There are two serious problems with covid data that give various news sources considerable power of presentation.
One is that in census years the population of the United States is a parameter. In the nine years between one census and another the population of the United States is an estimate. A parameter is a direct count. An estimate is found using statistical analysis techniques. That means researchers for various news sources may decide for themselves what number best represents the population for a year between one census and another. This explains how various sources can have very similar yet different numbers.
Another problem is that the death rate or mortality rate is so small, usually less than one percent. That means that it should fluctuate far more than things with a larger incidence. For example consider two food items, chicken generally and some specialty candy. For purposes of this discussion assume that people buy chicken on fifty percent of their visits to the grocery store. Also assume that people buy the specialty candy on one half of one percent of their visits to the grocery store.
Now suppose that in the following year three and a half percent of people visiting the grocery store buy the specialty candy. That represents sales of "seven hundred percent" that year by one means of reckoning anyway. Actually sales only increased three percent. It is important to be mindful which whether you subtract or divide. Chicken sales cannot increase seven hundred percent because they are already too close to one hundred percent.
Now consider this claim about covid.
That can be misleading, similar to saying the specialty candy sales were seven hundred percent. The actual percentage change in the mortality rate was about one-sixth of one percent, from about 0.8593 percent to 1.0226 percent, even by their own numbers.
Furthermore there is the question of what the population in 2019 was since there is no direct count. A crude way to estimate the population between one census and another is to assume constant growth. That way one-tenth of the difference between one census and another is added each year. Professional statisticians are not likely to depend on such crude methods except to check their other work before publication. For example using constant growth as an estimate of the population in 2019 yields a 17.9 percent death rate, not 19 percent. Using other "guesses" of the population in 2019 it is possible to make the death rate appear even lower. It is even possible to "invent" population numbers that wipe out the apparent increase in the death rate entirely, holding it at a constant 2.492 percent per year over the ten year span. That of course is not realistic, but far more realistic guesses of the population can significantly reduce the apparent death rate.
Another deceptive practice of the website in the link is using a graph of the death count rather than the death rate. That causes the graph to be rotated roughly 45 degrees counterclockwise, dramatically exaggerating the increase, and disguising how similar the increase was to previous years.
Another misguided attempt to persuade people the problem was more serious than it actually was included noting that hospitals were "overwhelmed" by cases. One news story on television showed a man in tears imploring people to "believe" in the pandemic because of the case load. However considering that hospitals in the United States typically have two to five beds per thousand population depending on the area, that would mean that less than one half of one percent of people were pressured by a panic to show up at hospitals with cold symptoms they would not usually take to a hospital.
And in fact although an incredibly large number of people were diagnosed with covid, a rather extremely few of them died, and those few who did die were likely to die from something else anyway. That is the infamous "comorbidity" issue.
The surprising thing about the increase in mortality in 2020 is not how marked the difference was, but how regular they expect it to be. It is possible that population estimates in the years between one census and another have been used to make the data appear more regular because the more it fluctuates, the less people might pay attention. Even so, in most reports it is far less regular than shown in the "brief" ten year clip reported in the link. I think it is important to be more understanding of those people who genuinely do not know anyone who died "from" covid since there are so many who do not.
All this is by no means intended to "prove" that the pandemic was a hoax, or that there is "no such thing" as the covid-19 virus. It merely suggests that deceptive practices of data presentation resulted in a panic and an "inordinate" response to whatever it was.
I have never recommended disobedience to duly appointed civil authorities in any of these matters and still do not. I continue to obey them while questioning their data. I am both religious and very scientific, and find no conflict between these disciplines at higher levels of reading them. Trump Republicans are neither religious nor scientific. They are being used by Democrats more fond of science than capable of it to create an impression that "religion" (as characterized by the Trump base) is the problem. Religion is definitely not the problem, reading levels can be. Correcting the bad science of Democrats with the bad religion of the Trump base is failing. To correct bad science requires good science. Then too, correcting the bad religion of the Trump base requires good religion. The Trump base is too dictatorial and materialistic to be religious.
Although electric vehicles can run on renewable energy, these days they typically run on energy generated by burning fossil fuels. That means each EV is using more fossil fuels than a similar sized internal combustion engine vehicle uses. A popular fantasy is that electric vehicles do not because when coming to a stop they can recover energy from their momentum, sending it back to the battery. To understand why that is not happening see the charts and explanations here.
One way to curtail the overuse of fossil fuels by electric vehicles would be to require charging stations to report on a label whether they use renewable energy or fossil fuels to get their electric power. That way customers would know they are wasting energy. I tried writing to my legislators in the Virginia General Assembly, but they have not responded or done anything at all about the problem.
You need to write to your legislators too.
It is not humanly possible to "measure" the temperature of the 2.37 billion cubic miles of Earth's atmosphere. It is possible to conduct statistical analysis surveys, but there is a serious problem of under sampling. Professional statisticians would include a "margin of error" in their reports, but with such under sampling as would be necessary with the entire atmosphere of the planet the margin of error would be huge, and much larger than the one to two degrees change over the many years they report.
When people claiming "climate change" were apprised of that hole in their data, they created the Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit (AMSU, although it obviously cannot be a "unit") that received microwaves and was somehow able to surmise temperature from "oxygen absorption bands" in that radiation. At first the claims were simple and based on one receiver (unit), later they admitted complexities (or obfuscations) in the methods that would again necessitate large margins of error. At no point did they establish where or how the microwaves originated, nor how regular they are, nor how they would know how regular they are. To determine temperature from the absorption of spectra, that information would be necessary in addition to the ratio of oxygen to other materials more or less transparent to the microwaves, which their method also does not have. There is a reason cell phone towers are towers. While which spectral lines are absorbed are fixed by quantum mechanics, the amount they are absorbed can depend on the amount of for example oxygen.
While it is remotely possible that the new method has a somewhat smaller margin of error than previous methods, they still do not report it nor the margin of error that existed in the technology before that, even though they expect to compare those results.
It would save much time if instead of waiting for these legitimate questions they anticipated them and produced a full report at the outset. This way it appears they make things up as they go along.
When "proving" the theory of relativity it is often asserted that the Global Positioning Satellite system must adjust for relativity to be as accurate as it is. That is not true, without relativity the system would work fine and with much simpler math. Relativity only introduces several unknowns that make solving the equations "impossible." Because the differences introduced are so small, the computers can generate "guesses" that can then be solved by standard mathematics. With larger differences the guesses would often be too far off the mark to be useful.
Although the satellites travel very fast, it is not near the speed of light and differences "from" relativity might rather be "from" the limits of perfection of the manufacturing process of the electronic components. Those are corrected by a calibration process that can hide the effects of relativity, if any. The process involves using a known GPS receiver at a known location and setting the dials so that the correct location is reported.
Still some argue that time dilation, both from velocity and gravity, is proved.
Time dilation by velocity makes no sense unless there is an "absolute" frame of reference. Such a frame of reference has never been found. Rather all velocities are relative and from the viewpoint of an observer he is motionless. Consider a person on a train with curtains over the windows of the train. If the train is well constructed the passenger might not be aware he is moving. He can toss a ball in the air and it will return to his hand despite the fact his hand has moved along with the moving train. (I can explain how that works.) Then if two objects are both moving relative to each other, on which is time slowed, and on which is it sped up? If we found out, couldn't that tell us where the absolute frame of reference is?
Time dilation by gravity is also rather dubious. Reports claim that if atomic clocks are operated at different heights, they are slower at lower heights because of stronger gravity. The assumption is that time itself is slower because of gravity. Gravity might be effecting the way the clocks work in many ways that have nothing to do with actual time dilation. All we know is that for reasons we cannot be certain which, the clocks operate differently.
The clocks on the satellites are probably not as elaborate as those on Earth, and even if they were, might need updates to ensure synchronicity with the system. Again the corrections for relativity might be lost in the calibrations.
This is by no means intended to "prove" that relativity is a hoax. It is merely intended to show how difficult and expensive finding exact data on relativity can be, and how elusive certainty can be.
It has long been my suspicion that many of the articles that appear in "science," and especially lately on the internet, are deliberate "traps" for people who mindlessly repeat what they imagine is from some "authority." It is like them wearing a "dunce cap" when they mindlessly repeat incomplete and otherwise flawed reports.
It is true of course that fossil fuels are finite and will eventually run out, not to be replaced in time to maintain current consumption rates. It is also likely true that the supply will last far more than twelve years. However, in their their panic to defend and promote "science" they cannot possibly understand, many people just make the problem worse.
There was no "red wave" in 2022 and there will be no red wave in 2024 if Donald Trump is allowed to lead the Republican Party. Although intelligent people understand that the bad science of atheists and Democrats is a leading problem in the country today, they also understand that Donald Trump with his "bad boy" attitude is incompetent to solve the problem. No, religion will not be characterized by Trump. Yes, religion in its better established forms has a place in the world, solving problems science cannot, and advising, not dictating, public policies. While some Muslims on television might appear dictatorial, so do some "Christians." That is because those are the fighters, not the thinkers. All countries and most large groups of people have both fighters and thinkers, more or less well regulated.