Ah, gatekeeping, how convenient. 1. Invent a pseudoscientific field. 2. Make normative, political claims from said field. 3. When people outside the field

Ah, gatekeeping, how convenient. 1. Invent a pseudoscientific field. 2. Make normative, political claims from said field. 3. When people outside the field express dissent, invent a non-profit to "verify the credibility of influential claims," and only allow people in said field to join said non-profit and verify the credibility of said claims: https://sciencefeedback.co/for-scientists/ https://sciencefeedback.co/for-scientists/ > To Apply: You need to have a PhD in a relevant discipline, have at least one published article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal within the last four years in the field they are commenting on. To criticize climate science, you must first become a climate scientist, which requires assenting to the belief in the validity of climate science, because anyone who dissents from that belief would not be awarded a PhD in the field nor have peer-reviewed articles published in it. So only people who agree with them are allowed to criticize them. Hm, sounds a lot like HN. And so scientific! I'm convinced, thanks for the link.