metalslug

Utter deflection bullshit. How he criticised them is at issue. If you're perpetually losing your way on this thread then perhaps another progressive here can 'throw you a bone' for morale?

Interesting that you mention that, considering his curious 1983 JAMA comment about “..the possibility that routine close contact, as within a family household, can spread the disease.” and subsequent panic amongst a broad sector. Do you suppose his critics of that time were anti-science too? As many of his critics were (and are) credentialed scientists themselves; Fauci's hubris alone had simply fabricated the assertion that they are anti-science. Who are you trying to kid here? We both know that if any conservative scientist had made Fauci's comments then you'd be across it like white on rice instead of the laughable 'Jedi mind trick' defence you've chosen here. It's like watching Karine Jean-Pierre trying to explain away Joe's attempted séance with Jackie Walorski.

Fair enough. I'll retract this. Beyond anecdotal evidence, I'm unable to find the citation that sufficiently discounts the vaccine efficacy WRT present day chance of infection. The two dated links provided by others should therefore stand, for now.

I also saw the criticisms of him from other scientists including, but not limited to, many signatories of the Barrington Declaration. Err... no, that's not what I think. Omnipotent? Really? You're there now?

Factually untrue, and perhaps obtained from your preferred source of truth? The vaccine reduces the severity of illness and symptoms, there is zero evidence that it reduces a person's chance of testing positive (i.e. 'catching' it). I'm all for it of course, I've had 4 jabs so far.

I said that Fauci was claiming omniscience because he said "When people criticize me, they are really criticizing science.". You can't possibly have forgotten that already, so why be dishonest? If a fallacy is 'pretty clear' to you, that confirms your own flawed perceptions.

When one is the Chief Medical Advisor to POTUS and impacting Federal decisions, it's a little more than a hapless or incidental lightning rod. Strawman much? I made no such claim that any scientists are omniscient. They each represent a perspective on science. Fortunately scientists agree on more things than they disagree and should be more accepting of debate in contested areas, rather than to equate anti-Fauci with anti-science. With reference to the OP; not long ago some progressive 'truths' included; 'The Hunter laptop is a Russian fabrication' and 'Unvaccinated people are more contagious than vaccinated people and should be ostracized'. Fox News seems to be a source of 'truth' as good as any from the left spectrum.

He's conflating anti-Fauci people with 'anti-science' people. His belief that those two terms are synonymous is rather the point I'm making. Other representatives of science exist who do not share all Fauci's views. If you're placing a set of subjective internet forum rules and protests about the fairness of them as being analogous to science debates.... perhaps kallend can find you a meme for that too.

Uh, no. "When People Criticize Me, They Are Really Criticizing Science, Because I Represent Science". You realize he actually said this, right? ..as though he's the single source of all truth on the subject. Although I myself regarded much of Fauci's (Covid) advice as plausible my point here is not to re-debate Covid specifically; for anyone to proclaim omniscience of any field on which there is significant contradictory evidence and opposing opinion from credentialed peers, is an unfortunate characteristic of lefty dogma. To (absurdly) parody that Reps 'don't know what science is' when I'm quite certain anyone here could easily name several credentialed conservative scientists. It's about as 'funny' and as accurate as a meme that portrays all progressives as sexual deviants.

Ah, c'mon now. The left has already clarified what science is. Those naïve Reps thought it was an objective field.

That 'founder' does make some curious comments; "...the geology of the UK and the densely populated nature of the British countryside made it impossible to set up a commercially viable fracking.." vs "There was an opportunity 10 years ago to look at this [fracking] sensibly, but that opportunity has now gone" . Does Cornelius believe that the geology and population density of the UK has had a marked change over 10 years? It would seem to me that the only change of significance within the last 10 years is his own employment, from fracking to "a geothermal consortium" that now sees him curiously promoting geothermal energy over fracking (in the UK). Who'd have guessed? I've been known to share the opinions of industry shills, although I'm somewhat surprised to see you doing the same.

This kind of misinformation is used by both sides. These photos almost never have a reliable timestamp to indicate the position of the tides. Sure, sea levels have been rising as an overall average, around 6 inches over the last 100 years, although these photos appear to show a greater difference over 60 years, hence my scepticism.

Yes, people of all ages can and will become ill and die from a great many causes including fracking and other fossil mining activities... and also from the processes and materials that are mined and produced for 'green' energy solutions. I doubt you're losing sleep over the (approx.) 40000 Congolese children mining Cobalt. Pick your battles, lots to choose from. In the larger picture, energy poverty is likely to harm or kill substantially more people than fracking.

Newsflash: California is not Europe.

Well; let's still call a spade, a spade, OK? Global warming may well exacerbate the problem by drying out vegetation more rapidly but it's misleading to assert that this is causing wildfires. In Europe, approx 9 out of 10 fires are ignited by human activities, such as arson, disposable barbeques, electricity lines, or littered glass, according to EU data. Warm weather very seldom results in spontaneous combustion of grasslands. Plenty of ways to prevent fires other than climate alarmism.

I'm reminded of an old Seinfeld episode...

Fair enough. I'll acknowledge that. 'Congress' can be both depending on context. The proper nouns I had used in my examples (William and Bill) do not denote defining characteristics of the person bearing the name (unlike 'he' and 'she'). That was rather my intended point.

Nah mate. Australian powers shall not be vested in a congress of the United States. The U.S. is just the most commonly held example of congress but they don't own copyright on the word, else it would never be necessary for the word "congress" to be preceded with the letters "U.S." for context. Asked and answered.

"U.S. Congress" is not a proper noun. It's two words; "U.S." is a proper noun, "congress" is a noun. In a hypothetical future it can change to "Chinese Congress", (if assuming they maintain a congress at all after invasion).

It is absolutely different and, as grammar goes, you really should know better. You're equating pronouns (he, she) with proper nouns (William, Bill) . They are distinctly different because proper nouns have no definition and that's precisely why they are not included in most dictionaries. Proper nouns are expected to be subject to change. Nouns and pronouns not. You're feeding directly into the Matt Walsh argument that if a person can select their own pronoun as a defining characteristic then others would be equally entitled to choose their own adjectives (handsome & brilliant) and will expect you to address them as such. Grammar corruption cuts both ways.

Maybe those people don't feel that a case meets definition criteria and also believe that this feeling entitles some legal exception. Y'know, like the definition of 'woman'. Curiously since the Roe v Wade topic resurfaced almost every progressive now seems to be quite sure what women (and women's legal rights) are. Welcome aboard.

Can't make this stuff up. Forbid that science should misgender our anthropological relics (lest they offend the dead?). Those wider pelvic bones, those cranial traits... heresy!

Is it cheaper than gas ?

Ah, c'mon Brent. We already have a 'woke is a joke' thread. Facebook has 58 genders and doesn't include this one. If you're planning new threads for each one of these you find it's going to get awfully cluttered in here.

We disagree on timeline here. I expect you believe that the climate gets REALLY bad within the lifetime of the current generation, hence your perception that conservatives only plan 'until they die'. I'll concede that a conservative approach amounts to 'kicking the can down the road' but then conservatives also believe that it's still a really long road ahead. No point debating the length of the road here, plenty of other threads for that topic, we retain our respective opinions. It's unrealistic to think that conservatives have a disregard for future generations, especially their own. For some it's akin to an imperial bloodline for them. A domestic carbon tax might certainly have some local bite but I'm a lot less convinced internationally. India and China are currently still regarded as 'developing' countries thereby granted some exemptions from emissions commitments and they will most certainly play that card for as long as they possibly can. There is also the option that they are currently using similar to ongoing trade between Russia, India and China despite sanctions, finding trading partners (anywhere they can) that will exempt a carbon tax. China is already preparing their economy for sanctions following from the inevitable invasion of Taiwan. They already know the economic consequence of either sanctions or a future carbon tax with the West and they don't care. While the West buys green solutions, they buy warfare solutions. Whoever has made the better preparation (as opposed to prevention) will be better positioned.