Very authoritative summary of environmental influences strongly associated with the development of cancers that are exacerbated by climate change.

https://www.ilcn.org/global-warming-covid-19-and-lung-cancer-why-lung-cancer-doctors-should-care-about-climate-change/

Global Warning: 10 Ways Climate Change Increases Rates of Lung Cancer

https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/ss/global-warning-ways-climate-change-increases-lung-cancer

On Tuesday, 16 August 2022 at 17:45:57 UTC+2, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> Very authoritative summary of environmental influences strongly associated with the development of cancers that are exacerbated by climate change.
>
> https://www.ilcn.org/global-warming-covid-19-and-lung-cancer-why-lung-cancer-doctors-should-care-about-climate-change/
>
> Global Warning: 10 Ways Climate Change Increases Rates of Lung Cancer
>
> https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/ss/global-warning-ways-climate-change-increases-lung-cancer
gobal warming is an old fake

-Huge Twin Sun Coronary Mass Ejection is aproaching the Earth
7 views
Subscribe
a a’s profile photo
a a
11:11 (6 hours ago)
to
-A CANNIBAL CME IS COMING: On Aug. 14th, a dark plasma eruption hurled one CME toward Earth. On Aug. 15th, an exploding magnetic filament launched another one right behind it. The two CMEs will arrive together on Aug.18th, according to the latest forecast model from NOAA:

-This could be a "Cannibal CME" event. In other words, the second CME might overtake and gobble up the first, creating a mish-mash of the two. Cannibal CMEs contain tangled magnetic fields and compressed plasmas that can spark strong geomagnetic storms.

-In this case, NOAA forecasters expect G1 (minor) to G2-class (moderate) geomagnetic storms. During such storms naked-eye auroras can descend into the USA as far south as New York and Idaho (geomagnetic latitude 55 degrees).

On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 11:57:47 AM UTC-4, a a wrote:
> On Tuesday, 16 August 2022 at 17:45:57 UTC+2, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > Very authoritative summary of environmental influences strongly associated with the development of cancers that are exacerbated by climate change.
> >
> > https://www.ilcn.org/global-warming-covid-19-and-lung-cancer-why-lung-cancer-doctors-should-care-about-climate-change/
> >
> > Global Warning: 10 Ways Climate Change Increases Rates of Lung Cancer
> >
> > https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/ss/global-warning-ways-climate-change-increases-lung-cancer
> gobal warming is an old fake
>
>
> -Huge Twin Sun Coronary Mass Ejection is aproaching the Earth
> 7 views
> Subscribe
> a a’s profile photo
> a a
> 11:11 (6 hours ago)
> to
> -A CANNIBAL CME IS COMING: On Aug. 14th, a dark plasma eruption hurled one CME toward Earth. On Aug. 15th, an exploding magnetic filament launched another one right behind it. The two CMEs will arrive together on Aug.18th, according to the latest forecast model from NOAA:
>
> -This could be a "Cannibal CME" event. In other words, the second CME might overtake and gobble up the first, creating a mish-mash of the two. Cannibal CMEs contain tangled magnetic fields and compressed plasmas that can spark strong geomagnetic storms.
>
> -In this case, NOAA forecasters expect G1 (minor) to G2-class (moderate) geomagnetic storms. During such storms naked-eye auroras can descend into the USA as far south as New York and Idaho (geomagnetic latitude 55 degrees)..

Unfortunately, the increasing rates of disease aren't tracking very well with your cyclic "coronary" ejections, they're steadily increasing.

On Tuesday, 16 August 2022 at 18:01:19 UTC+2, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 11:57:47 AM UTC-4, a a wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 16 August 2022 at 17:45:57 UTC+2, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > Very authoritative summary of environmental influences strongly associated with the development of cancers that are exacerbated by climate change.
> > >
> > > https://www.ilcn.org/global-warming-covid-19-and-lung-cancer-why-lung-cancer-doctors-should-care-about-climate-change/
> > >
> > > Global Warning: 10 Ways Climate Change Increases Rates of Lung Cancer
> > >
> > > https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/ss/global-warning-ways-climate-change-increases-lung-cancer
> > gobal warming is an old fake
> >
> >
> > -Huge Twin Sun Coronary Mass Ejection is aproaching the Earth
> > 7 views
> > Subscribe
> > a a’s profile photo
> > a a
> > 11:11 (6 hours ago)
> > to
> > -A CANNIBAL CME IS COMING: On Aug. 14th, a dark plasma eruption hurled one CME toward Earth. On Aug. 15th, an exploding magnetic filament launched another one right behind it. The two CMEs will arrive together on Aug.18th, according to the latest forecast model from NOAA:
> >
> > -This could be a "Cannibal CME" event. In other words, the second CME might overtake and gobble up the first, creating a mish-mash of the two. Cannibal CMEs contain tangled magnetic fields and compressed plasmas that can spark strong geomagnetic storms.
> >
> > -In this case, NOAA forecasters expect G1 (minor) to G2-class (moderate) geomagnetic storms. During such storms naked-eye auroras can descend into the USA as far south as New York and Idaho (geomagnetic latitude 55 degrees).
> Unfortunately, the increasing rates of disease aren't tracking very well with your cyclic "coronary" ejections, they're steadily increasing.
kiss my as

coronary mass ejection
is my definition of the subset of CMEs, targeting the Earth,
as accepted by NASA, ESA, NOAA

https://www.spaceweather.com/

as described above

nothing wrong since globally accepted

On Tue, 16 Aug 2022 08:45:53 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

>Very authoritative summary of environmental influences strongly associated with the development of cancers that are exacerbated by climate change.
>
>https://www.ilcn.org/global-warming-covid-19-and-lung-cancer-why-lung-cancer-doctors-should-care-about-climate-change/
>
>Global Warning: 10 Ways Climate Change Increases Rates of Lung Cancer
>
>https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/ss/global-warning-ways-climate-change-increases-lung-cancer

What nonsense.

Less wood and dung burning to keep warm, less indoor particulates that
cause cancer. That's real.

Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote in
news:e8c695a5-c336-422a-b072-04bae250bc15n@googlegroups.com:

> Very authoritative summary of environmental influences strongly
> associated with the development of cancers that are exacerbated by
> climate change.
>
> https://www.ilcn.org/global-warming-covid-19-and-lung-cancer-why-lu
> ng-cancer-doctors-should-care-about-climate-change/
>
> Global Warning: 10 Ways Climate Change Increases Rates of Lung
> Cancer
>
> https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/ss/global-warning-ways-climate-ch
> ange-increases-lung-cancer
>

There was an article in Playboy back in the '70s. I was a kid then and
I actually used to read the articles. Well, they had one and one of
the Playboy artists made a rendering of what man would evolve to look
like in a polluted world. He did some weird thing with his nostrils.
I wonder if I can find it...

a a <manta103g@gmail.com> wrote in news:ff185721-986c-43c6-861a-
8cfe15d0b012n@googlegroups.com:

> -Huge Twin Sun Coronary Mass Ejection is aproaching the Earth

GO AWAY, IDIOT CHILD.

a a <manta103g@gmail.com> wrote in news:cd7b1777-7721-4c39-b216-
a3b1b8d3c9cen@googlegroups.com:

> targeting the Earth,

Oh boy! They're alive!

Targeting the Earth!

On Tuesday, 16 August 2022 at 21:57:49 UTC+2, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
> a a <mant...@gmail.com> wrote in news:ff185721-986c-43c6-861a-
> 8cfe15...@googlegroups.com:
> > -Huge Twin Sun Coronary Mass Ejection is aproaching the Earth
kis my as

On Tuesday, 16 August 2022 at 21:59:33 UTC+2, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
> a a <mant...@gmail.com> wrote in news:cd7b1777-7721-4c39-b216-
> a3b1b8...@googlegroups.com:
>
> > targeting the Earth,
>
> Oh boy! They're alive!
>
> Targeting the Earth!
CMEs resemble human's heart

--A CANNIBAL CME IS COMING: On Aug. 14th, a dark plasma eruption hurled one CME toward Earth. On Aug. 15th, an exploding magnetic filament launched another one right behind it. The two CMEs will arrive together on Aug.18th, according to the latest forecast model from NOAA:

Call NOAA if you have more questions

https://www.spaceweather.com/

Coronary is a good and smart term for the desctiption of the Sun's heart beat

====
Coronary Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coronary

coronary: [adjective] of, relating to, resembling, or being a crown or coronal.
Coronary - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronary

Overview
As adjective

Coronary (from Latin Corona 'Crown') may, as shorthand in English, be used to mean:
• Coronary circulation, the system of arteries and veins in mammals
Wikipedia ·CC-BY-SA
Coronary artery disease - Symptoms and causes
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/...

25.05.2022 · Coronary artery disease, also called CAD, is a condition that affects your heart. It is the most common heart disease in the United States. CAD happens when coronary arteries struggle to supply the heart with enough …

Coronary Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coronary

coronary: [adjective] of, relating to, resembling, or being a crown or coronal.
Coronary - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronary

Overview
As adjective

Coronary (from Latin Corona 'Crown') may, as shorthand in English, be used to mean:
• Coronary circulation, the system of arteries and veins in mammals
Wikipedia CC-BY-SA
Coronary artery disease - Symptoms and causes
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/...

25.05.2022 · Coronary artery disease, also called CAD, is a condition that affects your heart. It is the most common heart disease in the United States. CAD happens when coronary arteries struggle to supply the heart with enough …

On 8/16/2022 12:01 PM, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 11:57:47 AM UTC-4, a a wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 16 August 2022 at 17:45:57 UTC+2, Fred Bloggs wrote:
>>> Very authoritative summary of environmental influences strongly associated with the development of cancers that are exacerbated by climate change.
>>>
>>> https://www.ilcn.org/global-warming-covid-19-and-lung-cancer-why-lung-cancer-doctors-should-care-about-climate-change/
>>>
>>> Global Warning: 10 Ways Climate Change Increases Rates of Lung Cancer
>>>
>>> https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/ss/global-warning-ways-climate-change-increases-lung-cancer
>> gobal warming is an old fake
>>
>>
>> -Huge Twin Sun Coronary Mass Ejection is aproaching the Earth
>> 7 views
>> Subscribe
>> a a’s profile photo
>> a a
>> 11:11 (6 hours ago)
>> to
>> -A CANNIBAL CME IS COMING: On Aug. 14th, a dark plasma eruption hurled one CME toward Earth. On Aug. 15th, an exploding magnetic filament launched another one right behind it. The two CMEs will arrive together on Aug.18th, according to the latest forecast model from NOAA:
>>
>> -This could be a "Cannibal CME" event. In other words, the second CME might overtake and gobble up the first, creating a mish-mash of the two. Cannibal CMEs contain tangled magnetic fields and compressed plasmas that can spark strong geomagnetic storms.
>>
>> -In this case, NOAA forecasters expect G1 (minor) to G2-class (moderate) geomagnetic storms. During such storms naked-eye auroras can descend into the USA as far south as New York and Idaho (geomagnetic latitude 55 degrees).
>
>
> Unfortunately, the increasing rates of disease aren't tracking very well with your cyclic "coronary" ejections, they're steadily increasing.

a a is a fake. Or a fuck.

On Tuesday, 16 August 2022 at 22:31:27 UTC+2, John S wrote:
> On 8/16/2022 12:01 PM, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 11:57:47 AM UTC-4, a a wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, 16 August 2022 at 17:45:57 UTC+2, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> >>> Very authoritative summary of environmental influences strongly associated with the development of cancers that are exacerbated by climate change.
> >>>
> >>> https://www.ilcn.org/global-warming-covid-19-and-lung-cancer-why-lung-cancer-doctors-should-care-about-climate-change/
> >>>
> >>> Global Warning: 10 Ways Climate Change Increases Rates of Lung Cancer
> >>>
> >>> https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/ss/global-warning-ways-climate-change-increases-lung-cancer
> >> gobal warming is an old fake
> >>
> >>
> >> -Huge Twin Sun Coronary Mass Ejection is aproaching the Earth
> >> 7 views
> >> Subscribe
> >> a a’s profile photo
> >> a a
> >> 11:11 (6 hours ago)
> >> to
> >> -A CANNIBAL CME IS COMING: On Aug. 14th, a dark plasma eruption hurled one CME toward Earth. On Aug. 15th, an exploding magnetic filament launched another one right behind it. The two CMEs will arrive together on Aug.18th, according to the latest forecast model from NOAA:
> >>
> >> -This could be a "Cannibal CME" event. In other words, the second CME might overtake and gobble up the first, creating a mish-mash of the two. Cannibal CMEs contain tangled magnetic fields and compressed plasmas that can spark strong geomagnetic storms.
> >>
> >> -In this case, NOAA forecasters expect G1 (minor) to G2-class (moderate) geomagnetic storms. During such storms naked-eye auroras can descend into the USA as far south as New York and Idaho (geomagnetic latitude 55 degrees).
> >
> >

In my theory, the Sun resembles a living being that pulsates like a heart,
ejecting Bs of tons of high temp plasma, toward the Earth, called Coronary Mass Ejections

since coronary flares match human's heart circulation

==

Coronary circulation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Coronary circulation
Coronary arteries.svg
Coronary arteries labeled in red text and other landmarks in blue text.
Identifiers
MeSH D003326
Anatomical terminology
[edit on Wikidata]

Coronary circulation is the circulation of blood in the blood vessels that supply the heart muscle (myocardium). Coronary arteries supply oxygenated blood to the heart muscle. Cardiac veins then drain away the blood after it has been deoxygenated. Because the rest of the body, and most especially the brain, needs a steady supply of oxygenated blood that is free of all but the slightest interruptions, the heart is required to function continuously.. Therefore its circulation is of major importance not only to its own tissues but to the entire body and even the level of consciousness of the brain from moment to moment. Interruptions of coronary circulation quickly cause heart attacks (myocardial infarctions), in which the heart muscle is damaged by oxygen starvation. Such interruptions are usually caused by coronary ischemia linked to coronary artery disease, and sometimes to embolism from other causes like obstruction in blood flow through vessels.
Contents

1 Structure
1.1 Anastomoses
1.2 Variation
1.2.1 Coronary artery dominance
2 Function
2.1 Supply to papillary muscles
2.2 Changes in diastole
2.3 Changes in oxygen demand
3 Branches
4 Coronary anatomy
4.1 Cardiac veins
4.2 Coronary arteries
5 Additional images
6 See also
7 References

Structure
Schematic diagram of the coronary arteries and veins.
Schematic view of the heart
An anterior left coronary artery.
Base and diaphragmatic surface of heart.

Coronary arteries supply blood to the myocardium and other components of the heart. Two coronary arteries originate from the left side of the heart at the beginning (root) left ventricle. There are three aortic sinuses (dilations) in the wall of the aorta just superior to the aortic semilunar valve. Two of these, the left posterior aortic sinus and anterior aortic sinus, give rise to the left and right coronary arteries, respectively. The third sinus, the right posterior aortic sinus, typically does not give rise to a vessel. Coronary vessel branches that remain on the surface of the heart and follow the sulci of the heart are called epicardial coronary arteries.[1]

The left coronary artery distributes blood to the left side of the heart, the left atrium and ventricle, and the interventricular septum. The circumflex artery arises from the left coronary artery and follows the coronary sulcus to the left. Eventually, it will fuse with the small branches of the right coronary artery. The larger anterior interventricular artery, also known as the left anterior descending artery (LAD), is the second major branch arising from the left coronary artery. It follows the anterior interventricular sulcus around the pulmonary trunk. Along the way it gives rise to numerous smaller branches that interconnect with the branches of the posterior interventricular artery, forming anastomoses. An anastomosis is an area where vessels unite to form interconnections that normally allow blood to circulate to a region even if there may be partial blockage in another branch. The anastomoses in the heart are very small. Therefore, this ability is somewhat restricted in the heart so a coronary artery blockage often results in myocardial infarction causing death of the cells supplied by the particular vessel.[1]

The right coronary artery proceeds along the coronary sulcus and distributes blood to the right atrium, portions of both ventricles, and the heart conduction system. Normally, one or more marginal arteries arise from the right coronary artery inferior to the right atrium. The marginal arteries supply blood to the superficial portions of the right ventricle. On the posterior surface of the heart, the right coronary artery gives rise to the posterior interventricular artery, also known as the posterior descending artery. It runs along the posterior portion of the interventricular sulcus toward the apex of the heart, giving rise to branches that supply the interventricular septum and portions of both ventricles.[1]
Anastomoses
Cast of coronary arteries (right = yellow, left = red)

There are some anastomoses between branches of the two coronary arteries. However the coronary arteries are functionally end arteries and so these meetings are referred to as potential anastomoses, which lack function, as opposed to true anastomoses like that in the palm of the hand. This is because blockage of one coronary artery generally results in death of the heart tissue due to lack of sufficient blood supply from the other branch. When two arteries or their branches join, the area of the myocardium receives dual blood supply. These junctions are called anastomoses. If one coronary artery is obstructed by an atheroma, the second artery is still able to supply oxygenated blood to the myocardium. However, this can only occur if the atheroma progresses slowly, giving the anastomoses a chance to proliferate.[citation needed]

Under the most common configuration of coronary arteries, there are three areas of anastomoses. Small branches of the LAD (left anterior descending/anterior interventricular) branch of the left coronary join with branches of the posterior interventricular branch of the right coronary in the interventricular sulcus (groove). More superiorly, there is an anastomosis between the circumflex artery (a branch of the left coronary artery) and the right coronary artery in the atrioventricular groove. There is also an anastomosis between the septal branches of the two coronary arteries in the interventricular septum. The photograph shows area of heart supplied by the right and the left coronary arteries.[citation needed]
Variation

The left and right coronary arteries occasionally arise by a common trunk, or their number may be increased to three; the additional branch being the posterior coronary artery (which is smaller in size). In rare cases, a person will have the third coronary artery run around the root of the aorta.[citation needed]

Occasionally, a coronary artery will exist as a double structure (i.e. there are two arteries, parallel to each other, where ordinarily there would be one).[citation needed]
Coronary artery dominance

The artery that supplies the posterior third of the interventricular septum – the posterior descending artery (PDA)[2] determines the coronary dominance.[3]

If the posterior descending artery is supplied by the right coronary artery (RCA), then the coronary circulation can be classified as "right-dominant."
If the posterior descending artery is supplied by the circumflex artery (CX), a branch of the left artery, then the coronary circulation can be classified as "left-dominant."
If the posterior descending artery is supplied by both the right coronary artery and the circumflex artery, then the coronary circulation can be classified as "co-dominant."

Approximately 70% of the general population are right-dominant, 20% are co-dominant, and 10% are left-dominant.[3] A precise anatomic definition of dominance would be the artery which gives off supply to the AV node i.e. the AV nodal artery. Most of the time this is the right coronary artery.[citation needed]
Function
Supply to papillary muscles

a a <manta103g@gmail.com> wrote in news:dba826a5-40c1-4b1c-ba6b-
9fd3fc7cd16cn@googlegroups.com:

> From: a a <manta103g@gmail.com>

Snipped obsessed idiot rants.

On Wednesday, 17 August 2022 at 19:49:12 UTC+2, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
thank you for your support

--Sun resembles a living being that pulsates like a human's heart,
ejecting Bs of tons of high temp plasma, toward the Earth, called Coronary Mass Ejections

since coronary flares match human's heart coronary circulation

https://www.spaceweather.com/

-THE IMPACTS HAVE BEGUN: A minor CME hit Earth's magnetic field on Aug. 17th (0303 UT). It could be the first of several CME strikes in the days ahead.. NOAA forecasters say their cumulative effect could cause strong G3-class geomagnetic storms, especially on Aug. 18-19. During such storms naked-eye auroras can descend into the USA as far south as Illinois and Oregon (geomagnetic latitude 50 degrees). Cameras with sensitive night-sky settings may record auroras even farther south than tha

On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:45:57 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> Very authoritative summary of environmental influences strongly associated with the development of cancers that are exacerbated by climate change.
>
> https://www.ilcn.org/global-warming-covid-19-and-lung-cancer-why-lung-cancer-doctors-should-care-about-climate-change/
>
> Global Warning: 10 Ways Climate Change Increases Rates of Lung Cancer
>
> https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/ss/global-warning-ways-climate-change-increases-lung-cancer

The statement "Ninety-seven percent or more of climate scientists say that human-caused climate change is happening" is totally bogus and is a manufactured number with no validity whatsoever.

On Thursday, 18 August 2022 at 05:35:21 UTC+2, Flyguy wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:45:57 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > Very authoritative summary of environmental influences strongly associated with the development of cancers that are exacerbated by climate change.
> >
> > https://www.ilcn.org/global-warming-covid-19-and-lung-cancer-why-lung-cancer-doctors-should-care-about-climate-change/
> >
> > Global Warning: 10 Ways Climate Change Increases Rates of Lung Cancer
> >
> > https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/ss/global-warning-ways-climate-change-increases-lung-cancer
> The statement "Ninety-seven percent or more of climate scientists say that human-caused climate change is happening" is totally bogus and is a manufactured number with no validity whatsoever.

Barack is a shame for America
just read
----
Climate change: Mr. Obama, 97 percent of experts is a bogus number
By Richard Tol , | Fox News

Facebook
Twitter
Flipboard
Comments
Print
Email

FILE -- May 27, 2015: President Obama walks up the stairs of Air Force One. AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais

FILE -- May 27, 2015: President Obama walks up the stairs of Air Force One. AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: Climate change is real, man-made and dangerous. President Obama tweeted that, and it has been repeated by countless others. It is tempting for a politician to claim that 97 percent of experts agree with you. But do they?

The 97 percent claim was taken from a study paper by Australian John Cook, Climate Communications Fellow for the Global change Institute at the University of Queensland, and his colleagues, published in the journal Environmental Research Letters in May, 2013. The paper says nothing about the would-be dangers of climate change and it counts the number of publications, rather than the number of scientists, in support of human-made climate change. Never let facts get in the way of a good story.

The paper is a treasure trove of how-not-to lessons for a graduate class on survey design and analysis: the sample was not representative, statistical tests were ignored, and the results were misinterpreted.

What was an incompetent piece of research has become a highly influential study, its many errors covered up.

Some of the mistakes in the study should be obvious to all. There are hundreds of papers on the causes of climate change, and thousands of papers on the impacts of climate change and climate policy. Cook focused on the latter.. A paper on the impact of a carbon tax on emissions was taken as evidence that the world is warming. A paper on the impact of climate change on the Red Panda was taken as evidence that humans caused this warming. And even a paper on the television coverage of climate change was seen by Cook as proof that carbon dioxide is to blame.

Cook and Co. analysed somewhere between 11,944 and 12,876 papers – they can’t get their story straight on the sample size – but only 64 of these explicitly state that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming. A reexamination of their data brought that number down to 41. That is half a per cent or less of the total, rather than 97 percent.

The remainder of Cook’s “evidence” is papers that said that humans caused some climate change and, more importantly, papers that Cook’s colleagues thought said as much.

There is vigorous debate about how much humans have contributed to climate change, but no one argues the effect is zero. By emitting greenhouse gases, changing the landscape, rerouting rivers, and huddling together in cities, we change the climate – perhaps by a little, perhaps by a lot – but not one expert doubts we do. However, a true consensus – 100 per cent agreement – does not serve to demonize those experts who raise credible concerns with the state of climate research.

The trouble does not end there. Cook has been reluctant to share his data for others to scrutinize. He has claimed that some data are protected by confidentiality agreements, even when they are not. He was claimed that some data were not collected, even when they were. The paper claims that each abstract was read by two independent readers, but they freely compared notes. Cook and Co. collected data, inspected the results, collected more data, inspected the results again, changed their data classification, collected yet more data, inspected the results once more, and changed their data classification again, before they found their magic 97 percent. People who express concern about the method have been smeared.

We would hope that the president of the United States of America does not spend time checking such trivia. That is the job of the editor of the journal, Dan Kammen of the University of California at Berkeley, who unfortunately has chosen to ignore all issues I and others raised about them. Similarly, the journal’s publisher, the Institute of Physics, and Cook’s employer, the University of Queensland, have turned a deaf ear to my concerns. What was an incompetent piece of research has become a highly influential study, its many errors covered up.

And for what? If Cook’s results are to be believed, 97 percent of experts agree that climate change is real and largely human-made. This does not tell us anything about the risks of climate change, let alone how these compare to the risks of climate policy.

That is a difficult trade-off, and it should be informed by the best possible science rather than dodgy work like Cook’s.
Richard Tol is a professor of economics at the University of Sussex and the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. He has been involved in the IPCC since 1994.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/climate-change-mr-obama-97-percent-of-experts-is-a-bogus-number

On 2022/08/17 9:24 p.m., Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 1:35:21 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
>> On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:45:57 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
>>> Very authoritative summary of environmental influences strongly associated with the development of cancers that are exacerbated by climate change.
>>>
>>> https://www.ilcn.org/global-warming-covid-19-and-lung-cancer-why-lung-cancer-doctors-should-care-about-climate-change/
>>>
>>> Global Warning: 10 Ways Climate Change Increases Rates of Lung Cancer
>>>
>>> https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/ss/global-warning-ways-climate-change-increases-lung-cancer
>> The statement "Ninety-seven percent or more of climate scientists say that human-caused climate change is happening" is totally bogus and is a manufactured number with no validity whatsoever.
>
> It got published in the Proceedings of the US National Academy of Science as few years ago - I posted the link here at the time.
>
> The paper was anything but bogus, and went into the way the authors constructed their sample of climate scientists and worked what their attitude were.
>
> They looked at some 300 climate scientist and found ten skeptics - I figured I could name about half of them, and two of them were fundamentalist Christians whose motivation seems to be that god wouldn't be that mean, not that they admit it.
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/apr/06/revealing-interview-with-top-contrarian-climate-scientists
>
> Gnatguy's assertion *is* totally bogus. There are other studies that say much the same thing.
>
> https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
>
> https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
>

Like Republican lawmakers in the USA complaining about voter fraud
nonsense, Climate Scientists know if they want to keep their jobs they
MUST find evidence of Climate Change and it must always be worse than
they thought.

Why are they not called Climatologists? Climate Scientists sounds like
another religion ("You MUST believe!") - as if adding science to the
name makes it real. And yes, some skeptics have religion, I consider
that a problem as they bought into the Santa Claus/Easter Bunny type of
mythology - so why should anything else they espouse be valid?

I recall that 10:10 video of a few years back of what some Climate
extremists actually wanted to do with heretics (skeptics) - blow them up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FS5CH-Xc0co

Call me a skeptic, but when you try to sell something that hard someone
stands to be making money.

Yes, the climate is changing, it has ALWAYS been changing.

Just ask the Mayans.

Check out the two forests being exposed in Alaska after being under
glaciers for just over a thousand years, how long and how much warmer
does the climate have to be to support a forest?

https://www.livescience.com/39819-ancient-forest-thaws.html

https://www.kansascity.com/news/nation-world/national/article254309353.html

In other words it was warmer back some 1400 or more odd years ago in
Alaska than it is now. Then it got colder and the glaciers awoke and
covered the forests

Medieval Warm Period anyone?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/medieval-warm-period

John :-#(#

On Thursday, 18 August 2022 at 15:45:47 UTC+2, John Robertson wrote:
> On 2022/08/17 9:24 p.m., Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 1:35:21 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:45:57 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> >>> Very authoritative summary of environmental influences strongly associated with the development of cancers that are exacerbated by climate change.
> >>>
> >>> https://www.ilcn.org/global-warming-covid-19-and-lung-cancer-why-lung-cancer-doctors-should-care-about-climate-change/
> >>>
> >>> Global Warning: 10 Ways Climate Change Increases Rates of Lung Cancer
> >>>
> >>> https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/ss/global-warning-ways-climate-change-increases-lung-cancer
> >> The statement "Ninety-seven percent or more of climate scientists say that human-caused climate change is happening" is totally bogus and is a manufactured number with no validity whatsoever.
> >
> > It got published in the Proceedings of the US National Academy of Science as few years ago - I posted the link here at the time.
> >
> > The paper was anything but bogus, and went into the way the authors constructed their sample of climate scientists and worked what their attitude were.
> >
> > They looked at some 300 climate scientist and found ten skeptics - I figured I could name about half of them, and two of them were fundamentalist Christians whose motivation seems to be that god wouldn't be that mean, not that they admit it.
> >
> > https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/apr/06/revealing-interview-with-top-contrarian-climate-scientists
> >
> > Gnatguy's assertion *is* totally bogus. There are other studies that say much the same thing.
> >
> > https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
> >
> > https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
> >
> Like Republican lawmakers in the USA complaining about voter fraud
> nonsense, Climate Scientists know if they want to keep their jobs they
> MUST find evidence of Climate Change and it must always be worse than
> they thought.
>
> Why are they not called Climatologists? Climate Scientists sounds like
> another religion ("You MUST believe!") - as if adding science to the
> name makes it real. And yes, some skeptics have religion, I consider
> that a problem as they bought into the Santa Claus/Easter Bunny type of
> mythology - so why should anything else they espouse be valid?
>
> I recall that 10:10 video of a few years back of what some Climate
> extremists actually wanted to do with heretics (skeptics) - blow them up.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FS5CH-Xc0co
>
> Call me a skeptic, but when you try to sell something that hard someone
> stands to be making money.
>
> Yes, the climate is changing, it has ALWAYS been changing.
>
> Just ask the Mayans.
>
> Check out the two forests being exposed in Alaska after being under
> glaciers for just over a thousand years, how long and how much warmer
> does the climate have to be to support a forest?
>
> https://www.livescience.com/39819-ancient-forest-thaws.html
>
> https://www.kansascity.com/news/nation-world/national/article254309353.html
>
> In other words it was warmer back some 1400 or more odd years ago in
> Alaska than it is now. Then it got colder and the glaciers awoke and
> covered the forests
>
> Medieval Warm Period anyone?
>
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/medieval-warm-period
>
> John :-#(#
Just watch how Twin Sun pulsates

https://www.spaceweather.com/images2022/17aug22/cme_anim_crop_opt.gif

Climate Changes is an ancient tautology by Heraclitus
Everything flows, Panta rhei

1-month/1-year Short Time Climate Changes are due to fluctions in solar acitivity
due to huge ejections of coronary mass, directed to the Earth

https://www.spaceweather.com/images2022/17aug22/cme_anim_crop_opt.gif

On Thursday, 18 August 2022 at 16:20:37 UTC+2, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 11:45:47 PM UTC+10, John Robertson wrote:
> > On 2022/08/17 9:24 p.m., Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > > On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 1:35:21 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > >> On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:45:57 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > >>> Very authoritative summary of environmental influences strongly associated with the development of cancers that are exacerbated by climate change.
> > >>>
> > >>> https://www.ilcn.org/global-warming-covid-19-and-lung-cancer-why-lung-cancer-doctors-should-care-about-climate-change/
> > >>>
> > >>> Global Warning: 10 Ways Climate Change Increases Rates of Lung Cancer
> > >>>
> > >>> https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/ss/global-warning-ways-climate-change-increases-lung-cancer
> > >>
> > >> The statement "Ninety-seven percent or more of climate scientists say that human-caused climate change is happening" is totally bogus and is a manufactured number with no validity whatsoever.
> > >
> > > It got published in the Proceedings of the US National Academy of Science as few years ago - I posted the link here at the time.
> > >
> > > The paper was anything but bogus, and went into the way the authors constructed their sample of climate scientists and worked what their attitude were.
> > >
> > > They looked at some 300 climate scientist and found ten skeptics - I figured I could name about half of them, and two of them were fundamentalist Christians whose motivation seems to be that god wouldn't be that mean, not that they admit it.
> > >
> > > https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/apr/06/revealing-interview-with-top-contrarian-climate-scientists
> > >
> > > Gnatguy's assertion *is* totally bogus. There are other studies that say much the same thing.
> > >
> > > https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
> > >
> > > https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
> > >
> > Like Republican lawmakers in the USA complaining about voter fraud
> > nonsense, Climate Scientists know if they want to keep their jobs they
> > MUST find evidence of Climate Change and it must always be worse than
> > they thought.
> That is what the climate change denial propaganda mills do claim. It does happen to be nonsense.
> > Why are they not called Climatologists? Climate Scientists sounds like
> > another religion ("You MUST believe!") - as if adding science to the
> > name makes it real. And yes, some skeptics have religion, I consider
> > that a problem as they bought into the Santa Claus/Easter Bunny type of
> > mythology - so why should anything else they espouse be valid?
> Who cares what they are called. The scientific observations supporting the proposition that anthropogenic global warming is going on now, and getting worse are matters of fact, no matter how much the people who have been making money out of digging up fossil carbon and selling it as fuel like to deny it.
> > I recall that 10:10 video of a few years back of what some Climate
> > extremists actually wanted to do with heretics (skeptics) - blow them up.
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FS5CH-Xc0co
> It was intended to be satirical.
> > Call me a skeptic, but when you try to sell something that hard someone stands to be making money.
> Climate change denial is sold pretty hard, but the fossil carbon extraction industry is making a lot of money.
> > Yes, the climate is changing, it has ALWAYS been changing.
> >
> > Just ask the Mayans.
> Not as quickly as it is at the moment.
> > Check out the two forests being exposed in Alaska after being under
> > glaciers for just over a thousand years, how long and how much warmer
> > does the climate have to be to support a forest?
> >
> > https://www.livescience.com/39819-ancient-forest-thaws.html
> >
> > https://www.kansascity.com/news/nation-world/national/article254309353.html
> >
> > In other words it was warmer back some 1400 or more odd years ago in
> > Alaska than it is now. Then it got colder and the glaciers awoke and
> > covered the forests
> >
> > Medieval Warm Period anyone?
> >
> > https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/medieval-warm-period
> Local warming and cooling happens all the time. We know about El Nino and La Nina because they last for a year or so,
>
> We only worked out that Atlantic Mulitdecadal Oscillation was going on in in 1994.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_multidecadal_oscillation
>
> Anthropogenic global warming really is global (though it is worse above the Arctic circle. You could work out why if you read the science.
Anthropogenic global warming
is fake funded by Putin and Kremlin to sell more natural gas to Europe

since H2O water, water vapor, water retention account for 99.9% of so called greenhouse effect

On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 11:35:21 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:45:57 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > Very authoritative summary of environmental influences strongly associated with the development of cancers that are exacerbated by climate change.
> >
> > https://www.ilcn.org/global-warming-covid-19-and-lung-cancer-why-lung-cancer-doctors-should-care-about-climate-change/
> >
> > Global Warning: 10 Ways Climate Change Increases Rates of Lung Cancer
> >
> > https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/ss/global-warning-ways-climate-change-increases-lung-cancer
> The statement "Ninety-seven percent or more of climate scientists say that human-caused climate change is happening" is totally bogus and is a manufactured number with no validity whatsoever.

She cites the source of that statement as the AAAS What We Know publication found here:
https://whatweknow.aaas.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/whatweknow_website.pdf
Wherein they state:
So let us be clear: Based on well-established evidence,
about 97% of climate scientists conclude that humans are
changing the climate.
This widespread agreement is documented not by a
single study but by a converging stream of evidence over
the past two decades from polls of scientists, 4,5 content
analyses of peer-reviewed literature,3,6 and from public statements issued by virtually every expert scientific membership organization on this topic.7
The evidence is
overwhelming: Levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are rising. Temperatures are going up. Springs are
arriving earlier. Ice sheets are melting. Sea level is rising.
The patterns of rainfall and drought are changing. Heat
waves are getting worse, as is extreme precipitation. The
oceans are acidifying.

More annotation to the literature in support of their summary....
: An official publication of the AAAS is about as close as you can get to what's called a source of primary authority on the topic. So she did her research right, meaning best available knowledge of the subject. Her main area of expertise and thesis is a summary of the deleterious effects on human health due a warmer environment, regardless of how it got warmer.

I assume your information is coming from a 2015 opinion piece by Richard Tol here:
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/climate-change-mr-obama-97-percent-of-experts-is-a-bogus-number

He raises legitimate concerns about what sounds like a slipshod study out of Australia. But the topic of consensus itself is kind of dumb, it's sort of like using testimonials to sell a product, as if popularity has anything to do with reality. It does have to a lot to do with a career politician like Obama who by instinct knows popularity garners votes.

Climate change is what it is regardless of what humans think.

On Thursday, 18 August 2022 at 17:52:11 UTC+2, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 11:35:21 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:45:57 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > Very authoritative summary of environmental influences strongly associated with the development of cancers that are exacerbated by climate change.
> > >
> > > https://www.ilcn.org/global-warming-covid-19-and-lung-cancer-why-lung-cancer-doctors-should-care-about-climate-change/
> > >
> > > Global Warning: 10 Ways Climate Change Increases Rates of Lung Cancer
> > >
> > > https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/ss/global-warning-ways-climate-change-increases-lung-cancer
> > The statement "Ninety-seven percent or more of climate scientists say that human-caused climate change is happening" is totally bogus and is a manufactured number with no validity whatsoever.
> She cites the source of that statement as the AAAS What We Know publication found here:
> https://whatweknow.aaas.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/whatweknow_website..pdf
> Wherein they state:
> So let us be clear: Based on well-established evidence,
> about 97% of climate scientists conclude that humans are
> changing the climate.
> This widespread agreement is documented not by a
> single study but by a converging stream of evidence over
> the past two decades from polls of scientists, 4,5 content
> analyses of peer-reviewed literature,3,6 and from public statements issued by virtually every expert scientific membership organization on this topic.7
> The evidence is
> overwhelming: Levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are rising. Temperatures are going up. Springs are
> arriving earlier. Ice sheets are melting. Sea level is rising.
> The patterns of rainfall and drought are changing. Heat
> waves are getting worse, as is extreme precipitation. The
> oceans are acidifying.
>
> More annotation to the literature in support of their summary....
> :
> An official publication of the AAAS is about as close as you can get to what's called a source of primary authority on the topic. So she did her research right, meaning best available knowledge of the subject. Her main area of expertise and thesis is a summary of the deleterious effects on human health due a warmer environment, regardless of how it got warmer.
>
> I assume your information is coming from a 2015 opinion piece by Richard Tol here:
> https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/climate-change-mr-obama-97-percent-of-experts-is-a-bogus-number
>
> He raises legitimate concerns about what sounds like a slipshod study out of Australia. But the topic of consensus itself is kind of dumb, it's sort of like using testimonials to sell a product, as if popularity has anything to do with reality. It does have to a lot to do with a career politician like Obama who by instinct knows popularity garners votes.
>
> Climate change is what it is regardless of what humans think.

Climate Changes is an ancient tautology by Heraclitus
Everything flows Panta rhei

1-month/1-year Short Term Climate Changes are due\
to fluctuations in solar activity,
reprezented by flares and coronary mass ejections directed to the Earth

which can be easily observed is so called Twin Sun Effect

https://www.spaceweather.com/

Global Warming is an old fake funded by Putin and Kremlin to sell more natural gas at highest prices

On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 9:45:47 AM UTC-4, John Robertson wrote:
> On 2022/08/17 9:24 p.m., Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 1:35:21 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:45:57 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> >>> Very authoritative summary of environmental influences strongly associated with the development of cancers that are exacerbated by climate change.
> >>>
> >>> https://www.ilcn.org/global-warming-covid-19-and-lung-cancer-why-lung-cancer-doctors-should-care-about-climate-change/
> >>>
> >>> Global Warning: 10 Ways Climate Change Increases Rates of Lung Cancer
> >>>
> >>> https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/ss/global-warning-ways-climate-change-increases-lung-cancer
> >> The statement "Ninety-seven percent or more of climate scientists say that human-caused climate change is happening" is totally bogus and is a manufactured number with no validity whatsoever.
> >
> > It got published in the Proceedings of the US National Academy of Science as few years ago - I posted the link here at the time.
> >
> > The paper was anything but bogus, and went into the way the authors constructed their sample of climate scientists and worked what their attitude were.
> >
> > They looked at some 300 climate scientist and found ten skeptics - I figured I could name about half of them, and two of them were fundamentalist Christians whose motivation seems to be that god wouldn't be that mean, not that they admit it.
> >
> > https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/apr/06/revealing-interview-with-top-contrarian-climate-scientists
> >
> > Gnatguy's assertion *is* totally bogus. There are other studies that say much the same thing.
> >
> > https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
> >
> > https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
> >
> Like Republican lawmakers in the USA complaining about voter fraud
> nonsense, Climate Scientists know if they want to keep their jobs they
> MUST find evidence of Climate Change and it must always be worse than
> they thought.

That statement is just uninformed sovereign state cynical mindset.

Most climate scientists are funded by federal tax dollars to conduct studies on climate change. And a big part of their job is to bring in funding for the "organization" or what have you. Is it any wonder then that they're finding tangible evidence of climate change?

https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-18-223#:~:text=What%20GAO%20Found,fiscal%20years%202010%20through%202017.

>
> Why are they not called Climatologists? Climate Scientists sounds like
> another religion ("You MUST believe!") - as if adding science to the
> name makes it real. And yes, some skeptics have religion, I consider
> that a problem as they bought into the Santa Claus/Easter Bunny type of
> mythology - so why should anything else they espouse be valid?
>
> I recall that 10:10 video of a few years back of what some Climate
> extremists actually wanted to do with heretics (skeptics) - blow them up.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FS5CH-Xc0co
>
> Call me a skeptic, but when you try to sell something that hard someone
> stands to be making money.
>
> Yes, the climate is changing, it has ALWAYS been changing.
>
> Just ask the Mayans.
>
> Check out the two forests being exposed in Alaska after being under
> glaciers for just over a thousand years, how long and how much warmer
> does the climate have to be to support a forest?

That forest was buried by a melting glacier. You think trees can't grow in cold climates?

https://www.gi.alaska.edu/alaska-science-forum/trees-cold-climate

>
> https://www.livescience.com/39819-ancient-forest-thaws.html
>
> https://www.kansascity.com/news/nation-world/national/article254309353.html
>
> In other words it was warmer back some 1400 or more odd years ago in
> Alaska than it is now. Then it got colder and the glaciers awoke and
> covered the forests

Ummm- no- that's when the glaciers started melting in earnest.

>
> Medieval Warm Period anyone?
>
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/medieval-warm-period

We're entering the finishing it off phase now:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/video/glacial-lake-outburst-floods-a-new-climate-related-threat-from-above/

Any mountainous area with accumulated ice a high elevation should be considered an extreme threat.

>
> John :-#(#

On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 12:16:39 PM UTC-4, a a wrote:
> On Thursday, 18 August 2022 at 17:52:11 UTC+2, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 11:35:21 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:45:57 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > > Very authoritative summary of environmental influences strongly associated with the development of cancers that are exacerbated by climate change.
> > > >
> > > > https://www.ilcn.org/global-warming-covid-19-and-lung-cancer-why-lung-cancer-doctors-should-care-about-climate-change/
> > > >
> > > > Global Warning: 10 Ways Climate Change Increases Rates of Lung Cancer
> > > >
> > > > https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/ss/global-warning-ways-climate-change-increases-lung-cancer
> > > The statement "Ninety-seven percent or more of climate scientists say that human-caused climate change is happening" is totally bogus and is a manufactured number with no validity whatsoever.
> > She cites the source of that statement as the AAAS What We Know publication found here:
> > https://whatweknow.aaas.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/whatweknow_website.pdf
> > Wherein they state:
> > So let us be clear: Based on well-established evidence,
> > about 97% of climate scientists conclude that humans are
> > changing the climate.
> > This widespread agreement is documented not by a
> > single study but by a converging stream of evidence over
> > the past two decades from polls of scientists, 4,5 content
> > analyses of peer-reviewed literature,3,6 and from public statements issued by virtually every expert scientific membership organization on this topic.7
> > The evidence is
> > overwhelming: Levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are rising. Temperatures are going up. Springs are
> > arriving earlier. Ice sheets are melting. Sea level is rising.
> > The patterns of rainfall and drought are changing. Heat
> > waves are getting worse, as is extreme precipitation. The
> > oceans are acidifying.
> >
> > More annotation to the literature in support of their summary....
> > :
> > An official publication of the AAAS is about as close as you can get to what's called a source of primary authority on the topic. So she did her research right, meaning best available knowledge of the subject. Her main area of expertise and thesis is a summary of the deleterious effects on human health due a warmer environment, regardless of how it got warmer.
> >
> > I assume your information is coming from a 2015 opinion piece by Richard Tol here:
> > https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/climate-change-mr-obama-97-percent-of-experts-is-a-bogus-number
> >
> > He raises legitimate concerns about what sounds like a slipshod study out of Australia. But the topic of consensus itself is kind of dumb, it's sort of like using testimonials to sell a product, as if popularity has anything to do with reality. It does have to a lot to do with a career politician like Obama who by instinct knows popularity garners votes.
> >
> > Climate change is what it is regardless of what humans think.
> Climate Changes is an ancient tautology by Heraclitus
> Everything flows Panta rhei

That's not a tautology, it's an aphorism.

>
> 1-month/1-year Short Term Climate Changes are due\
> to fluctuations in solar activity,
> reprezented by flares and coronary mass ejections directed to the Earth

The people who really know that particular field of science disagree with you.

>
> which can be easily observed is so called Twin Sun Effect
>
> https://www.spaceweather.com/
>
> Global Warming is an old fake funded by Putin and Kremlin to sell more natural gas at highest prices

On Thursday, 18 August 2022 at 18:51:37 UTC+2, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 12:16:39 PM UTC-4, a a wrote:
> > On Thursday, 18 August 2022 at 17:52:11 UTC+2, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 11:35:21 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:45:57 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > > > Very authoritative summary of environmental influences strongly associated with the development of cancers that are exacerbated by climate change.
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.ilcn.org/global-warming-covid-19-and-lung-cancer-why-lung-cancer-doctors-should-care-about-climate-change/
> > > > >
> > > > > Global Warning: 10 Ways Climate Change Increases Rates of Lung Cancer
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/ss/global-warning-ways-climate-change-increases-lung-cancer
> > > > The statement "Ninety-seven percent or more of climate scientists say that human-caused climate change is happening" is totally bogus and is a manufactured number with no validity whatsoever.
> > > She cites the source of that statement as the AAAS What We Know publication found here:
> > > https://whatweknow.aaas.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/whatweknow_website.pdf
> > > Wherein they state:
> > > So let us be clear: Based on well-established evidence,
> > > about 97% of climate scientists conclude that humans are
> > > changing the climate.
> > > This widespread agreement is documented not by a
> > > single study but by a converging stream of evidence over
> > > the past two decades from polls of scientists, 4,5 content
> > > analyses of peer-reviewed literature,3,6 and from public statements issued by virtually every expert scientific membership organization on this topic.7
> > > The evidence is
> > > overwhelming: Levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are rising.. Temperatures are going up. Springs are
> > > arriving earlier. Ice sheets are melting. Sea level is rising.
> > > The patterns of rainfall and drought are changing. Heat
> > > waves are getting worse, as is extreme precipitation. The
> > > oceans are acidifying.
> > >
> > > More annotation to the literature in support of their summary....
> > > :
> > > An official publication of the AAAS is about as close as you can get to what's called a source of primary authority on the topic. So she did her research right, meaning best available knowledge of the subject. Her main area of expertise and thesis is a summary of the deleterious effects on human health due a warmer environment, regardless of how it got warmer.
> > >
> > > I assume your information is coming from a 2015 opinion piece by Richard Tol here:
> > > https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/climate-change-mr-obama-97-percent-of-experts-is-a-bogus-number
> > >
> > > He raises legitimate concerns about what sounds like a slipshod study out of Australia. But the topic of consensus itself is kind of dumb, it's sort of like using testimonials to sell a product, as if popularity has anything to do with reality. It does have to a lot to do with a career politician like Obama who by instinct knows popularity garners votes.
> > >
> > > Climate change is what it is regardless of what humans think.
> > Climate Changes is an ancient tautology by Heraclitus
> > Everything flows Panta rhei
> That's not a tautology, it's an aphorism.
> >
> > 1-month/1-year Short Term Climate Changes are due\
> > to fluctuations in solar activity,
> > reprezented by flares and coronary mass ejections directed to the Earth
> The people who really know that particular field of science disagree with you.
> >
> > which can be easily observed is so called Twin Sun Effect
> >
> > https://www.spaceweather.com/
> >
--- Global Warming is an old fake funded by Putin and Kremlin to sell more natural gas at highest prices

who is the People ?

Putin and his team ?
Kremlin ?

cut off money poured into pockets of Global Warming fakers by Putin
and fake is over

On Thursday, 18 August 2022 at 18:51:37 UTC+2, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 12:16:39 PM UTC-4, a a wrote:
> > On Thursday, 18 August 2022 at 17:52:11 UTC+2, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 11:35:21 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:45:57 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > > > Very authoritative summary of environmental influences strongly associated with the development of cancers that are exacerbated by climate change.
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.ilcn.org/global-warming-covid-19-and-lung-cancer-why-lung-cancer-doctors-should-care-about-climate-change/
> > > > >
> > > > > Global Warning: 10 Ways Climate Change Increases Rates of Lung Cancer
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/ss/global-warning-ways-climate-change-increases-lung-cancer
> > > > The statement "Ninety-seven percent or more of climate scientists say that human-caused climate change is happening" is totally bogus and is a manufactured number with no validity whatsoever.
> > > She cites the source of that statement as the AAAS What We Know publication found here:
> > > https://whatweknow.aaas.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/whatweknow_website.pdf
> > > Wherein they state:
> > > So let us be clear: Based on well-established evidence,
> > > about 97% of climate scientists conclude that humans are
> > > changing the climate.
> > > This widespread agreement is documented not by a
> > > single study but by a converging stream of evidence over
> > > the past two decades from polls of scientists, 4,5 content
> > > analyses of peer-reviewed literature,3,6 and from public statements issued by virtually every expert scientific membership organization on this topic.7
> > > The evidence is
> > > overwhelming: Levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are rising.. Temperatures are going up. Springs are
> > > arriving earlier. Ice sheets are melting. Sea level is rising.
> > > The patterns of rainfall and drought are changing. Heat
> > > waves are getting worse, as is extreme precipitation. The
> > > oceans are acidifying.
> > >
> > > More annotation to the literature in support of their summary....
> > > :
> > > An official publication of the AAAS is about as close as you can get to what's called a source of primary authority on the topic. So she did her research right, meaning best available knowledge of the subject. Her main area of expertise and thesis is a summary of the deleterious effects on human health due a warmer environment, regardless of how it got warmer.
> > >
> > > I assume your information is coming from a 2015 opinion piece by Richard Tol here:
> > > https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/climate-change-mr-obama-97-percent-of-experts-is-a-bogus-number
> > >
> > > He raises legitimate concerns about what sounds like a slipshod study out of Australia. But the topic of consensus itself is kind of dumb, it's sort of like using testimonials to sell a product, as if popularity has anything to do with reality. It does have to a lot to do with a career politician like Obama who by instinct knows popularity garners votes.
> > >
> > > Climate change is what it is regardless of what humans think.
> > Climate Changes is an ancient tautology by Heraclitus
> > Everything flows Panta rhei
> That's not a tautology, it's an aphorism.
> >
> > 1-month/1-year Short Term Climate Changes are due\
> > to fluctuations in solar activity,
> > reprezented by flares and coronary mass ejections directed to the Earth
> The people who really know that particular field of science disagree with you.
> >
> > which can be easily observed is so called Twin Sun Effect
> >
> > https://www.spaceweather.com/
----Global Warming is an old fake funded by Putin and Kremlin to sell more natural gas at highest prices

---That's not a tautology, it's an aphorism.

Climate changes or Climate Changes is
is a scientifically proven fact

so combining the two

"Panta rhei, 'everything flows' is probably the most familiar of Heraclitus' sayings,

so what we get is exactly
Tautology ( read below)

In mathematical logic, a tautology (from Greek: ταυτολογία) is a formula or assertion that is true in every possible interpretation. An example is "x=y or x≠y". Similarly, "either the ball is green, or the ball is not green" is always true, regardless of the colour of the ball.

since
Climate Changes is an assertion that is true in every possible interpretation

so
Climate Changes
is an ancient tautology by Heraclitus
Everything flows, Panta rhei

and aphorism has nothing to do with tautology or science

URGENT !!

Go back to school and collect tuition money