slug.com slug.com

2 3

Fauci Behind Wuhan COVID-19 Leak - WaPost Reporter Tells Joe Rogan [banned.video]

DinsdaleWalden 8 May 8
Share

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

2 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

Old news. From April 2020: [newsweek.com]

1

My understanding is that Fauci was "on the approval board" that approved funding for continued research at the WuhanFlu lab suspected of being the leak source. I'm not sure that counts as "behind" as it being implied. Nonetheless, I wouldn't trust him to accurately talk about sunrise. He is a hack.
Like every "scientist" pushing global warming being caused by humanity. No, 97% said nothing of the sort. Go look at the original report. Less than a couple percent said that global warming was a significant risk and humanity was totally to blame. 97% were very, very doubtful of any cause&effect.

Dude global warming is a natural phenomena sure, but CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Take it out of the ground and put it in the air has an effect. We need to stop doing it and start taking carbon out before the polar ice melts and things get nasty. Arguing about natural vs man-made is kinda pointless. Planet is warming for whatever reason.

@Hamulus The planet has gone through many stages of warming (or climate change if you prefer) and cooling since anything even crawled out of the oceans. The impact of humans (particularly since industrialization), and our ability to 'fix' the situation is arguable at best.
Climate change politics is just that - politics using dubious science to justify economic/industrial changes that benefit certain countries/corporations and not humanity itself.

@Hamulus Arguing about natural vs not is exactly on point. 300 million years ago CO2 content was much higher than now -- no thanks to burning coal. World warms and cools on regular basis -- Malinkovich cycles. So, yes, world may be warming. However, if that is natural and not at all influenced by CO2 (i.e., and there is ample evidence that the influence of CO2 flattens out at 400ppm -now) then the hue and cry about CO2 concentration is misdirection, at best. If CO2 has no provable impact then we ought not spend one penny on controlling it.
IMHOpinion, the global warming flap is nothing but setting up a massive wealth redistribution scheme -- for politicos to skim. If it is warming, then lets cope with that. But, if not due to CO2 keep the money where it belongs --as far from politicos as possible.

@bobbo666 Dude that's some decent facts, but a little too simplistic. The sun is hotter now than it was 300myo so if we put all the carbon back into the atmosphere that was there then, we fry. Plus we have been experiencing a very long period of low sun-spot activity which has saved us from even hotter temperatures, but that's gotta change soon too.

Now I will agree with you 100% that possibly the worst thing we can do atm is give any policy decisions to environmentalists. Pay them to do research which is what they are good at, but anything else to do with money or politics, forget it. But don't pretend the whole argument is moot just because those that are arguing are dicks. CO2 is a greenhouse gas - fact. More in the system means warmer temps - fact. We are adding more CO2 to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels - fact. The world gets too much hotter, we're fucked - fact. Environmentalists are a bunch of dicks who have caused more harm to the environment than perhaps any other group - fact. Leftists aren't any smarter because they picked the right side on this one - fact. They were just as emotionally motivated to find reasons for their side. They got lucky on this issue. Dude they are already wrong about everything else. Let them have this.

@Hamulus No, you jumped from one fact to another, much too far. The impact of CO2 levels out -- it ceases being a greenhouse gas once its concentration gets to about where it is right now. Yeah, yeah, it is still technically a GG. But, if it ceases having an effect, meh. In addition, all of the predictions of the supposed impact depend on models. And, no model has been right. The best ones, closest to an actual result, are tweaked to match other models rather than just let them run until enough time accumulates. Can't do the latter for obvious reasons: grant money would run out, they would miss the mark.
And regardless, the planet has been warmer and life was easier, especially on food producing plant life.
AS to sun being warmer only 300M years ago, citation please. Besides, that was not my point. I said that CO2 level was higher back then and there were no "cavemen" burning coal. I noted a relationship between CO2 and lack of human source. I didn't imply anything about temp.

More
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:220939
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.