Spreading Big
⚡ ALL INFORMATION CLICK HERE 👈🏻👈🏻👈🏻
Spreading Big
Games & Quizzes
Thesaurus
Word of the Day
Features
Buying Guide
M-W Books
Join MWU
MLA
Chicago
APA
Merriam-Webster
Swift
Unpredictable
Slow
Relentless
Love words? Need even more definitions?
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Instagram
To save this word, you'll need to log in.
Synonyms of spread
(Entry 2 of 2)
From the Editors at Merriam-Webster
The words that defined the week of January 18th, 2019
“Spread.” Merriam-Webster.com Thesaurus , Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/spread. Accessed 7 Sep. 2022.
More from Merriam-Webster on spread
Test your vocabulary with our 10-question quiz!
A daily challenge for crossword fanatics.
Subscribe to America's largest dictionary and get thousands more definitions and advanced search—ad free!
As illustrated by some very smart pups
Bikini, bourbon, and badminton were places first
How to use a word that (literally) drives some pe...
Editor Emily Brewster clarifies the difference.
Roll up your sleeves and identify these garments
Test your vocabulary with our 10-question quiz!
Can you outdo past winners of the National Spelli...
Learn a new word every day. Delivered to your inbox!
© 2022 Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
This page may contain sensitive or adult content that's not for everyone. To view it, confirm your age.
Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. ©2022 reddit inc. All rights reserved. REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.
Trending
Mar-a-Lago search
January 6th attack
Alex Jones
Social Media Menu
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Utility Navigation
Take Action
Search
Donate
Trending
Mar-a-Lago search
January 6th attack
Alex Jones
Utility Navigation
Take Action
Search
Donate
Social Media Menu
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Carlson: “The protesters on January 6 were very upset about that, and they should have been. All of us should be”
Citation
From the June 9, 2022, edition of Fox News' Tucker Carlson Tonight
TUCKER CARLSON (HOST): And of course, above all, they lie about the reason that January 6 happened in the first place. And you know what it is -- the entire country watched Joe Biden get what they claimed was 10 million more votes than Barack Obama himself. Joe Biden got 10 million more votes than Barack Obama got. And a lot of those votes arrived after the election.
In a lot of places, voting was stopped in the middle of the night. Why? In the biggest states in the country, voter ID was optional. Why is that okay? A lot of the protesters on January 6 were very upset about that, and they should have been. All of us should be. But the January 6 committee ignored all of that completely. Instead, on the basis of zero evidence, no evidence whatsoever, they blame the entire riot on white supremacy.
Article
09/07/22 1:42 PM EDT
Article
09/07/22 12:49 PM EDT
Research/Study
09/07/22 11:46 AM EDT
Article
09/07/22 8:58 AM EDT
Video & Audio
09/06/22 8:38 PM EDT
Article
09/07/22 1:42 PM EDT
Video & Audio
09/06/22 8:38 PM EDT
Article
09/06/22 1:46 PM EDT
(Visited 461 times, 1 visits today)
Three kinds of deliberate misinformation (i.e., disinformation)
are being spread by Big Science and Big Media about climate change
The first form of disinformation by Big Science and Big Media is asserting that their critics are spreading disinformation. I.e., they lie by claiming the opposition is lying. Climate skeptics have good reasons to doubt the consensus. Here at CEH, we draw most of our material from mainstream journals.
The second form of disinformation by Big Science is confusing science with consensus. Science is not consensus, and consensus is not science. Scientists who question the consensus are not questioning science. Some skeptics agree that warming is occurring, but doubt that it is entirely man-caused (anthropogenic). Big Science routinely conflates those two questions. As further evidence, Big Science illustrates shallow, illogical thinking by pointing to any unusual weather as evidence of climate change. Weather anomalies have always occurred throughout human history.
The third form of disinformation is assuming that the only way to fix climate change is through draconian, global-socialist policies. They routinely dismiss free market solutions. Instead, they turn to the U.N. and W.E.F. (World Economic Forum) for ideas ranging from carbon capture methods that are expensive and unproven (with potential downsides), elimination of farms and fertilizers (which can lead to economic collapse and starvation), and redistribution of wealth (i.e., communism, which has caused more tyranny, suffering and death than any other political system). For some odd reason, their policy recommendations always benefit China, Russia and Iran, but hurt the West, especially America. Why is that?
Climate is always on the move. Animated GIF from a NASA dataset. Courtesy NASA.
Disinformation Hurts People and Nations
The globalists’ recommendations, such as eliminating chemical fertilizers and animal stock, have already led to political collapse in Sri Lanka and Ghana and are now causing major protests and upheavals in the Netherlands, Canada, Argentina and some African countries. These upheavals come with very real prospects of mass starvation and mass migration for millions of people. Germany is facing cold winters without power because of over-reliance on so-called “renewable energy” that is being pushed worldwide due to climate change scares. The countries striving for the highest ESG scores (Environmental, Social, and corporate Governance, a measure of conformance with the climate consensus policy recommendations) are the worst off, and the ones suffering the most there are the poor and middle classes. Sri Lanka specifically outlawed chemical fertilizers, which literally spells famine. The consensus elites don’t care. Their solutions are as unworkable as they are cruel. They wouldn’t mind if billions died to reduce human impact on the planet. Some of them think that would be a good thing, as long as they are exempted themselves.
The hypocrisy of the warmist alarmists is also on display. Working people see climate alarmists flying their private jets to world climate conferences, making a bigger carbon footprint than they ever will in their lifetime. They see America being pressured to shut down fossil fuels where it is produced cleanly, so that tyrannical countries like Russia and China can backfill the demand with dirty energy. They see the rich buying up beachfront property one day and warning about sea level rise the next. If they really wanted to persuade people, they would practice what they preach. And if they are so sure of their science, they would debate with scientists outside the consensus.
It’s no wonder that many conservatives look at what’s going on and call the alarmists a Climate Cult. In a long interview this week with global journalist Michael Yon, who has put his boots on the ground in numerous countries for decades, popular speaker and podcaster Dr. Jordan B. Peterson wags his head at what these global elitists are saying and doing. Yon is billed as “America’s most experienced combat correspondent” who “has traveled or worked in 82 countries, including various wars and conflicts.” Hearing what Yon shares from his eyeball experience, Peterson exclaims that that the elitists’ utopian policies are “naive beyond belief” and “stupid and often malevolent.” Seeing what they are doing to Dutch farmers right now in the name of climate change, this well read and popular commentator cannot fathom their “globalist utopian ideologically blind stupidity.” And yet Big Science is all in with it!
Where is any major journal calling a halt to the disinformation? Where is any fair and balanced reporting? If the consensus information is so strong and self-evident, Big Science and Big Media wouldn’t mind debating it. Instead, they try to cancel anybody outside their circle. That is cultic behavior by definition.
And so we offer you alternatives straight from Big Science’s own arsenal.
Climate prognostications cannot possibly take into account all the factors involved, which are always changing. Instead, climatologists simplify the factors with computer models, making assumptions and simplifications. Many of the prognosticators will be dead before their predictions can be verified or falsified, exempting them from accountability. Consensus (groupthink) is not science.
The closest thing we come to finding sensible information—after setting aside the alarmist articles that are purely political—are scientific studies that provide specific details about factors feeding the climate consensus—both ones that support the consensus and ones that cast doubt on it. New unknowns and revisions occur regularly. Where else are you hearing about these? It’s not disinformation if we bring their own words to you. It’s information . Here, our readers can hear from both sides and decide for themselves where the best evidence is.
This issue demands everyone’s careful attention. Some globalist socialists are already acting to destroy livelihoods and nations, threatening widespread famines and economic collapse, under the excuse of “doing something” to “save the planet” from global warming. Our stance remains to examine the evidence from the journals with an open but critical mind, asking whether it truly supports the views of the radical warmists and their draconian policies. Below are a few more recent studies—all from sources that believe in anthropogenic climate change.
Keep in mind that whether warming is occurring is a separate question from evidence for man’s culpability for it; scientists agree that the earth has experienced wild climate swings in the past before humans were around. Also, what should be done about warming (climate policy) is also a separate question from whether it is occurring. The cure cannot be worse than the disease. Bjorn Lomborg, for instance, agrees that humans are contributing to global warming, but he considers the issue far down on the priority list of crises that world leaders need to be addressing. And his solutions are opposite the views of the consensus warmist alarmists: Lomborg advises giving people more freedom and prosperity. Rich people, he says, solve environmental problems; poor people make them worse out of desperation. One cannot, therefore, leap from “The planet is warming!” to “Install global communism!” or to any other foolish non-sequitur.
Supervolcano study finds CO2 emissions key to avoiding climate disasters ( Curtin University , 26 July 2022). No supervolcano eruptions have been witnessed by humans. One supervolcano can emit enormous amounts of carbon dioxide. Obviously no scientist can measure how much, exactly, because nobody was there. Australian scientists used indirect measurements to estimate the amount of CO 2 emitted from supervolcano eruptions in western Australia, and then asserted that the CO 2 was the cause of mass extinctions. That’s a dubious conclusion because of the weakness of the proxy; also, association is not causation. But on top of that of that weakness, they asserted that “we are now currently emitting carbon dioxide 200 times faster than those supervolcanic eruptions that caused the most severe mass extinctions.” This is an unwarranted extrapolation built on a non-sequitur .
How did ancient moa survive the ice age – and what can they teach us about modern climate change? ( The Conversation , 25 May 2022). One fact often forgotten by climate alarmists is that global cooling can be even more devastating for life than warming. Three Australian scientists try to figure out how giant birds called moas survived the ice age. What certainty can they derive from their suggestions, though, from bits of bones in a cave? And can anyone decide that these bits of bone teach humans today about climate change? There are far too many unknowns in this article to make definitive conclusions. One has to wonder if the authors put “climate change” in the title just for virtue signaling.
Aridity-dependent Land Surface Skin Temperature Biases in CMIP5/6 ( Geophysical Research Letters , 25 July 2022). The CMIP models (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project) are the gold standard for global warming projections. These authors found systematic biases in the latest two iterations. “Spatial patterns of biases remain similar in the latest CMIP6 simulations, suggesting systematic biases in land-atmosphere interactions,” the authors say. “ These biases need to be corrected or considered while using models for future projections. ” It’s a little too late for that. The global policy makers are already ruining countries by insisting on draconian measures like eliminating chemical fertilizers (Sri Lanka, Ghana, others) and closing cattle ranches, driving farmers out of business and threatening mass famines. Can they tell this to the Dutch farmers that are protesting similar moves there? Canada, too?
In a paradox, cleaner air is now adding to global warming ( Science , 20 July 2022). Oh great. Now they tell us that “pollution … helps cool the planet.” Quick! Burn more coal—save the planet! Joking aside, this “paradox” shows how difficult it is to model climate change. People are glad to have clean air, but clean air exacerbates global warming, this article claims. Why? The atmosphere needs suspended particles to act as nuclei for precipitation. Cloud cover is also one of the most difficult factors to model; clouds not only bring rain; they reflect solar heat back to space. The declining reflectivity of pollution particles, these authors say, is making the planet hotter!
Aerosols don’t just reflect light on their own; they can also alter clouds. By serving as nuclei on which water vapor condenses, pollution particles reduce cloud droplet size and increase their number, making clouds more reflective. Reducing pollution should undo the effect —and using the same instruments, Quaas and his team found a clear decrease in cloud droplet concentrations in the same regions where aerosols declined.
It does not follow that “solar geoengineering” is the answer. Long-time alarmists like James Hansen, who urges that in this article, might think so. But watch out; others have warned that geoengineering can have unanticipated harmful consequences.
Is going meat-free the answer to climate change? ( Phys.org , 22 July 2022). Barbara Intermill disputes the common myth that going without hamburgers helps the planet (e.g., University of Bath ). Carbon dioxide reduction matters far more, she argues. Where’s the beef? Have some.
Why natural gas is not a bridge technology ( Ruhr University Bochum , 20 July 2022). German scientists conclude that natural gas is not a bridge technology toward renewable energy.
The researchers have examined the natural gas issue from five perspectives and given gas a fairly poor climate balance, comparable to that of coal or oil. They recommend that politicians and scientists revise the current assumptions about natural gas.
What they don’t say is that Russia has cut off Germany’s natural gas supply (Nordstream 1). This puts German climate alarmists between a rock and a hard place. They still want to reduce climate change, but they face a cold winter without fossil fuels. It’s hot in summer right now, but Michael Yon tells Jordan Peterson that Germans are gathering wood in expectation of a cold winter without gas to heat their homes. Not only that, natural gas is required for the Haber process that makes nitrogen fertilizer (see Veritasium ). The cutoff of this fossil fuel, which could be exported from the USA’s plentiful supplies were it not for prohibitions by the Biden administration, puts Europe at risk of massive starvation if Germans and the Dutch cannot get fertilizer for next year’s crops.
Why restoring seagrass meadows would be a huge conservation win ( New Scientist , 6 July 2022). “Seagrass meadows are vanishing at a rate of 7 per cent a year, but this is a habitat that buries carbon up to 35 times faster than tropical rainforest ,” writes Sophie Pavelle. “We must safeguard and restore it.” Sounds like a great idea. The earth has many natural feedback mechanisms to maintain climate. Why not go for biological solutions that offer the most bang for the buck and create jobs?
Even ‘net zero’ aviation could still cause significant global warming ( New Scientist , 25 July 2022). This article illustrates the hopelessness of trying to “do something” about climate change with feel-good solutions. “ Efforts to make flying greener mostly count carbon dioxide emissions only, but modelling shows this ignores 90 per cent of fut
Private Black Label 2
Porno Big Ass Mature
Sexy Hot Solo Girls