What’s Up With Anti-Science Belief?

[watisthis]

Here's another good reason why. And from a sufficiently 'leftist-leaning pub', that that side might actually read it.

https://www.wired.com/story/peer-reviewed-scientific-journals-dont-really-do-their-job/

Since when is peer review a perfect process? There's always going to be imperfections in every process for anything. What's better, praying to God and asking him if the data supports to a conclusion? Christianity has been under open review for about 2000 years, do you not see the problem?

So, publishing a paper without any of the errors being caught is better than publishing a paper with some of them being caught? Multiple reviewers read a single paper, so more than 1/3 of the errors are being found, not to mention it takes time to test conclusions and in a world where everything is here and now we do not wait for said conclusions before jumping the gun.

The p-value is important, and yes, we all understand that authors and publishers do let things go through the cracks due to academic funding being a results-finding exercise. Once again, why we have a peer-review process before AND after the fact.

Sponsored

 

[watisthis]

It easy Burkey; Mistakes by medical doctors will kill between 250,000 and 440,000 people this year from their errors. So going to the doctor is 2 to 4 times more deadly than Covid-19.

Well, last time I checked, mistakes by medical doctors were not contagious thus the population as a whole was not at risk.

Diarrhea will kill 2195 children world wide today...............................................far more than the Covid-19 hoax. Every day 7,800 Americans die..........................they just do, it happens.

Yeah, use the horrible conditions in Africa and Asia as a way to downplay the covid19 "hoax." Oh well, diarrhea kills more people than AIDS and malaria combined I guess we gotta call those hoaxs too.

Yeah, Americans die every day if only we had preventive medicine, hygiene, water treatment, food agencies, etc. Nah, fuck all that those are hoaxes too we need to go back before all that shit and get killed off by the bubonic plague because well people just fucking die.

Today, every single person who has a stroke, heart attack or slips and falls could suffer some life long health issues from it, same as any other injury or illness. Why would covid-19 be any different?

I can't slip and fall near someone and cause a domino effect killing hundreds of thousands. However, due to the multiplicative effect that I mentioned earlier covid19 can cause said domino result. You really do not understand how medical prevention works. The idea of being able to prevent something from happening just eludes you.

"climate science denial" is that really a thing? We know the climate has been far drier, far wetter, far hotter and far colder than it is today and 99% of the earth's climate occurred before man ruled the earth. Thus we know climate changes. Deciding that all climate change is man-made and the applying the same self-loathing policy of "white guilt" to the climate is what I disagree with. I didn't ruin the climate nor kill George Floyd.

 

[shogun32]

remember how "science is settled'? Well...
https://environmentalprogress.org/b...nmentalists-i-apologize-for-the-climate-scare
if you want the ZeroHedge take (always entertaining) use this link instead.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/forbes-censors-award-winning-environmentalists-apology-over-three-decade-climate-scare-so

Watch global cooling come on with a vengeance this next decade or so while we do our level best to pollute the atmosphere with life-giving carbon dioxide.

 

[Balr14]

Reading the posts of some of the individuals here shows that the gene pool could use some chlorine.

 

[Burkey]

remember how "science is settled'? Well...
https://environmentalprogress.org/b...nmentalists-i-apologize-for-the-climate-scare
if you want the ZeroHedge take (always entertaining) use this link instead.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/forbes-censors-award-winning-environmentalists-apology-over-three-decade-climate-scare-so

Watch global cooling come on with a vengeance this next decade or so while we do our level best to pollute the atmosphere with life-giving carbon dioxide.

Where did you get the idea that science is settled? If we already knew everything, there would be no point in continuing with it.
It is settled as fact that the earth is warming, the sun is cooling (depending on the time frame) and one of the primary reasons for the CURRENT warming is CO2 (but it’s not the SOLE cause).
Your first link takes us to an author. Fantastic. I’ll wait for him to publish his scientific papers on the issue, instead of just making random assertions that don’t even include citations.
In the meantime, I’ll author a book and make some remarks of my own so that you can then claim that they are “science”.

Lets list and talk about some of the claims he’s making:

1. “Climate change is not making natural disasters worse”.
He provides zero evidence for this. Whether or not they ARE worse, climate scientists broadly agree that as the global average temperature rises, there will be less FREQUENT tornados/hurricanes etc but that the INTENSITY of those storms will increase. The reasons for this are well documented and the author is free to argue the point, using data and the scientific method, rather than just making wild assertions. He can also publish all of this for peer-review in a respected science journal.

2. “Fires have declined 25% around the world since 2003”
Excellent. His source for this information and it’s relevance to the topic? What kind of fires is he talking about specifically? What regions specifically? Has he considered that there might be reasons for this even if the statement is factually correct? Does he even know what the climatologists expect to see? Did any of them publish a paper suggesting that the number of “fires” should increase? What about the intensity of these “fires”? Area of land damaged by them? It’s called finding data (if he even bothered to got that far) to support your conclusion and feeding it to an audience who don’t ask questions because they want to believe what they’re reading,

3. “We produce 25% more food than we need and food surpluses will continue to rise as the world gets hotter”
Awesome. Can he provide the evidence that backs his claim? What does he mean by “we”? Are we talking about a single nation or the entire planet? I ask because I can’t wait for the change in the Indian Ocean Dipole forcing that sees the wetter parts of Australia become wetter while the arid parts become drier. Want to take a guess where the bulk of the wheat, barley, canola and all that good stuff is grown in Australia? (Its not in the tropics).
Again, I’ll wait for his scientific analysis.

4. “The build-up of wood fuel and more houses near forests, not climate change, explain why there are more, and more dangerous, fires in Australia and California”
Excellent. Now he’s quite sure of himself. He’s asserting that climate change plays NO role in these catastrophes. Luckily, climatologists don’t seem to think that climate change was a leading cause in the Aussie bushfires (I can’t speak for Cali), but they did suggest that it was a CONTRIBUTING factor. Maybe he should’ve done something as simple as asking the Aussie fire brigades why the traditional back-burns are getting done in time? He would’ve soon found out that with the change in climate over the past decades, the window for “safe” burns has reduced to the point where they can’t get them all done in time.. or he could’ve asked the CSIRO (peak body in Australia) for their input.. I don’t know. Surely a more compelling argument could be assembled rather than just a completely baseless assertion?

I think that’ll do for now.

As to your claim that the globe will be cooling soon....
I’ll leave you with this video that shows AGAIN, quite clearly, why the media, bloggers and authors, should just keep out science entirely unless they want to actually report the genuine published findings of suitably qualified scientists and stop misquoting and misrepresenting them. It would also be handy if some of the “scientists” they interview, were actually qualified in the fields they are talking about.
I almost guarantee you’ll learn something from the video. Most people (myself included) would.
You’ll even get to see Fox News (amongst others) repeating the same BS that is NOT supported by the scientific literature. And yes, before you start up, some of the Lefty columns get it wrong too. Which is precisely why you need to DIG.
https://youtu.be/wjgCaF9BGUo

 

[Silver Bullitt]

remember how "science is settled'? Well...
https://environmentalprogress.org/b...nmentalists-i-apologize-for-the-climate-scare
if you want the ZeroHedge take (always entertaining) use this link instead.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/forbes-censors-award-winning-environmentalists-apology-over-three-decade-climate-scare-so

Watch global cooling come on with a vengeance this next decade or so while we do our level best to pollute the atmosphere with life-giving carbon dioxide.

It's about time.

 

[shogun32]

Where did you get the idea that science is settled?

you completely missed the point of why I posted it. It wasn't to argue his points, pro or con. Your thread was about "why do people not believe the science." Well, here we have a "scientist" who admitted to 30 years of pushing bullsh*t for an agenda/narrative. This is just the latest such confession. There were far more notable ones a while back from people with much better credentials/gravitas. When "scientists" lie or are expressly paid (grants) to support only one side of a debate, it's inevitable that people stop believing in the "rightness" of so-called science, no matter how desperately the MSM inundates the airwaves with their one-sided coverage.

 

[watisthis]

remember how "science is settled'? Well...
https://environmentalprogress.org/b...nmentalists-i-apologize-for-the-climate-scare
if you want the ZeroHedge take (always entertaining) use this link instead.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/forbes-censors-award-winning-environmentalists-apology-over-three-decade-climate-scare-so

Watch global cooling come on with a vengeance this next decade or so while we do our level best to pollute the atmosphere with life-giving carbon dioxide.

LMAO! A lot of his points are basically "yes, it will get warmer but we can handle it and we will have the technology to handle it etc."

Never mind the 'we' is his scenario are the one percent in developed countries that are least affected by climate change. Like sure billions of people are going to die but humans aren't going to go extinct. Also, notice his definition of survival is completely human-centered, like fuck the ecosystem, plants, animals, etc, right?

You just don't get it. Humanity is a superorganism that due to an early miscalculation began to think it could become cybernetic. Turns out we're organic and need a whole planet's worth of biosphere to survive. Go back 200 years to what North America looked like before industrialized agriculture. Hint: The entire midwest was a goddamn old-growth forest. Now? Farms, farms, farms, and more farms. We need to juice up our farms with nitrates and fertilizers and juice up our cattle with antibiotics and growth hormone and breed super-grower chickens and genetically engineer and breed pesticide-resistant crops so we can carpet bomb the insect kingdom and sterilize the place for out out-door lab-grown food.

This is a fail. Nature doesn't work this way. We pulled the rug out from under the entire ecosystem for profit and it's going to come down at some point if we lack action. We atomized the natural food chains of this planet, we turned the black dank earth into dust, we sucked the aquifers dry and dumped topic chemicals into all the rivers. We have one hell of a storm brewing.

How many times do I have to strike down your ignorance before you just leave?

 

[watisthis]

you completely missed the point of why I posted it. It wasn't to argue his points, pro or con. Your thread was about "why do people not believe the science." Well, here we have a "scientist" who admitted to 30 years of pushing bullsh*t for an agenda/narrative. This is just the latest such confession. There were far more notable ones a while back from people with much better credentials/gravitas. When "scientists" lie or are expressly paid (grants) to support only one side of a debate, it's inevitable that people stop believing in the "rightness" of so-called science, no matter how desperately the MSM inundates the airwaves with their one-sided coverage.

Who am I going to believe the one dude who wants to cash in on the conspiracy theories or the thousands of scientists who have proven him wrong? You're just too fucking edgy to want to believe anything that the larger percentage knows as fact.

 

[Timeless]

Reading the posts of some of the individuals here shows that the gene pool could use some chlorine.

So you wish for people that disagree with you to perish or not have children?

So very tolerant of you.

 

[Balr14]

So you wish for people that disagree with you to perish or not have children?

So very tolerant of you.

You can disagree with me all you like. I will be happy to argue about it any time. But, put your damned mask on first. If you are willing to put my life at risk by not wearing a damn mask when you are out in public, you can go to hell!

 

[Timeless]

You can disagree with me all you like. I will be happy to argue about it any time. But, put your damned mask on first. If you are willing to put my life at risk by not wearing a damn mask when you are out in public, you can go to hell!

So you do not disagree you want fellow humans that think differently than you to perish or be sterile...why would anyone bother with you then? Sounds like everyone should basically put you on ignore.

 

[Burkey]

you completely missed the point of why I posted it. It wasn't to argue his points, pro or con. Your thread was about "why do people not believe the science." Well, here we have a "scientist" who admitted to 30 years of pushing bullsh*t for an agenda/narrative. This is just the latest such confession. There were far more notable ones a while back from people with much better credentials/gravitas. When "scientists" lie or are expressly paid (grants) to support only one side of a debate, it's inevitable that people stop believing in the "rightness" of so-called science, no matter how desperately the MSM inundates the airwaves with their one-sided coverage.

I didn’t see the bit where a scientist had been pushing an agenda for 30 years. They guy in the article you shared isn’t a scientist.
You then went on to talk about how global cooling is coming, which again, isn’t supported by science...
I’m doing my level best to try and understand what you’re on about.
Also, it’s not MY thread. It’s @BlackandBlue’s thread

If you want to talk about scientists being paid for their opinions, you might want to start with Willie Soon as one example.
Why did the “other side” need to pay someone unqualified in the relevant fields to look at a series of already published papers (that he could’ve disputed at ANY time BEFORE being paid to do so) to try and find flaws in them?
Does it come as any surprise that the flaws he found were actually the result of his misunderstanding of the sciences he isn’t qualified in?
Why aren’t these same companies funding ACTUAL research, rather than just doing their best to create the illusion of dissent? Looks a lot like the tobacco industry from many years ago. Go and find people who May or may not agree with you, pay them large sums of money to make sure they agree with you and then use their findings to create the illusion that the link between smoking and cancer isn’t as sound as the scientists predict...
It’s also interesting that some of the key players in the CC misinformation campaigns are the same players from the tobacco days.
Using an astrophysicist to look at tree ring data because nobody else will support the BS...lol

 

[Balr14]

So you do not disagree you want fellow humans that think differently than you to perish or be sterile...why would anyone bother with you then? Sounds like everyone should basically put you on ignore.

I just want you to wear the damn mask! Is that so hard to comprehend? I may not like you, but I wear a mask in public because I would feel terrible if I infected anyone.

I would also point out my comments were directed at those too stupid, stubborn or selfish to do something for the common good, regardless of their views. I never said a word about disagreeing with me. Hell you don't even know what I believe to disagree with, except you should wear the damn mask!.

 

[Timeless]

I just want you to wear the damn mask! Is that so hard to comprehend? I may not like you, but I wear a mask in public because I would feel terrible if I infected anyone.

I would also point out my comments were directed at those too stupid, stubborn or selfish to do something for the common good, regardless of their views. I never said a word about disagreeing with me. Hell you don't even know what I believe to disagree with, except you should wear the damn mask!.

You can want me to wear the mask all you want. However this is a free country and I can choose not to. That is what freedom is whether you like it or not.

I want people to do a lot of things but it is their freedom of choice as to whether they do it or not.

This is just an observation of freedoms and has nothing to do with how I feel about whether someone should wear a mask.

I personally wear a mask when in situations where I cannot control the distance I may be to someone or in a place that requires one to enter. However I do have to laugh at people who drive wearing a mask or happen to be walking in the great outdoors with one.

There is science to confirm wearing a mask is not healthy as well....so anytime you can be without one the better.

Sponsored