Well, I thoroughly enjoyed this article - one of my all time favorites of the many articles you have written! I read it a couple of times, and then I read the humorous dialog between you and J.J. Smith III. You handled him well. Constructive criticism is always helpful, but shallow accusations aren't very useful.
Joseph has a byline "Concerned Farmer". Don't know what type but perhaps he has eaten too much glyphosate laden produce? Or maybe some MRNA infused pork that crossed his blood brain barrier?
To what premise of the commentary do you take exception: That climate science is abused for political purposes? Or that chemicals are an additional and possibly greater threat to the environment, ignored by the IPCC Report?
And you make such statements based on what scientific expertise in those fields, if any? What compels you to feel you are competent in the subject matter? Your feelings? When did lawyer-farmers become self-appointed climate scientists?
This is typical of the climate cult. Always attack and try to discredit the messenger while never addressing the issues. I wonder what your expertise is. Or should I say who is buttering your bread.
I have the same expertise on this as you do, or John. NONE. Thanks for making that clear on your part. The difference is that I believe in science and trust scientific experts such as Michael Mann.
lol. I think you presume a great deal. I have numerous science studies, just didn't want to play a qualifications game with you, that you somehow try to play anyway. I have a degree in political science, and excelled in quantitative analysis -- very relevant to this discussion. To "believe in science" makes you sound like a cultist. You trust vaccines, and nobody can discuss mortality rates unless they have your required degree? You trust lobotomies, Joseph?
I've read dozens of books in the last year regarding the impact of chemical pollutants on the human endocrine system, the soil microbiome, and plant and animal species (including bees and insects). You can boast that you have no qualifications to assess data, or to doubt any claim that is scientific, but it then doesn't appear that you have anything substantive whatsoever to offer. (Affirming my point -- scream climate catastrophe in lieu of discussing objective data). Your food is toxic, Joseph, and solar panels and EV cars generate huge amounts of chemical pollution in their manufacture. Would you like the facts (science) on those, or is there first a degree requirement? :)
You haven't addressed a single factual issue raised, just declared you cultish zealotry.
"I have numerous science studies" "read dozens of books" "excelled in quantitative analysis" "know better than Michael Mann" (John, look up who that is) "am a total genius" ...oh John, have you heard of Dunning Kruger? "John knows everything" - unless he doesn't. When emulating Trump goes wrong, which is why you can't win any elections in VT. Ever. Vermonters know better than to trust the "genius" you are. Stick to law and farming.
Climate Science is not a real science. Real science has predictive power. Climate Scientists have successfully predicted absolutely nothing, nor will they ever. Obama still has an oceanfront property and Al Gore and John Kerry still fly around in (individual) private jets to all the climactic climate conferences. Joseph James Smith III seems to have a lack of expertise in detecting Climate Bullshit!
Well, I thoroughly enjoyed this article - one of my all time favorites of the many articles you have written! I read it a couple of times, and then I read the humorous dialog between you and J.J. Smith III. You handled him well. Constructive criticism is always helpful, but shallow accusations aren't very useful.
Joseph has a byline "Concerned Farmer". Don't know what type but perhaps he has eaten too much glyphosate laden produce? Or maybe some MRNA infused pork that crossed his blood brain barrier?
You have no background in any of the sciences relevant to climate change, do you?
https://www.globalresearch.ca/exposing-the-climate-racket-the-latest-ipcc-report/5816145
https://www.johnklarpropaganda.bs.ca/dontbelieveanythinghewrites
To what premise of the commentary do you take exception: That climate science is abused for political purposes? Or that chemicals are an additional and possibly greater threat to the environment, ignored by the IPCC Report?
And you make such statements based on what scientific expertise in those fields, if any? What compels you to feel you are competent in the subject matter? Your feelings? When did lawyer-farmers become self-appointed climate scientists?
This is typical of the climate cult. Always attack and try to discredit the messenger while never addressing the issues. I wonder what your expertise is. Or should I say who is buttering your bread.
I have the same expertise on this as you do, or John. NONE. Thanks for making that clear on your part. The difference is that I believe in science and trust scientific experts such as Michael Mann.
lol. I think you presume a great deal. I have numerous science studies, just didn't want to play a qualifications game with you, that you somehow try to play anyway. I have a degree in political science, and excelled in quantitative analysis -- very relevant to this discussion. To "believe in science" makes you sound like a cultist. You trust vaccines, and nobody can discuss mortality rates unless they have your required degree? You trust lobotomies, Joseph?
I've read dozens of books in the last year regarding the impact of chemical pollutants on the human endocrine system, the soil microbiome, and plant and animal species (including bees and insects). You can boast that you have no qualifications to assess data, or to doubt any claim that is scientific, but it then doesn't appear that you have anything substantive whatsoever to offer. (Affirming my point -- scream climate catastrophe in lieu of discussing objective data). Your food is toxic, Joseph, and solar panels and EV cars generate huge amounts of chemical pollution in their manufacture. Would you like the facts (science) on those, or is there first a degree requirement? :)
You haven't addressed a single factual issue raised, just declared you cultish zealotry.
"I have numerous science studies" "read dozens of books" "excelled in quantitative analysis" "know better than Michael Mann" (John, look up who that is) "am a total genius" ...oh John, have you heard of Dunning Kruger? "John knows everything" - unless he doesn't. When emulating Trump goes wrong, which is why you can't win any elections in VT. Ever. Vermonters know better than to trust the "genius" you are. Stick to law and farming.
The fact that he still reveres high priests of science without doing due diligence of such corrupt figures as Michael Mann (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/11/30/climategate-another-anniversary-never-forget/) and still quotes the equally corrupt "fact checker" snopes (https://www.bizpacreview.com/2021/08/14/humiliated-fact-checking-snopes-suspends-co-founder-busted-for-fake-news-plagiarism-1118437/) most likely means reason will not penetrate. Maybe accidentally finding himself outside VPT/PBS and other state run media, he reacts as any true believer without any critical thinking skills.
Reality bites in the end.
Climate Science is not a real science. Real science has predictive power. Climate Scientists have successfully predicted absolutely nothing, nor will they ever. Obama still has an oceanfront property and Al Gore and John Kerry still fly around in (individual) private jets to all the climactic climate conferences. Joseph James Smith III seems to have a lack of expertise in detecting Climate Bullshit!