3 ms·

You are spreading misinformation. The nice thing about science is, that it is based on reviewable parts. It is "open source", if you want to look at it that way

by _ph_ 4y ago

You are spreading misinformation. The nice thing about science is, that it is based on reviewable parts. It is "open source", if you want to look at it that way. Yes, there are always single actors, which might have an agenda and some parts of science are in active discussions. But most parts of science are not. So there is no scientific doubt about that if you jump from the roof of a reasonably high house, you will get injured or die. Feel free to demonstrate the opposite in an experiment. You don't? A good decision! The science behind the climate change caused by humans is known for way over 100 years. Arrhenius did the first calculations in the 19th century. This is very basic science, verified by experiments and observations over and over again. So why are you claiming it isn't? If you are into conspiration theories, try this: The oil industry is the richest. If there were any scientific evidence showing that humans with their CO2 emissions are not responsible for climate change or that climate change itself didn't exist, why wouldn't the oil industry finance research in this domain? A scientist, who could prove that could make millions if not billions. Yet there isn't any of those. Actually, it is on record that the scientists of Exxon in the late 70ies did correctly predict the global warming we experienced in the last 50 years. Because, well, the science is pretty simple and clear.

verisimi 4y ago
You are spreading misinformation. You believe that politicians and political systems are there to help people, whereas I say they are about controlling and disempowering individuals. You believe science is impervious to politicisation. Misinformation! > So there is no scientific doubt about that if you jump from the roof of a reasonably high house, you will get injured or die. That is a ridiculous example - this is plainly verifiable. But where is your equivalent verifiable example re climate change? > The science behind the climate change caused by humans is known for way over 100 years. In the 70s the concern was re global cooling or mini-ice age. Then it was global warming. Now it is the vanilla term 'climate change' which can mean anything. I wish the science would make up its mind and stop flip-flopping! My point though is that science is only bent to serve a governance agenda of control - hence all the narrative switches. Re the issues of science, let's put aside the reproducibility crisis in science (where papers cannot be reproduced in most cases, even by the authors themselves), and talk just about funding. Do you think it is possible to skew the results if you only pay for whatever is in your interests? Eg, if you are a pharmaceutical company would you pay for a study that could be supportive of fasting as a solution to disease, even if that meant your cancer/diabetes/etc drugs took a hit? Or do you pay for a study that supports further use of a drug? Wrt to climate change, if you pay for lots of studies, some will be in support of some part of your thesis, some neutral, some against. You do not need to promote those against, you can simply pay for more studies in the areas that support the thesis you prefer. You will soon have libraries of data that support whatever you want. But does that data help us establish the truth so we can make informed decisions? The answer is no. Until you realise how our institutions are captured and put to use to serve a governance agenda, there is no meaningful discussion to be had about the data those captured institutions provide us. With your point about oil industry etc, you will probably find individual scientists do make that point about co2 (though you will have to search them out, as it's this is not information that can be allowed in the media). What I think you are missing is that whoever is running the show doesn't just own the oil industry. They see in global warming both a new huge market and an opportunity to take greater control. You should check out Al Gore's financial investments. If you think your cycling everywhere will make any difference to the damage those corporations and governments do, you are dreaming. The danger is that your (provided) dream will disempower everyone - you will be cheering our demise of our freedoms, because you don't believe your lying eyes but do believe what you are told at school, on a screen and by paid for science studies.
- _ph_ 4y ago
  > You are spreading misinformation. No. You are. > You believe that politicians and political systems are there to help people, whereas I say they are about controlling and disempowering individuals. You believe science is impervious to politicisation. Misinformation! You are lying. I have not said anything about politicians, I have stressed the "open source" nature of science. Which means, that like with open software, the whole community can weed out bad actors (which certainly exists) and review what can be considered verified knowledge. >> So there is no scientific doubt about that if you jump from the roof of a reasonably high house, you will get injured or die. > That is a ridiculous example - this is plainly verifiable. But where is your equivalent verifiable example re climate change? No it is a good example because the fundamentals of climate change have been equally well verified. The absorption spectrum of CO2 has been determined in the 19th century, based on that Arrhenius calculated the green house effect by CO2. Without that, the surface of the earth would be about 10 degrees colder. Equally, if we increase the CO2 content of the atmosphere, the surface gets warmer. This is basic high school physics. A various amount of measurements have confirmed the results including of course, the warming which has happened as predicted in the 70ies. Also it has been shown without a doubt that human emissions have raised the CO2 content of the atmosphere from 280 to 420 ppm in the last 150 years. >> The science behind the climate change caused by humans is known for way over 100 years. > In the 70s the concern was re global cooling or mini-ice age. Then it was global warming. Now it is the vanilla term 'climate change' which can mean anything. I wish the science would make up its mind and stop flip-flopping! My point though is that science is only bent to serve a governance agenda of control - hence all the narrative switches. You are wrong. Indeed we are living in the warm part of an ice age. So over many millenia, a cooldown would have been expected. But mark this: we are talking about time frames over 10k years or more. There were of course some sensational articles. The anthropogenic (that word means caused by humans) climate change happens in the time frame of decades, about 100x faster than the cool down and of course completely overwhelmed that. So the science never flip-flopped. > Re the issues of science, let's put aside the reproducibility crisis in science (where papers cannot be reproduced in most cases, even by the authors themselves), and talk just about funding. > Do you think it is possible to skew the results if you only pay for whatever is in your interests? Perhaps on a single paper but not on independantly verified experiments. > Eg, if you are a pharmaceutical company would you pay for a study that could be supportive of fasting as a solution to disease, even if that meant your cancer/diabetes/etc drugs took a hit? Or do you pay for a study that supports further use of a drug? This is not at all comparable to experimentally verifiable science as physics. > Wrt to climate change, if you pay for lots of studies, some will be in support of some part of your thesis, some neutral, some against. You do not need to promote those against, you can simply pay for more studies in the areas that support the thesis you prefer. You will soon have libraries of data that support whatever you want. But does that data help us establish the truth so we can make informed decisions? A lot of blabla. The basic science has been independantly verified over a time span of 150 years. Even the studies by Exxon scientists from the 70ies correctly predicted the global warming caused by CO2. > Until you realise how our institutions are captured and put to use to serve a governance agenda, there is no meaningful discussion to be had about the data those captured institutions provide us. > With your point about oil industry etc, you will probably find individual scientists do make that point about co2 (though you will have to search them out, as it's this is not information that can be allowed in the media). What I think you are missing is that whoever is running the show doesn't just own the oil industry. They see in global warming both a new huge market and an opportunity to take greater control. You should check out Al Gore's financial investments. If you think your cycling everywhere will make any difference to the damage those corporations and governments do, you are dreaming. > The danger is that your (provided) dream will disempower everyone -> you will be cheering our demise of our freedoms, because you don't believe your lying eyes but do believe what you are told at school, on a screen and by paid for science studies. You are just being silly. There is only likelyhood that you have been bought by the oil industry.

by _ph_ 4y ago

verisimi 4y ago

You are spreading misinformation. You believe that politicians and political systems are there to help people, whereas I say they are about controlling and disempowering individuals. You believe science is impervious to politicisation. Misinformation! > So there is no scientific doubt about that if you jump from the roof of a reasonably high house, you will get injured or die. That is a ridiculous example - this is plainly verifiable. But where is your equivalent verifiable example re climate change? > The science behind the climate change caused by humans is known for way over 100 years. In the 70s the concern was re global cooling or mini-ice age. Then it was global warming. Now it is the vanilla term 'climate change' which can mean anything. I wish the science would make up its mind and stop flip-flopping! My point though is that science is only bent to serve a governance agenda of control - hence all the narrative switches. Re the issues of science, let's put aside the reproducibility crisis in science (where papers cannot be reproduced in most cases, even by the authors themselves), and talk just about funding. Do you think it is possible to skew the results if you only pay for whatever is in your interests? Eg, if you are a pharmaceutical company would you pay for a study that could be supportive of fasting as a solution to disease, even if that meant your cancer/diabetes/etc drugs took a hit? Or do you pay for a study that supports further use of a drug? Wrt to climate change, if you pay for lots of studies, some will be in support of some part of your thesis, some neutral, some against. You do not need to promote those against, you can simply pay for more studies in the areas that support the thesis you prefer. You will soon have libraries of data that support whatever you want. But does that data help us establish the truth so we can make informed decisions? The answer is no. Until you realise how our institutions are captured and put to use to serve a governance agenda, there is no meaningful discussion to be had about the data those captured institutions provide us. With your point about oil industry etc, you will probably find individual scientists do make that point about co2 (though you will have to search them out, as it's this is not information that can be allowed in the media). What I think you are missing is that whoever is running the show doesn't just own the oil industry. They see in global warming both a new huge market and an opportunity to take greater control. You should check out Al Gore's financial investments. If you think your cycling everywhere will make any difference to the damage those corporations and governments do, you are dreaming. The danger is that your (provided) dream will disempower everyone - you will be cheering our demise of our freedoms, because you don't believe your lying eyes but do believe what you are told at school, on a screen and by paid for science studies.

_ph_ 4y ago
> You are spreading misinformation. No. You are. > You believe that politicians and political systems are there to help people, whereas I say they are about controlling and disempowering individuals. You believe science is impervious to politicisation. Misinformation! You are lying. I have not said anything about politicians, I have stressed the "open source" nature of science. Which means, that like with open software, the whole community can weed out bad actors (which certainly exists) and review what can be considered verified knowledge. >> So there is no scientific doubt about that if you jump from the roof of a reasonably high house, you will get injured or die. > That is a ridiculous example - this is plainly verifiable. But where is your equivalent verifiable example re climate change? No it is a good example because the fundamentals of climate change have been equally well verified. The absorption spectrum of CO2 has been determined in the 19th century, based on that Arrhenius calculated the green house effect by CO2. Without that, the surface of the earth would be about 10 degrees colder. Equally, if we increase the CO2 content of the atmosphere, the surface gets warmer. This is basic high school physics. A various amount of measurements have confirmed the results including of course, the warming which has happened as predicted in the 70ies. Also it has been shown without a doubt that human emissions have raised the CO2 content of the atmosphere from 280 to 420 ppm in the last 150 years. >> The science behind the climate change caused by humans is known for way over 100 years. > In the 70s the concern was re global cooling or mini-ice age. Then it was global warming. Now it is the vanilla term 'climate change' which can mean anything. I wish the science would make up its mind and stop flip-flopping! My point though is that science is only bent to serve a governance agenda of control - hence all the narrative switches. You are wrong. Indeed we are living in the warm part of an ice age. So over many millenia, a cooldown would have been expected. But mark this: we are talking about time frames over 10k years or more. There were of course some sensational articles. The anthropogenic (that word means caused by humans) climate change happens in the time frame of decades, about 100x faster than the cool down and of course completely overwhelmed that. So the science never flip-flopped. > Re the issues of science, let's put aside the reproducibility crisis in science (where papers cannot be reproduced in most cases, even by the authors themselves), and talk just about funding. > Do you think it is possible to skew the results if you only pay for whatever is in your interests? Perhaps on a single paper but not on independantly verified experiments. > Eg, if you are a pharmaceutical company would you pay for a study that could be supportive of fasting as a solution to disease, even if that meant your cancer/diabetes/etc drugs took a hit? Or do you pay for a study that supports further use of a drug? This is not at all comparable to experimentally verifiable science as physics. > Wrt to climate change, if you pay for lots of studies, some will be in support of some part of your thesis, some neutral, some against. You do not need to promote those against, you can simply pay for more studies in the areas that support the thesis you prefer. You will soon have libraries of data that support whatever you want. But does that data help us establish the truth so we can make informed decisions? A lot of blabla. The basic science has been independantly verified over a time span of 150 years. Even the studies by Exxon scientists from the 70ies correctly predicted the global warming caused by CO2. > Until you realise how our institutions are captured and put to use to serve a governance agenda, there is no meaningful discussion to be had about the data those captured institutions provide us. > With your point about oil industry etc, you will probably find individual scientists do make that point about co2 (though you will have to search them out, as it's this is not information that can be allowed in the media). What I think you are missing is that whoever is running the show doesn't just own the oil industry. They see in global warming both a new huge market and an opportunity to take greater control. You should check out Al Gore's financial investments. If you think your cycling everywhere will make any difference to the damage those corporations and governments do, you are dreaming. > The danger is that your (provided) dream will disempower everyone -> you will be cheering our demise of our freedoms, because you don't believe your lying eyes but do believe what you are told at school, on a screen and by paid for science studies. You are just being silly. There is only likelyhood that you have been bought by the oil industry.