“Scientists Agree”

According to Salon, scientists agree that the shortage of baby food is due to global warming.

Supply chain issues are getting worse — and climate change is a main culprit | Salon.com

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to “Scientists Agree”

  1. arn says:

    When became Bidens became sabotage part of climate change?

  2. Eli the Pit Bull says:

    Meanwhile democrats and certain RINOs support literal NAZIs in Ukraine. The Buffalo shooter admired the AZOV Nazis, who have been slaughtering ethnic Russians by the thousands, but that’s ok because a hot war with Russia means $$$ for military industrial complex
    https://twitter.com/warkamikaze/status/1524245466204020738?s=21

  3. Eli the Pit Bull says:

    The official US government stand on the “climate crisis”
    And I thought Biden was bad😵‍💫
    https://twitter.com/gonzalolira1968/status/1525696808323801094?s=21

  4. Gamecock says:

    The origin of the baby formula shortage is the FDA shutting down the Abbott factory in Michigan, the largest in the country.

    The effects of which was a shortage of a few specific brands, most notably, brands for sensitive babies, who couldn’t take just any formula. The crisis is real for parents of such babies.

    Enter Tucker the Excitable Boy, yelling in the public square that there is a baby formula shortage. There wasn’t one, just some specific brands. As Tucker kept pushing his story, he created a panic. People started hoarding. Naturally. So now, there is indeed a general baby formula shortage, manufactured by Tucker.

    The good news is that this makes very public the FDA’s heavy handed treatment of Abbott. As soon as they restart their factory, all this trouble goes away. Yet the FDA won’t let them. Well, right now, in 2022, it is Biden’s and the Democrats’ FDA. Salon is flakking for the admin, trying to get us to think there is some other problem.

  5. Of course, not having diesel fuel will have absolutely no effect of the logistics. What imbeciles!

  6. arn says:

    Here a little reminder who is behind the war

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsgvYwFIVgM

  7. Bonnie mou says:

    The most frightening thing is that many people will believe this utter crap.

  8. Flyboy says:

    “Scientists say”…..means “disregard what you are about to read because it’s 99% B.S.”

    It’s sad how a few “scientists” have managed to discredit large swaths of real science.

  9. Daniel Smeal says:

    The headline should be reworded to: ‘Supply chain issues are getting worse and it is THE RESPONSE to the climate change fallacy that is a main culprit’. The restrictions imposed on fossil fuels by Biden and the ‘green deal’ resulted in the high cost of gasoline, diesel, etc. that are the lifeblood of our transport network.

  10. Disillusioned says:

    “Scientists Agree”

    A little over a decade ago whenever I would see that phrase, I assumed there was scientific research and hard, empirical data behind the statement. Now, whenever I see the phrase, I know I’m about to get smoke blown up my ass.

    “I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.”
    — Michael Crichton

  11. Disillusioned says:

    More text from Dr. Crichton’s lecture about scientific consensus, given at the California Institute of Technology in ’03, titled, “Aliens Cause Global Warming”

    I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

    Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

    In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let’s review a few cases.In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth. One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no.

    In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no.

    In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent “skeptics” around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

    There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the “pellagra germ.” The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory.

    Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called “Goldberger’s filth parties.” Nobody contracted pellagra.

    The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor-southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result-despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.

    Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology-until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.

    And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy. The list of consensus errors goes on and on.

    Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way. ”

    — Michael Crichton

  12. scott allen says:

    The Salon article was a salad of cognative dissonance.
    The photo at the start of the article shows shipping stopped on the Rhine due to high water. But the article talks about low water stopping shipping, due to lack of rain fall.
    The facts are that the Rhine is shut down frequently for many year before ‘global warming’ because of too much water or too little water.
    and to quote from the article which blamed capitalism on the problem.
    “that would likely not have been made if our global economic system wasn’t profit-driven.”
    If it weren’t for capitalism we would still be farming with mules and hand plows, and shipping the grain to market in horse drawn wagon. We would not have the internet, nor cell phones, cars, computers etc. it was government obstruction which prevented the advancement of the technology.
    The writer and the college professors ignore that capitalism works very well and that it doesn’t work very well when the government gets involved

    • Gamecock says:

      The “Food and Drug Administration” makes no food, nor any drugs.

      They have been harassing the people who do for over a hundred years.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.