers should go next. I have yet to find one that can understand a simple middle school science experiment.
Don't tell me....... You are a "Flat Earther" too....
Roger
-
1 minute ago, Deang said:
We will have to disagree here. It's a novel virus that has the potential to wipe out millions. Any doctor who says different should have their medical license revoked.
I disagree with you.
Further more, a certain Governor of Michigan who threatened jail to any Doctor who prescribed Chloroquine should be incarcerated for it. She is not a medical professional and fully based her decision on politics, possibly endangering untold lives.
Roger
-
15 minutes ago, Jeff Matthews said:
9th Circuit Court of Appeals holds Youtube is not a public forum subject to First Amendment scrutiny. https://venturebeat.com/2020/02/27/google-defeats-conservative-groups-youtube-censorship-appeal/
They should still be put under scrutiny for providing Propaganda by controlling the narrative of a nation wide source of disinformation.
Roger
-
1
-
-
28 minutes ago, Jeff Matthews said:
Jeff,
I have two Doctors as my Facebook friends. I have two infectious disease specialists as friends also. My best man at my wedding 30 years ago is a micro biologist and owns his own Lab with several PhDs working for him. I have a Respiratory therapist that I went to College with about 24 years ago that won the best Reparatory therapist in the state of Ohio for all Ohio State Campuses that I am still Facebook friends with. I have a Physicians assistant of my friends list and at least more than a Dozen Nurses and also my wife who is an RN. I did not get this group of friends by being pleasant or kissing butt. I got them because I am intelligent and well versed on things we discuss. I currently have two separate threads that I have had for about a month or more brainstorming Covid-19 experiences and thoughts. I try to convey things I know and have been made aware of. I would never say allegedly on anything you or my brother stated about the law, though I might ask questions.... Please realize that anything I state here has been publicly vetted prior. My only incentive is to inform.
Roger
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Jeff Matthews said:
BTW, Carl's link to the video of Fauci's former employee is no good anymore. Youtube took down the video.
I knew they would ...
They are left leaning and NOT about free speech.
They want to control the narrative.
Roger
-
17 minutes ago, Jeff Matthews said:
From this article:
Surgical masks are loose pieces of fabric placed in front of the mouth and nose...
4. Do surgical masks prevent ordinary people from getting infected outside the healthcare setting?
The same review lists nine randomized trials with a different design: when the doctor diagnoses you with flu, she either asks everyone in your family to wear masks (experimental group), or doesn’t do that (control group), and then checks how many family members in each group got the flu.
How did these go? That depends whether you use intention-to-treat or per-protocol analysis. Intention-to-treat means that you just compare number of infections in the assigned-to-wear-masks group vs. the control group. Per-protocol means that you only count someone in the study if they actually followed directions. So if someone in the assigned-to-wear mask group didn’t wear their mask, you remove them from the study; if someone in the control group went rogue and did wear a mask, you remove them too.
Both of these methods have their pros and cons. Per protocol is good because if you’re trying to determine the effect of wearing a mask, you would really prefer to only be looking at subjects who actually wore a mask. But it has a problem: adherence to protocol is nonrandom. The people who follow your instructions diligently are selected for being diligent people. Maybe they also diligently wash their hands, and diligently practice social distancing. So once you go per protocol, you’re no longer a perfect randomized controlled trial. Only intention-to-treat analyses carry the full weight of a gold standard RCT.
According to intention-to-treat, the studies unanimously found masks to be useless. But there were a lot of signs that intention-to-treat wasn’t the right choice here. Only about a fifth of people who were asked to wear masks did so with any level of consistency. The rest wore the mask for a few hours and then get bored and took it off. Honestly, it’s hard to blame them; these studies asked a lot from families. If a husband has flu, and sleeps in the same bed as his wife, are they both wearing masks all night?
Of the three studies that added per-protocol analyses, all three found masks to be useful (1, 2, 3) . Does this prove masks work? Not 100%; per-protocol analyses are inherently confounded. But it sure is suggestive.
The review author summarizes:
The routine use of facemasks is not recommended by WHO, the CDC, or the ECDC in the community setting. However, the use of facemasks is recommended in crowded settings (such as public transport) and for those at high risk (older people, pregnant women, and those with a medical condition) during an outbreak or pandemic. A modelling study suggests that the use of face-masks in the community may help delay and contain a pandemic, although efficacy estimates were not based on RCT data. Community masks were protective during the SARS outbreaks, and about 76% of the population used a facemask in Hong Kong.
There is evidence that masks have efficacy in the community setting, subject to compliance [13] and early use [12, 18, 19]. It has been shown that compliance in the household setting decreases with each day of mask use, however, which makes long term use over weeks or months a challenge […]
Community RCTs suggest that facemasks provide protection against infection in various community settings, subject to compliance and early use. For health-care workers, the evidence suggests that respirators offer superior protection to facemasks.
Parts of this summary are infuriating. If the big organizations recommend that especially vulnerable groups wear masks, aren’t they admitting masks work? But if they’re admitting masks work, why don’t they recommend them for ordinary people?
It looks like they’re saying masks work a little, they’re too annoying for it to be worth it for normal people, but they might be worth it for the especially vulnerable. But then why don’t they just say masks work, and let each person decide how much annoyance is worthwhile? I’m not sure. But it looks like the author basically ends up in favor of community use of surgical masks in a pandemic, mostly on the basis of per-protocol analyses of community RCTs.
Jeff,
If someone is admitted to the Hospital and we know they have flu...
The yare placed in a negative pressure room if one is available and everyone wears N-95 masks, eye protection, gowns and gloves.
Roger
-
1
-
-
-
2
-
-
2 minutes ago, Deang said:
I wish they would stop calling the DIY stuff "masks" -- they are face coverings. A "mask" makes it sound like you are getting some measure of protection that you are just not getting.
Dean,
Hense my statement about the home made Coffee filter mask.
I don't believe for one minute that a Coffee filter that passes microscopic coffee pieces is going to not let Covid-19 virus pass, plus there is no way those are an air tight seal.
Roger
-
1 minute ago, billybob said:
But will they tell us how?
You mean like not explaining the difference between an N-95 mask and regular mask and when both should be used and why to the lay person ??
Roger
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, 000 said:
pretty soon , they will tell us to wear a shield
They should have.
You absolutely can catch this as an aerosol in your eyes.
Covid-19 is a Corona Virus, similar to the common cold, but supposedly more virulent.
Roger
-
1 minute ago, Deang said:
I was in the middle of editing my post because I began to think I misunderstood you. I thought you were inferring that only a live version of the pathogen would work, which isn't true.
Dean,
No, only meant that a live virus is the absolute best source of natural immunity and if getting Covid-19 wont protect you, a Vaccine never will.
Roger
-
7 minutes ago, billybob said:
So, I do not wear a mask outside here, only in stores. Know it helps to protect others but, getting some protection surely. Not completely
but some protection. Some percentage, 40,60, more...
And folks coming out now with
business reopening, guess I will be doing so indefinitely. Just so many differing information and opinion.
NOPE !!
Think of a mask as a filter here.
Are you getting ANY protection at all with filling up a bucket if there are so many holes that the bucket drains faster than you can fill it.
The ONLY one getting any kind of protection at all from you wearing a normal hospital mask or home made cloth mask is OTHER people, and that ONLY applies if you are infected.
Yes, your paper or cloth mask will stop big chunks of stuff coughed directly in your face, but unless you change that mask immediately, you are continually breathing in the evaporation of those chunks.
'
Not only are you getting absolutely limited protection from large chunks, but you are increasing your odds of infection by keeping those chunks in front of your face for hours.
Roger
-
1
-
Covid19 redux
in Lounge
Posted
Kind of mirrors aa lot I have said....
Roger