Follow the money.

It's funny how the policies created to "fight" climate change have nothing to do with preventing climate change. Notice how the rich politicians and celebrities never call for limiting/banning private jets. Never call for downsizing their massive homes and power bills. Doesn't call for banning AI which will be the biggest energy consumer in the future. Nah it's all about ****ting on the average man.

Wolfpack8602 said:

---

It's funny how the policies created to "fight" climate change have nothing to do with preventing climate change. Notice how the rich politicians and celebrities never call for limiting/banning private jets. Never call for downsizing their massive homes and power bills. Doesn't call for banning AI which will be the biggest energy consumer in the future. Nah it's all about ****ting on the everyday man.

---

Well put.

barelypure said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

barelypure said:

---

If we look at ice cores, tree rings and geologic structures 1 thing is abundantly clear, there has always been climate change and always will be. There have been higher levels of CO2 and lower levels. Temps have been higher and lower. There doesn't seem to be a correlation between the 2 as we've had higher levels of CO2 when it was hot and when it was cold. Also, lower levels of CO2 regardless of the temperature.

Higher levels of CO2 and warmer temps increase plant production thereby feeding more people and animals. CO2 is required for plants to survive, including the algae in the oceans.

More people die from the cold than from the heat. So this 1.5 C degree rise in temps these scientists predict is not something Man can't adjust to. Knee capping America by outright assaults on our economy while ignoring the larger problems of China and India's pollution is foolhardy. It could be the ultimate goal is to turn American into a lesser power and handing the reins of power to China.

If you really want to do something about climate change, Thanos was right. If we reduce the world population by half then many of those problems go away. The trick is getting rid of the right half and not the half that are a net positive for our survival.

---

Abundantly clear to who? The same small group of industry hacks who insisted for DECADES that cigarettes didn't cause cancer or that leaded gas wasn't a problem? /facepalm

Anyway, the ultimate goal of who? You ever gonna spill the beans on this grand global warming conspiracy?

---

So you're a science denier. Who knew? Do you not believe the science around ice cores that shows the differing levels of atmospheric gases. Or the changes in temperatures. If you don't believe that how can you believe the scientists who are guessing what the planet will look like a hundred years from now. Are they just guessing.

But you do bring up an interesting point. Who is paying the scientists who are so invested in pushing the latest theories? They will do and say most anything to keep the grants rolling in. We've been force fed the planet is ending for a very long time. Each time that date approaches their only solution is to push the date farther our. Shouldn't that give you a clue they don't know or could <gasp> be wrong.

---

Lol, hoo boy. Yes, the 95% of the world's climate scientist DO look at ice cores, etc, and are VERY aware of the cyclical nature of the globe's climate. You're not dropping some profound revelation here, studying ice ages, etc is literally all climate scientists do.

What they have been saying is that even taking all of that into account, what is currently happening is accelerating WAY out of that expected range, and they are very confident man-made greenhouse gases are the culprit.

The rest of your analysis is embarrassingly stupid, and I'll assume you're just regurgitating stuff from the handful of industry hacks who are paid to muddy the waters.

And as expected, you have no idea how your conspiracy is even supposed to work or who is supposedly pulling the strings.

Wolfpack8602 said:

---

It's funny how the policies created to "fight" climate change have nothing to do with preventing climate change. Notice how the rich politicians and celebrities never call for limiting/banning private jets. Never call for downsizing their massive homes and power bills. Doesn't call for banning AI which will be the biggest energy consumer in the future. Nah it's all about ****ting on the average man.

---

Let's see... ALL aviation pollution accounts for 2% of greenhouse gas emissions, and private jest are a fairly small percentage of those daily flights. Soooo, yeah ok, we should definitely make that the priority.

Man, you guys never miss a chance to bawl about "elites", although strangely you worship a guy who craps on a gold toilet. I guess its not supposed to make sense. But guess who's gonna suffer as the effects of global warming accelerate? You think it'll be the "elites"?

Do as I say, not as I do.

I'll try not to connect the dot for ya here. The truth may be very difficult for some.

The Pope: Liar or useful idiot? pic.twitter.com/KT7KgtD7VH

— Wide Awake Media (@wideawake_media) May 14, 2024

The current pope is a joke and other than Biden, does anyone listen to the side show?

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Wolfpack8602 said:

---

It's funny how the policies created to "fight" climate change have nothing to do with preventing climate change. Notice how the rich politicians and celebrities never call for limiting/banning private jets. Never call for downsizing their massive homes and power bills. Doesn't call for banning AI which will be the biggest energy consumer in the future. Nah it's all about ****ting on the average man.

---

Let's see... ALL aviation pollution accounts for 2% of greenhouse gas emissions, and private jest are a fairly small percentage of those daily flights. Soooo, yeah ok, we should definitely make that the priority.

Man, you guys never miss a chance to bawl about "elites", although strangely you worship a guy who craps on a gold toilet. I guess its not supposed to make sense. But guess who's gonna suffer as the effects of global warming accelerate? You think it'll be the "elites"?

---

"Emissions from aviation are a significant contributor to climate change. Airplanes burn fossil fuel which not only releases CO2 emissions but also has strong warming non-CO2 effects due to nitrogen oxides (NOx), vapour trails and cloud formation triggered by the altitude at which aircraft operate"

Come on Mr. Science are you really going to dismiss a significant contributor to climate change to defend the politicians you worship?


You can always tell a good trained partisan pet. They are quick to dismiss anything even if it's something their own party pushes to defend their own politicians and will try to turn the conversation into a personal attack. If Trump said aviation doesn't matter when fighting climate change this guy would be calling Trump a science denying idiot.

Wolfpack8602 said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Wolfpack8602 said:

---

It's funny how the policies created to "fight" climate change have nothing to do with preventing climate change. Notice how the rich politicians and celebrities never call for limiting/banning private jets. Never call for downsizing their massive homes and power bills. Doesn't call for banning AI which will be the biggest energy consumer in the future. Nah it's all about ****ting on the average man.

---

Let's see... ALL aviation pollution accounts for 2% of greenhouse gas emissions, and private jest are a fairly small percentage of those daily flights. Soooo, yeah ok, we should definitely make that the priority.

Man, you guys never miss a chance to bawl about "elites", although strangely you worship a guy who craps on a gold toilet. I guess its not supposed to make sense. But guess who's gonna suffer as the effects of global warming accelerate? You think it'll be the "elites"?

---

"Emissions from aviation are a significant contributor to climate change. Airplanes burn fossil fuel which not only releases CO2 emissions but also has strong warming non-CO2 effects due to nitrogen oxides (NOx), vapour trails and cloud formation triggered by the altitude at which aircraft operate"

Come on Mr. Science are you really going to dismiss a significant contributor to climate change to defend the politicians you worship?


You can always tell a good trained partisan pet. They are quick to dismiss anything even if it's something their own party pushes to defend their own politicians and will try to turn the conversation into a personal attack. If Trump said aviation doesn't matter when fighting climate change this guy would be calling Trump a science denying idiot.

---

Your last sentence is spot on.

Wolfpack8602 said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Wolfpack8602 said:

---

It's funny how the policies created to "fight" climate change have nothing to do with preventing climate change. Notice how the rich politicians and celebrities never call for limiting/banning private jets. Never call for downsizing their massive homes and power bills. Doesn't call for banning AI which will be the biggest energy consumer in the future. Nah it's all about ****ting on the average man.

---

Let's see... ALL aviation pollution accounts for 2% of greenhouse gas emissions, and private jest are a fairly small percentage of those daily flights. Soooo, yeah ok, we should definitely make that the priority.

Man, you guys never miss a chance to bawl about "elites", although strangely you worship a guy who craps on a gold toilet. I guess its not supposed to make sense. But guess who's gonna suffer as the effects of global warming accelerate? You think it'll be the "elites"?

---

"Emissions from aviation are a significant contributor to climate change. Airplanes burn fossil fuel which not only releases CO2 emissions but also has strong warming non-CO2 effects due to nitrogen oxides (NOx), vapour trails and cloud formation triggered by the altitude at which aircraft operate"

Come on Mr. Science are you really going to dismiss a significant contributor to climate change to defend the politicians you worship?


You can always tell a good trained partisan pet. They are quick to dismiss anything even if it's something their own party pushes to defend their own politicians and will try to turn the conversation into a personal attack. If Trump said aviation doesn't matter when fighting climate change this guy would be calling Trump a science denying idiot.

---

In science, the word "significant" doesn't mean "one of the biggest" or whatever you think it means. Yes, 2% of the world's C02 (or 4% if you double it to take into account the other effects of flying) is scientifically significant. But motor vehicles account for WAY more. It's not close.

But guess what? We have no viable way to build electric planes at the moment. But we DO know how to build electric cars! You're basically saying that we shouldn't do anything we currently know how to do to put a dent in global warming, because the "elites" (who you seem to think are the ones driving our climate policy) haven't banned commercial air travel yet? Got it!

You do know the "elites" all drive electric cars, right?

I wonder how much fossil fuels does it take to build a electric car? I'm also sure that the means to get the needed parts and minerals all come from a green and earth friendly way. I also remember scientist and " experts " also saying that 6 feet apart works, oh, and my favorite, the vaccine would stop the spread of Covid.

ncsupack1 said:

---

I wonder how much fossil fuels does it take to build a electric car? I'm also sure that the means to get the needed parts and minerals all come from a green and earth friendly way. I also remember scientist and " experts " also saying that 6 feet apart works, oh, and my favorite, the vaccine would stop the spread of Covid.

---

I get it that you guys are desperate for a new Dark Ages, but here's a little primer on how science works: Experiments take time, and as you observe things you change your mind accordingly. When a BRAND NEW VIRUS is killing a million Americans, and you don't have 3 years to perform rigorous studies on that new virus because it's about to kill a million Americans, you have to make educated guesses based on every other virus we've experienced.

I do want to thank you guys, though, for being hyper-partisan man-babies... you really helped to make a global pandemic as fun as it could possibly be!

SmaptyWolf said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

I wonder how much fossil fuels does it take to build a electric car? I'm also sure that the means to get the needed parts and minerals all come from a green and earth friendly way. I also remember scientist and " experts " also saying that 6 feet apart works, oh, and my favorite, the vaccine would stop the spread of Covid.

---

I get it that you guys are desperate for a new Dark Ages, but here's a little primer on how science works: Experiments take time, and as you observe things you change your mind accordingly. When a BRAND NEW VIRUS is killing a million Americans, and you don't have 3 years to perform rigorous studies on that new virus because it's about to kill a million Americans, you have to make educated guesses based on every other virus we've experienced.

I do want to thank you guys, though, for being hyper-partisan man-babies... you really helped to make a global pandemic as fun as it could possibly be!

---

If it takes time then why did the experts put it out there as fact? Why have some experts ask for Covid Amnesty? The experts sure got a lot wrong, but according to you, it takes time. So I ask again, why was it presented as fact? Nice name calling btw when others just had a different view and asked questions.

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Wolfpack8602 said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Wolfpack8602 said:

---

It's funny how the policies created to "fight" climate change have nothing to do with preventing climate change. Notice how the rich politicians and celebrities never call for limiting/banning private jets. Never call for downsizing their massive homes and power bills. Doesn't call for banning AI which will be the biggest energy consumer in the future. Nah it's all about ****ting on the average man.

---

Let's see... ALL aviation pollution accounts for 2% of greenhouse gas emissions, and private jest are a fairly small percentage of those daily flights. Soooo, yeah ok, we should definitely make that the priority.

Man, you guys never miss a chance to bawl about "elites", although strangely you worship a guy who craps on a gold toilet. I guess its not supposed to make sense. But guess who's gonna suffer as the effects of global warming accelerate? You think it'll be the "elites"?

---

"Emissions from aviation are a significant contributor to climate change. Airplanes burn fossil fuel which not only releases CO2 emissions but also has strong warming non-CO2 effects due to nitrogen oxides (NOx), vapour trails and cloud formation triggered by the altitude at which aircraft operate"

Come on Mr. Science are you really going to dismiss a significant contributor to climate change to defend the politicians you worship?


You can always tell a good trained partisan pet. They are quick to dismiss anything even if it's something their own party pushes to defend their own politicians and will try to turn the conversation into a personal attack. If Trump said aviation doesn't matter when fighting climate change this guy would be calling Trump a science denying idiot.

---

In science, the word "significant" doesn't mean "one of the biggest" or whatever you think it means. Yes, 2% of the world's C02 (or 4% if you double it to take into account the other effects of flying) is scientifically significant. But motor vehicles account for WAY more. It's not close.

But guess what? We have no viable way to build electric planes at the moment. But we DO know how to build electric cars! You're basically saying that we shouldn't do anything we currently know how to do to put a dent in global warming, because the "elites" (who you seem to think are the ones driving our climate policy) haven't banned commercial air travel yet? Got it!

You do know the "elites" all drive electric cars, right?

---

Twisting my argument to fit your argument. I never said ban commercial flights. I never said don't do anything at all. They could easily limit and reduce private jets. Your argument is a ****ing joke at this point. The politicians and celebrities have painted a picture that climate change is killing the earth. It's so dire that they literally say the earth is dying. Yet they push policies that don't have any real consequences to them. I always wonder how politicians both right and left get away with what they do and the answer is easy. People like you literally take up for them and carry their water like it's your life mission.

Also no the elite don't all drive electric cars. I bet they all live in tiny homes and eat crickets also right?

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Wolfpack8602 said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Wolfpack8602 said:

---

It's funny how the policies created to "fight" climate change have nothing to do with preventing climate change. Notice how the rich politicians and celebrities never call for limiting/banning private jets. Never call for downsizing their massive homes and power bills. Doesn't call for banning AI which will be the biggest energy consumer in the future. Nah it's all about ****ting on the average man.

---

Let's see... ALL aviation pollution accounts for 2% of greenhouse gas emissions, and private jest are a fairly small percentage of those daily flights. Soooo, yeah ok, we should definitely make that the priority.

Man, you guys never miss a chance to bawl about "elites", although strangely you worship a guy who craps on a gold toilet. I guess its not supposed to make sense. But guess who's gonna suffer as the effects of global warming accelerate? You think it'll be the "elites"?

---

"Emissions from aviation are a significant contributor to climate change. Airplanes burn fossil fuel which not only releases CO2 emissions but also has strong warming non-CO2 effects due to nitrogen oxides (NOx), vapour trails and cloud formation triggered by the altitude at which aircraft operate"

Come on Mr. Science are you really going to dismiss a significant contributor to climate change to defend the politicians you worship?


You can always tell a good trained partisan pet. They are quick to dismiss anything even if it's something their own party pushes to defend their own politicians and will try to turn the conversation into a personal attack. If Trump said aviation doesn't matter when fighting climate change this guy would be calling Trump a science denying idiot.

---

In science, the word "significant" doesn't mean "one of the biggest" or whatever you think it means. Yes, 2% of the world's C02 (or 4% if you double it to take into account the other effects of flying) is scientifically significant. But motor vehicles account for WAY more. It's not close.

But guess what? We have no viable way to build electric planes at the moment. But we DO know how to build electric cars! You're basically saying that we shouldn't do anything we currently know how to do to put a dent in global warming, because the "elites" (who you seem to think are the ones driving our climate policy) haven't banned commercial air travel yet? Got it!

You do know the "elites" all drive electric cars, right?

---

And your guy, Biden, in an effort to lock up the UAW vote has set the tariffs on Chinese EVs at 100%. So where votes are concerned the climate be damned. We can't have those cheap BYD EVs selling for $10,000 being bought by Americans no matter how much we need to save the planet.

Not that there are BYD vehicles that are eligible to be sold here, at least not yet, because they don't have the needed safety equipment our law requires.

If the globalists the left genuflects to are right then this is a global market and to combat climate change we should embrace the inevitable of Chinese EVs.

At this point in time I wouldn't buy an EV. At my age and with 2 paid off vehicles, both in very good mechanical condition and I'm the only driver, the ROI just isn't there. Now if I could pick up a BYD for $10K I'd be tempted. Seats 2, top speed 62 mph and range of 100 miles. So no it's not a world beater but where I am it would work to get me back and forth to town cheaply.

Buy how some of these politicians live, I doubt they believe in the climate change narrative. But they sure have got a lot of the voters convinced.

ncsupack1 said:

---

Buy how some of these politicians live, I doubt they believe in the climate change narrative. But they sure have got a lot of the voters convinced.

---

Saul Alinsky had a name for them.

ncsupack1 said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

I wonder how much fossil fuels does it take to build a electric car? I'm also sure that the means to get the needed parts and minerals all come from a green and earth friendly way. I also remember scientist and " experts " also saying that 6 feet apart works, oh, and my favorite, the vaccine would stop the spread of Covid.

---

I get it that you guys are desperate for a new Dark Ages, but here's a little primer on how science works: Experiments take time, and as you observe things you change your mind accordingly. When a BRAND NEW VIRUS is killing a million Americans, and you don't have 3 years to perform rigorous studies on that new virus because it's about to kill a million Americans, you have to make educated guesses based on every other virus we've experienced.

I do want to thank you guys, though, for being hyper-partisan man-babies... you really helped to make a global pandemic as fun as it could possibly be!

---

If it takes time then why did the experts put it out there as fact? Why have some experts ask for Covid Amnesty? The experts sure got a lot wrong, but according to you, it takes time. So I ask again, why was it presented as fact? Nice name calling btw when others just had a different view and asked questions.

---

It's fascinating how you guys shove reality through this lens of perpetual outrage and grievance.

It's a FACT that if you have a brain tumor you go talk to a brain surgeon to get their EXPERT OPINION. You may even get a second and third OPINION. But people don't normally ask Tucker Carlson for his opinion on their brain tumor.

We had a pandemic, and all of the world's best epidemiologists formed a best guess consensus on how to navigate through it and save the most lives while the science came in and vaccines were developed. No, they didn't get everything right, and the virus evolved rapidly so many things that started out correct ended up being less effective later. But they in fact DID get a lot right.

Meanwhile you had Trump, who clearly saw the pandemic as an existential threat to his reelection, and a bunch of people who equated being asked to wear a mask in Wal-Mart to protect grandpa with being locked in prison. You guys have done everything you could possibly do to discredit those scientists with an endless tsunami of YouTube pseudo-science and conspiracy theories.

Anyway, as a representative of the sane world, I'd like to formally apologize to you for how badly you were treated! I mean it was just awful how people scowled at your self-absorbed conspiratorial ramblings while they worried about their diabetic mother getting sick. It must have been so hard for you.

You skipped the part about the vaccine and what experts including the current president said about them. Once again you are dancing around with the issue. You yourself said that it takes years, but that's not what happened now is it? You are wanting it both ways. How many Democrats got caught not following their own orders?

ncsupack1 said:

---

You skipped the part about the vaccine and what experts including the current president said about them. Once again you are dancing around with the issue. You yourself said that it takes years, but that's not what happened now is it? You are wanting it both ways. How many Democrats got caught not following their own orders?

---

What about the vaccine? The vaccine itself did prevent spread, and for the first couple months or so it was in fact the suit of armor we were hoping for. Except it turns out that the virus itself mutates far faster than we had realized, so the efficacy of the vaccine dropped rapidly with each new mutation. We quickly realized that we wouldn't be able to eradicate this thing with a vaccine after all, and the idea of vaccine mandates went out the window.

How you can see anything nefarious in that thought process boggles the mind.

Preventing spread was only part of the value of the vaccine, though. It significantly reduced the lethality of the disease. If you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe this clown:

Point proven, it takes years. So it was wrong to try and force it on people. And stop with trying to push into a Trump debate. Your clown said that the vaccine would prevent you from getting Covid, remember? Or Cooper marching with the mask hanging off his face, some science there.

Communist Democrats running California impose a new 50 cent per gallon tax on gasoline as part of an "emission reduction program", which will increase by 50 cents per year every year going forward.

This new tax "program" is clearly designed to price people out of being able to afford gasoline and force them to either buy electric vehicles or use public transportation, as part of the "climate change" farce.

https://instagr.am/p/C69AEU2uwvF

Quote:

---

An emissions reduction program by an environmental regulator will lead to a 50-cent per gallon of gasoline increase, according to a report by a state environment regulator.

Last year the California Air Resources Board (CARB) said gas prices would increase by 50 cents next year and every year after in order to reduce emissions. Read more, link in bio.

---

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/californias-secret-gas-tax-hike-coming-in-2025

There are currently 42 cloud seeding projects across the American West - ABC -

They anticipate 200 more cloud seeders in the future after the federal govt committed $2.6 million to projects. pic.twitter.com/3Y1pnlMLNv

— 🗡️🛡️Sir Rickster🛡️🗡️ (@Rickster_75) May 18, 2024

SmaptyWolf said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

You skipped the part about the vaccine and what experts including the current president said about them. Once again you are dancing around with the issue. You yourself said that it takes years, but that's not what happened now is it? You are wanting it both ways. How many Democrats got caught not following their own orders?

---

What about the vaccine? The vaccine itself did prevent spread, and for the first couple months or so it was in fact the suit of armor we were hoping for. Except it turns out that the virus itself mutates far faster than we had realized, so the efficacy of the vaccine dropped rapidly with each new mutation. We quickly realized that we wouldn't be able to eradicate this thing with a vaccine after all, and the idea of vaccine mandates went out the window.

How you can see anything nefarious in that thought process boggles the mind.

Preventing spread was only part of the value of the vaccine, though. It significantly reduced the lethality of the disease. If you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe this clown:

---

"What about the vaccine? The vaccine itself did prevent spread, and for the first couple months or so it was in fact the suit of armor we were hoping for."

There you go again pushing disinformation. We've learned a lot more since the vaccines came out. Namely they didn't stop the spread. If they had fewer people not more would have died under Biden's regime. What they did was prevent infection, illness, and hospital admission.

https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o298

Most papers to date (notably, many are preprints and have yet to be peer reviewed) indicate vaccines are holding up against admission to hospital and mortality, says Linda Bauld, professor of public health at the University of Edinburgh, "but not so much against transmission."

Vaccines aren't preventing onward transmission by reducing the viral loador amount of SARS-CoV-2in your body. "Most studies show if you got an infection after vaccination, compared with someone who got an infection without a vaccine, you were pretty much shedding roughly the same amount of virus," says Paul Hunter, professor in medicine at the University of East Anglia. One study,5 sponsored by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), found "no difference in infectious virus titer between groups" who had been vaccinated and had not.

barelypure said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

You skipped the part about the vaccine and what experts including the current president said about them. Once again you are dancing around with the issue. You yourself said that it takes years, but that's not what happened now is it? You are wanting it both ways. How many Democrats got caught not following their own orders?

---

What about the vaccine? The vaccine itself did prevent spread, and for the first couple months or so it was in fact the suit of armor we were hoping for. Except it turns out that the virus itself mutates far faster than we had realized, so the efficacy of the vaccine dropped rapidly with each new mutation. We quickly realized that we wouldn't be able to eradicate this thing with a vaccine after all, and the idea of vaccine mandates went out the window.

How you can see anything nefarious in that thought process boggles the mind.

Preventing spread was only part of the value of the vaccine, though. It significantly reduced the lethality of the disease. If you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe this clown:

---

"What about the vaccine? The vaccine itself did prevent spread, and for the first couple months or so it was in fact the suit of armor we were hoping for."

There you go again pushing disinformation. We've learned a lot more since the vaccines came out. Namely they didn't stop the spread. If they had fewer people not more would have died under Biden's regime. What they did was prevent infection, illness, and hospital admission.

https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o298

Most papers to date (notably, many are preprints and have yet to be peer reviewed) indicate vaccines are holding up against admission to hospital and mortality, says Linda Bauld, professor of public health at the University of Edinburgh, "but not so much against transmission."

Vaccines aren't preventing onward transmission by reducing the viral loador amount of SARS-CoV-2in your body. "Most studies show if you got an infection after vaccination, compared with someone who got an infection without a vaccine, you were pretty much shedding roughly the same amount of virus," says Paul Hunter, professor in medicine at the University of East Anglia. One study,5 sponsored by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), found "no difference in infectious virus titer between groups" who had been vaccinated and had not.

---

It's comical how you quote paragraphs from that study, but conveniently leave out the next paragraph that refutes what you are saying. Shameless.

Here, let me help:

Quote:

---

Most papers to date (notably, many are preprints and have yet to be peer reviewed) indicate vaccines are holding up against admission to hospital and mortality, says Linda Bauld, professor of public health at the University of Edinburgh, "but not so much against transmission." ...

A study2 of covid-19 transmission within English households using data gathered in early 2021 found that even a single dose of a covid-19 vaccine reduced the likelihood of household transmission by 40-50%. This was supported by a study of household transmission among Scottish healthcare workers conducted between December 2020 and March 2021.3

---

As I said, efficacy has dropped with each new mutation, and by he time of this study you linked it was down to 40-50% transmission reduction. And then:

Quote:

---

Vaccines aren't preventing onward transmission by reducing the viral loador amount of SARS-CoV-2in your body. "Most studies show if you got an infection after vaccination, compared with someone who got an infection without a vaccine, you were pretty much shedding roughly the same amount of virus," says Paul Hunter, professor in medicine at the University of East Anglia. One study,5 sponsored by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), found "no difference in infectious virus titer between groups" who had been vaccinated and had not.

Instead, it's the principle that the UKHSA identified above: if you don't get infected in the first place thanks to a vaccine, you can't spread it. Once you're infected, you still canalthough what we know about the window when you're most likely to transmit the virus to others has improved.

---

Sure sounds like your study says pretty clearly that the vaccine DID stop spread. So are you in on the con, or are you just not very good at reading your own studies?

I'll just ask the question on the climate change thread. Did the vaccine stop the spread of the virus?

ncsupack1 said:

---

I'll just ask the question on the climate change thread. Did the vaccine stop the spread of the virus?

---

You're the one who changed the subject to vaccines. But I already answered your question here, twice.

The vaccine did stop spread, but as the virus quickly evolved went from 95% to like 25%, and even that wore off in a few months. Newer versions of the vaccine that were a closer match to the current variant pushed the number back up, but didn't last long either.

So the virus turned out to be too fast of a moving target to eradicate with a vaccine. But yeah, there are still benefits to the vaccine in terms of reducing severity of the illness, so it's worth it.

SmaptyWolf said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

I'll just ask the question on the climate change thread. Did the vaccine stop the spread of the virus?

---

You're the one who changed the subject to vaccines. But I already answered your question here, twice.

The vaccine did stop spread, but as the virus quickly evolved went from 95% to like 25%, and even that wore off in a few months. Newer versions of the vaccine that were a closer match to the current variant pushed the number back up, but didn't last long either.

So the virus turned out to be too fast of a moving target to eradicate with a vaccine. But yeah, there are still benefits to the vaccine in terms of reducing severity of the illness, so it's worth it.

---

Thanks for the response. Now back to Climate Change.

ncsupack1 said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

I'll just ask the question on the climate change thread. Did the vaccine stop the spread of the virus?

---

You're the one who changed the subject to vaccines. But I already answered your question here, twice.

The vaccine did stop spread, but as the virus quickly evolved went from 95% to like 25%, and even that wore off in a few months. Newer versions of the vaccine that were a closer match to the current variant pushed the number back up, but didn't last long either.

So the virus turned out to be too fast of a moving target to eradicate with a vaccine. But yeah, there are still benefits to the vaccine in terms of reducing severity of the illness, so it's worth it.

---

Thanks for the response. Now back to Climate Change.

---

I just realized what might be tripping up brainiacs like barelypure.

Preventing "spread" technically means if you get sick you can't infect others. Preventing "transmission" means you can't catch it from a sick person.

Most people think of preventing spread as the latter, though… "am I protected?". That's what the vaccine has been able to do to varying degrees. It turns out being vaccinated wasn't able to protect others from you if you got sick.

SmaptyWolf said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

I'll just ask the question on the climate change thread. Did the vaccine stop the spread of the virus?

---

You're the one who changed the subject to vaccines. But I already answered your question here, twice.

The vaccine did stop spread, but as the virus quickly evolved went from 95% to like 25%, and even that wore off in a few months. Newer versions of the vaccine that were a closer match to the current variant pushed the number back up, but didn't last long either.

So the virus turned out to be too fast of a moving target to eradicate with a vaccine. But yeah, there are still benefits to the vaccine in terms of reducing severity of the illness, so it's worth it.

---

Thanks for the response. Now back to Climate Change.

---

I just realized what might be tripping up brainiacs like barelypure.

Preventing "spread" technically means if you get sick you can't infect others. Preventing "transmission" means you can't catch it from a sick person.

Most people think of preventing spread as the latter, though… "am I protected?". That's what the vaccine has been able to do to varying degrees.

---

I'll let you two battle that one out. LOL

The goal of vaccines isn't to prevent infections, it's to reduce the impact of them. It's to keep people out of hospitals.

The segue I think you guys are looking for at this point in the thread is that climate change will reportedly influence the risk of viral outbreaks by changing the boundaries of human and animal interactions.

"human and animal interactions"

Yeah, no. This one time in Juarez...I was young...but I had never heard of a woman doing that...and with a donkey...I had to leave...it was disgusting

Haha, yeah, those were my words. Probably not the best choice. But you get the drift.

One of the world's most respected scholars, Thomas Sowell, on the "man-made global warming" scam:

"Temperatures went up first, and then there was the increase in CO2. You can't say that A causes B if B happens first... But [the scientists] who are pushing global warming are… pic.twitter.com/hVW9FHzYjD

— Wide Awake Media (@wideawake_media) May 14, 2024