Ah-so

For a second there, I thought the scientific consensus on historical temperatures had been entirely debunked by a random guy on the internet with.

Measures such as tree rings allow a pretty good way of measuring temperature across the world for a thousand years. It is modern temperature measures that allow us to convert metrics such as tree rings from long ago to Celsius.

That rather depends on what the science suggests would be an appropriate timescale in light of known manmade changes to the environment. If it does agree that decade on decade comparisons, or quarter on quarter century comparisons are appropriate, then it probably is. It is certainly going to be more appropriate than a pseudoscientific blog that says "Cold April disproves global warming". The other observation is that we are able to make observations over a thousand years - we have a good idea of the global climate in the 1020s and use these figures to compare to the remarkable surge

If April had been warm, like it was last year, we would all have enjoyed it. If it was the hottest on record, they might have raised it. What is constantly pointed out is that worldwide we keep on having record warm years - most of the warmest years on record have been in the last 20, suggesting that the climate is changing, which is consistent with the global warming hypothesis. And then you get utter f*ckwits who cannot distinguish between weather and climate and they think that they can post their inane opinions as a credible scientific opinion. This is why that website lacks any

Interesting read, with some worrying claims. Although looking around the site further suggests that it is not that worried about about mixing unevidenced opinion and science (a cold April disproves global warming, CO2 is good for the environment etc). It is primarily an anti-science site, or at least one that pushes anti-enviromental anti-vaxx views with pseudo-science, so I will have to take the claims in your article with a pinch of salt, even if they do seem rather worrying. From article: 'Among the 12,140 adverse events reported to Canada’s coronavirus vaccine adverse even

I disagree. I don't think that the media or government is portraying them as tin foil hatters. They tend to use more sensitive language ("vaccine hesitancy"), but also refer to anti-vaxx misinformation. The sceptics are particularly guilty of black and white thinking, painting those who disagree as "sheeple", as though they have some special insight into science of viral pandemics and immunology, whereas their view was determined long before the evidence. There is a healthy debate to be had over the length and extent of any restrictions, balancing the risks. And while I think

Pure QAnon levels of fantasy.

You have a track record of posting inaccurate data, but the numbers are accurate here. Although I note with amusement that it states 'Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a FALLACY!'. This graphic is clearly committing the fallacy by confusing correlation with causation. Monaco is a micro-state with a very small population, and was hit hard by the second wave. Unless you can evidence that the vaccination causes death, these posts can safely be ignored. I imagine you also noted how case numbers were rising sharply in the weeks leading up to the end of the year, so it is hardly surprising that peop

The links do not support the hypothesis that vaccinations are a driver of variants, as Sour Mash suggested. Mutations seem to be causes by genetic drift rather than environmental selection pressures.

While this group may remain infectious for longer, which doesn't seem surprising, they are a small minority. It is not an either or scenario. They were simply a small factor in the decision to lockdown, not the main driver of it.

Sorry, but the people you are addressing cannot handle nuance of any sort. It has to be entirely black or white.

There is always a tendancy among people to choose a simple solution to explain complex issues. And within that I would include folksy or pseudoscientific medicine. Things which are cheap and easily available are good because it shuts out Big Bad Pharma. It also appeals because it is often "natural" and not a "chemical". With vitamin D we have a plausible narrative - a distinct correlation between ethnic minorities and COVID infection and mortality. I actually took them myself, despite being white. Of course, if you are vitamin deficient you are more likely to fall ill anyway, but it doe

I disagree, at least until I see firm evidence to support this. However, the picture you paint aligns to a narrative of those with a superior insight vs "the sheeple" (or "normies" in the language of the QAnon nutters). It creates a simple picture of two classes of people - those who understand the truth and those that blindly follow government propaganda. In reality there will be a relatively small number who hysterically believe that this is a virus that will kill anything in its path, but most understand the reality - that it is an illness that mainly affects the old and infirm, and mo

Playing in the dirt appears to provide some benefits from various bugs if done at a young age, but it will have no effect whatsoever on limiting the number of colds you get, unless you are with people who give you colds.

That is true. There are a limited number of cold viruses in circulation and you are unlikely to get the same one twice. If you get about two a year growing up, by the time you reach your age there will be far fewer that you are likely to catch.