Win uses cookies necessary for site functionality, as well as for personalization. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies as described in our Privacy Policy.
Yep. This is literally how it works. You think they can't buy scientists? Just go back in history and look at all of the Doctors and Scientists Big Tobacco paid off to promote cigarettes.
It's as easy to buy Scientists and Doctors as it is to buy POLITICIANS. You think these people have principles and morals? No. They have college debts and they have vices. Throw enough money at the right people and you can make them say anything. Just look at Fauci. We almost saw it happening in real time.
One month he says Masks aren't needed and don't work, then he does a 180 and starts claiming we should have mask mandates. He's owned. Bought and paid for. Just like Climatologists.
The ACTUALLY NUMBER is that like 2.3 percent of Scientists agree that man causes over 50 percent of Global warming. This azz0 just lied about their scientific papers.
Yup, I remember when that came out. I would share it with lefties and they would just go "Alex Epstein is a philosopher, not a scientist". (I know he is. Doesn't make him wrong.)
Then Cook Et Al, who lied to our faces with this study, literally just released another study saying "Alright we redid it you guys, it's still 97%" and the left ate that up too.
The point of science is literally to oppose dogmatism and question the status quo without getting nailed on a cross or put into a reeducation camp.
"Believe the science" is just a hollow virtue signal phrase that means: "We are all stupid, therefore all we can do is obey the scientists unquestionably" - which ones? - "of course the ones that champion authoritarian measures." The phrase is NO indicator for actual understanding of science, it's an appeal to authority. Authority, that is mostly ideologically driven and biased - and of course aligns with their ideology.
And then they call you "deniers" for being a HERETIC to their new dogmatic religion. Absolutely ridiculous.
Shit, man, Nathan's built its hotdog empire by opening his hotdog stand across the street from a hospital, and having a "Doctors Eat Free- if you Wear your White Coat" policy. People walking the streets of Coney Island saw doctors gathered around, every day, for their free meal, and thought "Wow, I guess that guy's hotdogs are healthier than the ones I've seen!" Even though they were just Hotdogs. Better than most, and my own personal favorite brand, but still just a Hotdog.
People love to make gods out of people, and believe them unquestioningly. Ironic since they so hate God, who deserves to be believed unquestioningly despite allowing people to be so very wrong all day long.
That is a trick they like to use too. Poll random 'doctors' does not mater who the doctor is or what their degree is. Phrase the questions in a particular way. Pick out those who answer the way you like. Come back later throw out the ones who do not agree ask a new poll and use that one. First poll never happened, tada.... x out of y agree exactly the numbers you want.
There is also the scientist that has personal beliefs about how the world should work and will design/fake studies around trying to prove it. The AHA, food pyramid, etc. were the result of this
Look up Brian Wansink from Cornell. The federal government and major corporations adopted his recommendations on portion sizes and packaging, turned out almost all his research was faked.
Oh was the food pyramid fake? That's kind of sad to learn but not a surprise I suppose. My health has really rocketed once I started focusing on meat and vegetables.
The problem is how do you run a nutrition experiment. Do you monitor what everyone eats or do you just ask them what they ate. Do you have type of control group? How do you even control for variables?
People keep food diaries. You then have them limit particular things or add in particular things. It is not going to kill them but you can measure it. As long as the study is large enough and the controls are ok you can usually draw some trends.
The big one for me is amount of salt per day. Someone on Ars years ago (when they actually kinda were good at instead of a leftest rag) looked into how much salt do we need. They literally could not find any study on it. The original 2000mg per day was apparently made up. Everyone else based their numbers off that. In the 1970s a lot of health advice was made up to sell programs, seminars, and books.
Want to lose weight? Stop eating things with sugar in it. Limit your fruit portions to one small fruit per day (lots of sugar in them). Eat heavy meaty protein heavy foods. Limit that to 20-40g per day Limit yourself to 900-1200 calories per day. Drink 40-80oz of water per day instead of soda, juices and milk. You will probably lose weight. However, do not take advice from me find a dietitian who knows what they are doing (not weightwatchers they just want to sell you a program).
hitting particular values and having lots of sugar in it is very hard. You can blow out half your daily allowed with 1-2 sugary drinks. So staying away from them helps. Lots of diets say 'lots of fruit' when the reality is they have a decent amount of sugar in them too so you also need to moderate on that (1/2 cup usually is the recommended per day). Lots of water also helps as it helps you feel more full (esp with cold water) and less munchy. It also helps flush out anything your body is not using faster. Protein style diets help with the 'munchies' as they are heavy and make you feel full and help you hit your numbers easier.
By personal you mean leftist. Real scientists follow the science rather then hang onto personal preconceptions. Leftist can not be scientists because they can never get past their brainwashing. If the were, they would not be leftists.
You know half the people who get arrested will never see prison time because nearly 68 percent of cases are not in the bag so the DA doesnt prosecute. It's all about the numbers. SJW's love to say things about rape kits not being tested, but theres more too it. They want a sure thing and one doesnt bring the press. Unless its a high profile baby murderer. Then they can hang them
I work in corporate sales. I went to dinner with some climate scientists from NASA (just so we are clear, they paid for their own portion of the meal) a few years ago and we started talking about their research. I was appalled when they started talking about the guidance they get when they receive funding for their projects. They literally admitted to receiving instructions on what the outcome of the research should be. If they don't arrive at the "right" conclusions, funding dries up and they are out of jobs.
But yeah, tell me again how I should believe scientists.
It's not even just about climate shit either. If you dig deep you may find that even massive projects like w-map and blackhole research is fraught with data manipulation to keep funding going. I hope there is a reckoning at some point so we can actually get some god damn honest science back in the fold.
Don't even get me started on cancer research. I worked at a major research institution where a scientist, who was recognized as a national leader in his field, got caught manipulating data and plagiarizing his grants. What did the institution do? Fire him? Nope. They just let him continue on like nothing ever happened because he was bringing in so much NIH funding to the institution.
I got my PhD in chemistry and even funding for those projects is dispensed to dubious actors. You can get an NIH or NSF grant based on your "track record" alone, which means nothing if you've been faking all your experiments. Lots of high profile chemists have been exposed for totally fabricating their experiments. Look up Bengu Sezen at Columbia University.
Almost all researchers publish findings that support the funding companies. This happens in the medical and drug industries all the times. The results of many of these studies could not be replicated. Journals have been retracting those fake studies. Qualitative sciences are easily manipulated.
Indeed. There had been a HUGE problem replicating all kinds of studies in recent decades, because they’re all made to create an outcome.
Some researchers have spoken out but the Liberal Establishment machine has ruthlessly silenced them like always.
Thanks for the link. It doesn’t surprise me that many retracted papers are social, gender, and drug studies. It reminds me of a story that a journal once accepted a computer-generated garbage paper in computer science or economics. The paper was impossible to understand. The author did it to expose flaws in the scientific review process. Reviewers don’t usually like to go against the accepted mainstream hypotheses or show their weaknesses. So garbage papers are accepted.
Thanks for the information. I wasn't doubting, or challenging, you, so sorry if it come off that way.
I wanted a cliff's notes version because no imagine if I went off researching this stuff on my own it would take years to process and assimilate. If I wanted to do that I would have become a scientist.
Now that I have my cliff's notes, I'll go read a bit further and prepare for my encounters.
"Climate change" is just another Communist agenda in disguise. Take control of all the means of power production, make everyone poor and dependent on the state.
My brother is a research scientist. I can confirm the OP. There are quite a few scientists that spend their lives chasing the next government research grant. They'll say whatever they think will get them that grant.
That was something my psych 101 teacher told me. Psychologists research whatever the government pays them to research. And he wasn't even saying ti like it was a bad thing.
I've read all of his books and this one is my least favorite. The science he uses is good, but he clearly wrote it as a movie script. He pretty much all but says that one character is Martin Sheen.
If those scientists cared about CO2 emissions in the slightest the first thing they would do is advocate better battery technology instead of trying to micromanage everyone else's life and free time. Solar power is now cheaper than fossil fuel, which is great because eventually we can use fossil fuels for plastics instead of burning them. But we can't do that because we don't have strong enough batteries.
Lithium-silicon batteries would increase capacity by TEN TIMES and not require cobalt which is only produced in a single country. We don't have these yet because we don't know how to build them without the battery cracking due to expansion.
Salt-water batteries are heavier but can be built now with today's technology if we had any factories to produce them.
They will never talk about this because they don't care about fixing the problem, they just want to control people's lives!
These idiots have greatly damaged trust in science. Who knows how long it will take to repair that damage. In the meantime, I have learned not to believe a word they say.
Science was literally always meant to be questioned as that’s how we advance as a civilization and these absolute morons are treating science as if it is a religion, that it can’t be wrong, and that it’s absolute.
If we didn’t question science we would still be smoking cigarettes for the health benefits and women would not be allowed to travel faster than 50mph. They try and frame our side as anti science but we are just anti bullshit
No they have not damaged the credibility of science...
Science can be replicated and falsified.
If it cannot be falsified or replicated, (anthropomorphic climate change), then it's not science.
This is why they cannot call it a scientific theory. It's just a hypothesis and therfore must be investigated and studied and not: "wE nEEd to Act nOw!!!!!!!! hAvE goVernMenT sEiZe cOntRol oF tHe enErgY SectOr!!!!! pUt AOC iN chArgE!!!!!"
Yes they have ... you are confused. The climate warming hoax was NEVER about science. It was all the leftist objectives wrapped with a thin veneer of pseudo-science as camouflage in order to stampede all the sheeple in the direction they wanted them to go.
That is what is damaging the credibility of science. Your average person has no clue that the climate scare tactics are not really science. The leftists pretend that it is science, and that is how it is perceived.
The website says it is fake news. Imagine if it actually works out that way. Imagine if at least a third of Americans actually believed in the integrity of climate science. That is the world we live in today.
That original “97 percent” study that people try to pull is bullshit by the way. It was something like “97 percent of 100 scientists”, yet people still claim it’s true
“Confessions of a climate scientist” by Dr Mototaka Nakamura is a great short dive into explaining why almost all climate modeling is junk science at this point . The gist of it is the effects of clouds are vastly higher than modeling accounts for while we also have a very poor understanding of ocean/aerosol currents and non linear dynamics. All of these models have assumptions built into them in order to push the result of the “science” in a pre determined direction.
What I can't wait to see is the rift that is going to be created soon in the scientific and conservation communities in the next couple of years.
Trump made it mandatory for a percentage of all profits from oil drilled out of federal national parks to be given to the national park.
This will give funds for the parks to be maintained AND will provide funding for scientific research on these lands.
This will create 10's of thousands of science based jobs in the coming years entirely dependent upon oil money and we'll see a stark transformation in the "settled science".
Just an FYI, the actual scientific paper this 97% comes from DOES NOT say that. It says that out of all "climate scientists" only about 20-30% say the climate is even changing. The rest say they don't know or "no it's not". Out of those 20-30%, 97% say it's humans.
And if they are working via a grant, they got that money based on a result the research is “expected” to show. You can take data and skew it any way you want.
Yeah I think about this all the time. If the IPCC came out tomorrow and plainly said they dont have all the variables to predict global warming, (which they say, but bury in their reports) they’d lose a good portion of funding.
After seeing politicians and other organizations become greedy over time, I have no doubt some scientists in these organizations just want money. I’m sure it’s a multi-billion dollar industry. Especially for universities.
In recent years, corruption has permeated into the academia. Money is everything. Publishing research work requires funding which can only be sustained if the outcome is favorable to the funding institution. Government funding has become too competitive. Several recent studies on drug efficacy and medical research have to be retracted because the results were bogus.
So this is probably the same with all the fake polls which were funded by the media who wants to see certain outcome.
Imagine going to school for and dedicating your life to "climatology" and then coming to the conclusion that there's no such thing as climate change? Or that it isn't necessarily manmade and there's nothing we can really do about it?
Would you be out of a job? What would you then do for a living? How about your colleagues? Superiors?
Think about this. The more they peg this as a global catastrophe, the more money, jobs, research they, their friends and colleagues have.
As if we didn't suspect. Very moral, these over educated scientists. They learned to believe their commie professors and paymasters or else. Fiction matches truth.
"Climate change is real" is a True Statement.
Real question is:
Is that natural?
Is it man made?
Is is the climate change responsible for the disasters amplifying.
Will throwing trillions of $ reverse the change??
I work in tbr Silicon valley, and thr issue with solar and wind energy is that there is no way to store it.
Battery tech is not there yet...(not even close)
Nuclear is the best option right now, but the fear of nuclear leak or a hack would be disastrous.
If we can harness energy from Nuclear Fusion that will be ground breaking. ( the way sun produce its energy)
The very first time I heard about "global warming" I knew it was bs because the ones preaching about it were directly profiting from it. That and it is madness to think that you have enough data about our earth to make any real scientific predictions. Assumptions in science are like landmines in a field.
Democrats all belong to The Holy Church of Scientist the Scientist,
It has been know for hundreds of years that bacteria cause disease and a bit less for viruses. Yet our Holy and sacred Scientists cannot provide a definitive proof that any type of mask is effective in preventing disease or to what extent.
The "SCIENCE" is all written in the sub-basements of CNN and the NYT to suit the politics.
Yep. This is literally how it works. You think they can't buy scientists? Just go back in history and look at all of the Doctors and Scientists Big Tobacco paid off to promote cigarettes.
It's as easy to buy Scientists and Doctors as it is to buy POLITICIANS. You think these people have principles and morals? No. They have college debts and they have vices. Throw enough money at the right people and you can make them say anything. Just look at Fauci. We almost saw it happening in real time.
One month he says Masks aren't needed and don't work, then he does a 180 and starts claiming we should have mask mandates. He's owned. Bought and paid for. Just like Climatologists.
NOPE, there was never a 97 percent, it was a damned lie by some lib and Obama promoted this lie, READ: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#9bbbaaf3f9ff
The ACTUALLY NUMBER is that like 2.3 percent of Scientists agree that man causes over 50 percent of Global warming. This azz0 just lied about their scientific papers.
Yup, I remember when that came out. I would share it with lefties and they would just go "Alex Epstein is a philosopher, not a scientist". (I know he is. Doesn't make him wrong.)
Then Cook Et Al, who lied to our faces with this study, literally just released another study saying "Alright we redid it you guys, it's still 97%" and the left ate that up too.
It's so bizarre. Science is not a fucking poll. If you got the evidence, show the evidence. Otherwise shut the fuck up about "consensus".
"The science is settled."
That is the stupidest phrase I've ever read.
The point of science is literally to oppose dogmatism and question the status quo without getting nailed on a cross or put into a reeducation camp.
"Believe the science" is just a hollow virtue signal phrase that means: "We are all stupid, therefore all we can do is obey the scientists unquestionably" - which ones? - "of course the ones that champion authoritarian measures." The phrase is NO indicator for actual understanding of science, it's an appeal to authority. Authority, that is mostly ideologically driven and biased - and of course aligns with their ideology.
And then they call you "deniers" for being a HERETIC to their new dogmatic religion. Absolutely ridiculous.
"There are more than two genders."
How bout now?
Neither is the Constitution a poll - yet all we hear from the media is "XYZ percent of people think there should be a Supreme Court nomination".
The 97% Consensus? Global Warming Unmasked!
Shit, man, Nathan's built its hotdog empire by opening his hotdog stand across the street from a hospital, and having a "Doctors Eat Free- if you Wear your White Coat" policy. People walking the streets of Coney Island saw doctors gathered around, every day, for their free meal, and thought "Wow, I guess that guy's hotdogs are healthier than the ones I've seen!" Even though they were just Hotdogs. Better than most, and my own personal favorite brand, but still just a Hotdog.
People love to make gods out of people, and believe them unquestioningly. Ironic since they so hate God, who deserves to be believed unquestioningly despite allowing people to be so very wrong all day long.
Lefties worship the idea of Science in place of God. People are naturally religious afterall.
Leftist don't believe in science but post-normal science.
Interesting story. What a marketing strategy.
4 out of 5 doctors agree.
That is a trick they like to use too. Poll random 'doctors' does not mater who the doctor is or what their degree is. Phrase the questions in a particular way. Pick out those who answer the way you like. Come back later throw out the ones who do not agree ask a new poll and use that one. First poll never happened, tada.... x out of y agree exactly the numbers you want.
This dude was the king of that crap. http://www.americantable.org/2012/07/how-bacon-and-eggs-became-the-american-breakfast/ Do not think for one second the lessons he taught his fellow ad execs do not continue on until today. It is emotional manipulation.
There is also the scientist that has personal beliefs about how the world should work and will design/fake studies around trying to prove it. The AHA, food pyramid, etc. were the result of this
And the obesity epidemic was the result
Look up Brian Wansink from Cornell. The federal government and major corporations adopted his recommendations on portion sizes and packaging, turned out almost all his research was faked.
true believers in science, they want something to be true so the make shit up or do shifty study methodology
or was he paid off?
Probably a little bit of both. He was getting millions in sweet government grants and just kept telling everyone what they wanted to hear
Oh was the food pyramid fake? That's kind of sad to learn but not a surprise I suppose. My health has really rocketed once I started focusing on meat and vegetables.
The problem is how do you run a nutrition experiment. Do you monitor what everyone eats or do you just ask them what they ate. Do you have type of control group? How do you even control for variables?
All people eat only potatoes.
People keep food diaries. You then have them limit particular things or add in particular things. It is not going to kill them but you can measure it. As long as the study is large enough and the controls are ok you can usually draw some trends.
The big one for me is amount of salt per day. Someone on Ars years ago (when they actually kinda were good at instead of a leftest rag) looked into how much salt do we need. They literally could not find any study on it. The original 2000mg per day was apparently made up. Everyone else based their numbers off that. In the 1970s a lot of health advice was made up to sell programs, seminars, and books.
Want to lose weight? Stop eating things with sugar in it. Limit your fruit portions to one small fruit per day (lots of sugar in them). Eat heavy meaty protein heavy foods. Limit that to 20-40g per day Limit yourself to 900-1200 calories per day. Drink 40-80oz of water per day instead of soda, juices and milk. You will probably lose weight. However, do not take advice from me find a dietitian who knows what they are doing (not weightwatchers they just want to sell you a program).
hitting particular values and having lots of sugar in it is very hard. You can blow out half your daily allowed with 1-2 sugary drinks. So staying away from them helps. Lots of diets say 'lots of fruit' when the reality is they have a decent amount of sugar in them too so you also need to moderate on that (1/2 cup usually is the recommended per day). Lots of water also helps as it helps you feel more full (esp with cold water) and less munchy. It also helps flush out anything your body is not using faster. Protein style diets help with the 'munchies' as they are heavy and make you feel full and help you hit your numbers easier.
People lie to themselves about what and how much they eat and you think you can trust food diaries?
it's based off bad science (ancel keys and the following true blievers and industries that were built up afterwords, see good calories bad calories)
Also, one scientist complained how the grain portions were increased by like 3-4x the original number because of the bread industry
Also salt doesn't increase your blood pressure in a meaningful way unless you have kidney problems (temporary, trauma, genetic, etc.)
By personal you mean leftist. Real scientists follow the science rather then hang onto personal preconceptions. Leftist can not be scientists because they can never get past their brainwashing. If the were, they would not be leftists.
You know half the people who get arrested will never see prison time because nearly 68 percent of cases are not in the bag so the DA doesnt prosecute. It's all about the numbers. SJW's love to say things about rape kits not being tested, but theres more too it. They want a sure thing and one doesnt bring the press. Unless its a high profile baby murderer. Then they can hang them
Sure they may just spend years in jail while they wait for their day in court.
I work in corporate sales. I went to dinner with some climate scientists from NASA (just so we are clear, they paid for their own portion of the meal) a few years ago and we started talking about their research. I was appalled when they started talking about the guidance they get when they receive funding for their projects. They literally admitted to receiving instructions on what the outcome of the research should be. If they don't arrive at the "right" conclusions, funding dries up and they are out of jobs.
But yeah, tell me again how I should believe scientists.
It's not even just about climate shit either. If you dig deep you may find that even massive projects like w-map and blackhole research is fraught with data manipulation to keep funding going. I hope there is a reckoning at some point so we can actually get some god damn honest science back in the fold.
Don't even get me started on cancer research. I worked at a major research institution where a scientist, who was recognized as a national leader in his field, got caught manipulating data and plagiarizing his grants. What did the institution do? Fire him? Nope. They just let him continue on like nothing ever happened because he was bringing in so much NIH funding to the institution.
The Death of Science | Scientific Corruption and You
I got my PhD in chemistry and even funding for those projects is dispensed to dubious actors. You can get an NIH or NSF grant based on your "track record" alone, which means nothing if you've been faking all your experiments. Lots of high profile chemists have been exposed for totally fabricating their experiments. Look up Bengu Sezen at Columbia University.
*Pierre Marie Robataille has entered the chat
I really wish project veritas would infiltrate the scientific community so they could expose this bullshit to the world.
pROjekt VeriTAS iS juSt a troLl
The Great Global Warming Swindle
The Psychology of Climate Change Hysteria
Why I Changed My Mind on Climate Change
Criticism: Why I Changed My Mind on Climate Change
wait until you see how the science is manipulated to support green energy alternatives.
Almost all researchers publish findings that support the funding companies. This happens in the medical and drug industries all the times. The results of many of these studies could not be replicated. Journals have been retracting those fake studies. Qualitative sciences are easily manipulated.
Indeed. There had been a HUGE problem replicating all kinds of studies in recent decades, because they’re all made to create an outcome. Some researchers have spoken out but the Liberal Establishment machine has ruthlessly silenced them like always.
We'd probably have cures for about 39 percent on known chronic illness but because of research and money grants we will never have them
Check out RetractionWatch.org for a huge redpill on just how honest "scientists" can be
Thanks for the link. It doesn’t surprise me that many retracted papers are social, gender, and drug studies. It reminds me of a story that a journal once accepted a computer-generated garbage paper in computer science or economics. The paper was impossible to understand. The author did it to expose flaws in the scientific review process. Reviewers don’t usually like to go against the accepted mainstream hypotheses or show their weaknesses. So garbage papers are accepted.
Now educate us non-scisntists so we don't have answers either.
Thanks for the information. I wasn't doubting, or challenging, you, so sorry if it come off that way.
I wanted a cliff's notes version because no imagine if I went off researching this stuff on my own it would take years to process and assimilate. If I wanted to do that I would have become a scientist.
Now that I have my cliff's notes, I'll go read a bit further and prepare for my encounters.
Thanks again!
another way to think of a dynamic system is a system with memory
butterflies?
or just show them the hand water scene in jurrasic park.
Wait when you realise climate science is just a plan to get rid of you and your family
For your common folk not to breed anymore and kill their family tree
oh how lovely
When I became wise to this several years ago I was soo mad I lost a little sleep srs. It ALL about the NWO and always has been.
100 percent. And then they rerelease utopia during this pandemic to just rub it in.
"Climate change" is just another Communist agenda in disguise. Take control of all the means of power production, make everyone poor and dependent on the state.
My brother is a research scientist. I can confirm the OP. There are quite a few scientists that spend their lives chasing the next government research grant. They'll say whatever they think will get them that grant.
If the government funds science the government can determine what science is.
That was something my psych 101 teacher told me. Psychologists research whatever the government pays them to research. And he wasn't even saying ti like it was a bad thing.
This should be labeled a shit post.
Genesius Times
The Most Reliable Source of ** Fake News** on the Planet
Yup... cannot find Petros Schneigle of the Fosterton Institute anywhere on the i the internet. The idea is true....study is bs.
If you haven't read "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton, may he rest in peace, I urge you to find a copy.
Crichton claimed he had reservation about publishing it, claiming this would be the one they would kill him for.
It is a work of fiction that employs real science to tell the story.
He covers more than just climate change. He exposes how and why universities are used as the factory for new fears.
And, more to this point, why the only scientists you can trust are those that are retired and not competing for grants.
I've read all of his books and this one is my least favorite. The science he uses is good, but he clearly wrote it as a movie script. He pretty much all but says that one character is Martin Sheen.
You don't say.
Generally, if 97% people agree on something that literally cannot be proven (an they know it), it's fraud.
If those scientists cared about CO2 emissions in the slightest the first thing they would do is advocate better battery technology instead of trying to micromanage everyone else's life and free time. Solar power is now cheaper than fossil fuel, which is great because eventually we can use fossil fuels for plastics instead of burning them. But we can't do that because we don't have strong enough batteries.
Lithium-silicon batteries would increase capacity by TEN TIMES and not require cobalt which is only produced in a single country. We don't have these yet because we don't know how to build them without the battery cracking due to expansion.
Salt-water batteries are heavier but can be built now with today's technology if we had any factories to produce them.
They will never talk about this because they don't care about fixing the problem, they just want to control people's lives!
science good 'science' bad
More worried about scientists that think their theories are fact and that no one can question them or debate them in government.
It's the same with COVID. That medical scientists cant be questioned or debated when they want to close countries down.
All it will amount to is more taxes and little if any effect. Then they will just blame normal people when some snowstorm hits.
Just to point out the obvious here but that website is satire.
If you want to understand the what is being argued against in terms of climate science, here is a couple of good videos which go through it....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqZGgaZaXig
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JJ3yeiNjf4&feature=emb_logo
These idiots have greatly damaged trust in science. Who knows how long it will take to repair that damage. In the meantime, I have learned not to believe a word they say.
Science was literally always meant to be questioned as that’s how we advance as a civilization and these absolute morons are treating science as if it is a religion, that it can’t be wrong, and that it’s absolute.
If we didn’t question science we would still be smoking cigarettes for the health benefits and women would not be allowed to travel faster than 50mph. They try and frame our side as anti science but we are just anti bullshit
No they have not damaged the credibility of science...
Science can be replicated and falsified.
If it cannot be falsified or replicated, (anthropomorphic climate change), then it's not science.
This is why they cannot call it a scientific theory. It's just a hypothesis and therfore must be investigated and studied and not: "wE nEEd to Act nOw!!!!!!!! hAvE goVernMenT sEiZe cOntRol oF tHe enErgY SectOr!!!!! pUt AOC iN chArgE!!!!!"
Yes they have ... you are confused. The climate warming hoax was NEVER about science. It was all the leftist objectives wrapped with a thin veneer of pseudo-science as camouflage in order to stampede all the sheeple in the direction they wanted them to go.
That is what is damaging the credibility of science. Your average person has no clue that the climate scare tactics are not really science. The leftists pretend that it is science, and that is how it is perceived.
The website says it is fake news. Imagine if it actually works out that way. Imagine if at least a third of Americans actually believed in the integrity of climate science. That is the world we live in today.
Snopes says this is false because most checks are akshually printed out via computer.
That original “97 percent” study that people try to pull is bullshit by the way. It was something like “97 percent of 100 scientists”, yet people still claim it’s true
I liked his Trump is going to lose to Biden as badly as he lost to Hillary post.
“Confessions of a climate scientist” by Dr Mototaka Nakamura is a great short dive into explaining why almost all climate modeling is junk science at this point . The gist of it is the effects of clouds are vastly higher than modeling accounts for while we also have a very poor understanding of ocean/aerosol currents and non linear dynamics. All of these models have assumptions built into them in order to push the result of the “science” in a pre determined direction.
this must be satire.
there's no way the numbers are that high. id believe 5% "scientists" if the poll were not rigged
Defund the climate scientists. Start from scratch.
What I can't wait to see is the rift that is going to be created soon in the scientific and conservation communities in the next couple of years.
Trump made it mandatory for a percentage of all profits from oil drilled out of federal national parks to be given to the national park.
This will give funds for the parks to be maintained AND will provide funding for scientific research on these lands.
This will create 10's of thousands of science based jobs in the coming years entirely dependent upon oil money and we'll see a stark transformation in the "settled science".
Just an FYI, the actual scientific paper this 97% comes from DOES NOT say that. It says that out of all "climate scientists" only about 20-30% say the climate is even changing. The rest say they don't know or "no it's not". Out of those 20-30%, 97% say it's humans.
That’s something I just learned myself but I can very much remember sitting in classrooms a few years ago being told the 97% lie. Crazy.
Is your name based on Jain Farstrider?
And if they are working via a grant, they got that money based on a result the research is “expected” to show. You can take data and skew it any way you want.
I worked in this very science for ten years and that is EXACTLY what happens
Watch "The big Bang Theory" it basically makes fun of science and scientists.
– “Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2.”
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/michael-crichton-explains-why-there-is-no-such-thing-as-consensus-science/
Does anyone have a link to The Fosterton Institute? I can’t find it, which makes me think this institute is BS and we are getting trolled.
Yeah I think about this all the time. If the IPCC came out tomorrow and plainly said they dont have all the variables to predict global warming, (which they say, but bury in their reports) they’d lose a good portion of funding.
After seeing politicians and other organizations become greedy over time, I have no doubt some scientists in these organizations just want money. I’m sure it’s a multi-billion dollar industry. Especially for universities.
In recent years, corruption has permeated into the academia. Money is everything. Publishing research work requires funding which can only be sustained if the outcome is favorable to the funding institution. Government funding has become too competitive. Several recent studies on drug efficacy and medical research have to be retracted because the results were bogus.
So this is probably the same with all the fake polls which were funded by the media who wants to see certain outcome.
Also in related news, people paid to worry about pandemics over reacted to this years flu.
A lot of science is dead, political science. It's alchemy, turning data into gold.
Imagine going to school for and dedicating your life to "climatology" and then coming to the conclusion that there's no such thing as climate change? Or that it isn't necessarily manmade and there's nothing we can really do about it?
Would you be out of a job? What would you then do for a living? How about your colleagues? Superiors?
Think about this. The more they peg this as a global catastrophe, the more money, jobs, research they, their friends and colleagues have.
As if we didn't suspect. Very moral, these over educated scientists. They learned to believe their commie professors and paymasters or else. Fiction matches truth.
"Climate change is real" is a True Statement. Real question is:
Is that natural? Is it man made? Is is the climate change responsible for the disasters amplifying. Will throwing trillions of $ reverse the change??
I work in tbr Silicon valley, and thr issue with solar and wind energy is that there is no way to store it.
Battery tech is not there yet...(not even close)
Nuclear is the best option right now, but the fear of nuclear leak or a hack would be disastrous. If we can harness energy from Nuclear Fusion that will be ground breaking. ( the way sun produce its energy)
The science is settled!
The very first time I heard about "global warming" I knew it was bs because the ones preaching about it were directly profiting from it. That and it is madness to think that you have enough data about our earth to make any real scientific predictions. Assumptions in science are like landmines in a field.
follow the money. works every time.
Now that is what I call "settled science".
Here's a good video from the Climate Discussion Nexus explaining how they gamed the numbers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewJ6TI8ccAw
Democrats all belong to The Holy Church of Scientist the Scientist,
It has been know for hundreds of years that bacteria cause disease and a bit less for viruses. Yet our Holy and sacred Scientists cannot provide a definitive proof that any type of mask is effective in preventing disease or to what extent.
The "SCIENCE" is all written in the sub-basements of CNN and the NYT to suit the politics.
The only people who still buy the man made climate change crap at this point should be pitied. Super low IQ. Probably sub 70.