Guy Chamberlin
Active member
You know, sometimes if I close my eyes and listen to the wind, I can almost hear Archy's tortured howls. Or the telltale sound of a goalpost being moved.
Miss that guy.
Miss that guy.
The P&R Plague Thread (Covid-19)
- Thread starter knapplc
- Start date
It’s ok to admit you read the posts. JJ really won’t mind and he really won’t put you on ignore like he claims. Plus I know you are somewhat intellectually curious on a few of these things so might as well have the discussions out in the open.
But if you want to be a closet reader still, be my guest.
Jason Sitoke
New member
Fun fact for you…..sea levels have risen some 400 feet the last 20,000 years. Gotta be all those cars driven those last 20,000 years. Or it could also be that the climate changes on its own and humans probably have some small component to that. Far different than man made climate change as a whole.
Hmmmm, Ummm Heidi and Scarlet…..about that DOE assessment you two are rage deeming about, and who's involved in making it. Seems a bit more than a handful of physicists at the energy labs” :facepalm:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/little-known-scientific-team-behind-015706576.html
Even at low confidence, however, the Energy Department's analysis carries weight. For its assessment, the department drew on the expertise of a team assembled from the U.S. national laboratory complex, which employs tens of thousands of scientists representing many technical specialties, from physics and data analysis to genomics and molecular biology.
The labs were established as part of the U.S. nuclear weapons program and operate largely in the classified realm. The department's cadre of technical experts includes members of the Energy Department's Z-Division, which since the 1960s has been involved in secretive investigations of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons threats by U.S. adversaries, including China and Russia.
The Energy Department is "a technical organization with tens of thousands of scientists," said a former energy official. "It's more than just physics. It's chemical and biological expertise. And they have a unique opportunity to look at intelligence from the technical aspect."
https://www.yahoo.com/news/little-known-scientific-team-behind-015706576.html
Even at low confidence, however, the Energy Department's analysis carries weight. For its assessment, the department drew on the expertise of a team assembled from the U.S. national laboratory complex, which employs tens of thousands of scientists representing many technical specialties, from physics and data analysis to genomics and molecular biology.
The labs were established as part of the U.S. nuclear weapons program and operate largely in the classified realm. The department's cadre of technical experts includes members of the Energy Department's Z-Division, which since the 1960s has been involved in secretive investigations of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons threats by U.S. adversaries, including China and Russia.
The Energy Department is "a technical organization with tens of thousands of scientists," said a former energy official. "It's more than just physics. It's chemical and biological expertise. And they have a unique opportunity to look at intelligence from the technical aspect."
NebraskaHarry
Active member
Just because most of the evidence points a certain way doesn't mean professionals aren't considering an alternative explanation. From what I've seen, the most likely explanation points to the wet market.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jason Sitoke
New member
I don’t mind standing. Interesting scientific refute there. The Scientific Journal of Lion King. Paper authored by Timon, Poombaa, etc. al.
Well when ya got nothing I guess that’s where ya gotta go.
Jason Sitoke
New member
I didn't really see an argument you made. I did see your post start to fumble around with an oft-mentioned 'refute' of human-induced climate change. I've seen various forms of it over the years...'Mars has temperature fluctuations....must be all those Martians driving SUVs', etc. If these can be called arguments, they have been clearly addressed elsewhere and are easy to find if you were motivated to look for them. Which you are not.
I think we have a climate change thread somewhere here, so I'll bring us back around to relevancy. The issue isn't that you don't understand science (you don't), nor is it that you don't know that you don't understand science (you don't)...it is, and will always be, that you do not care that you don't know what you don't know, and furthermore that you enthusiastically push a series of bullet points associated with seemingly those which you identify socially/politically.
I understand the maze we can all find ourselves in where we really want to be correct, and really want those we despise to be incorrect. Once that becomes the game, there really is no useful discussion or argument, and any valid points that might be made are incidental.
Last edited by a moderator:
Aaaaanddd we’ve reached the “I don’t have an argument so I make silly little claims about a poster to get high fives” stage in all of this.
Sounds like you probably still believe the following consensus arguments and say those who don’t agree are those who don’t understand science
1) Miasma disease consensus
2) Lobotomies as standard of care more mental disease
3) Blood letting
4) Geocentric model
5) Continents never moved
6) Ulcers are purely stress induced
7) The Milky Way was the entire universe, not just one component.
8) Out of Asia theory
9) Balance of Nature consensus
10) well you kinda understand by now the point. Things can change, new evidence comes about, and some rando spouting off on Huskerboard saying “arrghgg you don’t understand science, argghg you don’t know blah blah” won’t deter this from happening again.
No one knows for sure what started Covid-19 and how it spread in its initial stages. We probably will never know if China doesn’t allow a review of its labs and data. But people like you that discount a relevant possibility because it doesn’t fit your early narrative are a big part of the problem in trying to figure out the origin. People like you that make fun of, have no intellectual curiosity to challenge “the consensus”, refuse to acknowledge more recent data, are part of the problem.
I happen to believe a leak of some sort happened with Covid-19. More and more evidence is suggesting this. It isn’t proven yet, and if an origin animal host is found then I’m happy to acknowledge my thinking was wrong. Unlike you, I keep an open mind while still having a thought preference. :thumbs
Scarlet
Active member
This is hard to understand when in mid-frothy meltdown. Then the narcissistic rage clouds judgement and reading comprehension, leading to the building of epic strawmen just to sooth the stung ego.
I can't think of a single legit scientist, who has said that, when presented with irrefutable evidence that may be contrary to their current understanding of a matter, they would not openly accept those findings. That's the entire basis of science and how our knowledge evolves.
You sound more frustrated than me.
I just like poking fun at Twitter and I feel good when I called BS back about their selective fake news labels and a few years later people come around. In this instance, they probably only flagged the Wuhan lab leak theory because Trump said it, so it must be false. To answer your question I posted this because I like making fun of Twitter. I have no idea whether COVID came from the lab but it certainly seemed plausible at the time.