3 ms·

> Thank you for the reasonable discussion. To clarify, there's no need to tip-toe around politely. I am absolutely asserting a conspiracy! Asserting a conspira

by myshpa 3y ago

> Thank you for the reasonable discussion. To clarify, there's no need to tip-toe around politely. I am absolutely asserting a conspiracy! Asserting a conspiracy among climate scientists requires extraordinary evidence. Multiple independent reviews have found no substantial misconduct in the issues you've mentioned. Science advances through rigorous debate and data analysis, and the consensus on climate change is grounded in extensive, peer-reviewed research. Again, that's how science is supposed to work. If you want to find real problems, focus on why everybody's concentrating solely on climate change, when the real issue is overshoot - comprising climate change, biodiversity loss, overfishing, deforestation, soil degradation, freshwater scarcity ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_overshoot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_overshoot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_boundaries#Nine_boundaries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_boundaries#Nine_boun...

nvm0n2 3y ago
OK but the evidence is extraordinary! We can read the emails where they set up and run the conspiracies, express confidence that it will work, etc. What more do you need? They literally admit themselves that they're doing it. > Multiple independent reviews have found no substantial misconduct in the issues you've mentioned If you mean the reviews set up by universities then they weren't independent, were they? Actually independent reviews, by people fully outside the academic system, did find them to be engaged in gross conspiracy. But the system is unresponsive to outsiders, being a perfectly closed circle of mutual back-scratching. Take a look here to see what academia tried to pass off as an "independent review" - they just ended up growing the conspiracy instead. This is a pretty useful document in general for describing the various controversies in the first decade of this century, bad practices, deceptive and manipulative tricks etc and how outside attempts to report them were all ignored or blown off: https://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/climategate.10yearsafter.pdf https://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/climat... What you've been describing in this thread is the storybook version of science. It's how things are meant to work, not how they really do. People who disagree with climatological claims aren't deniers, it's actually the other way around: the people who insist that scientists would never do anything untoward are the ones living in denial. The rest of us understand that they're not only human, but humans who directly profit from their tactics and who aren't being supervised or held accountable in any way.

by myshpa 3y ago

nvm0n2 3y ago

OK but the evidence is extraordinary! We can read the emails where they set up and run the conspiracies, express confidence that it will work, etc. What more do you need? They literally admit themselves that they're doing it. > Multiple independent reviews have found no substantial misconduct in the issues you've mentioned If you mean the reviews set up by universities then they weren't independent, were they? Actually independent reviews, by people fully outside the academic system, did find them to be engaged in gross conspiracy. But the system is unresponsive to outsiders, being a perfectly closed circle of mutual back-scratching. Take a look here to see what academia tried to pass off as an "independent review" - they just ended up growing the conspiracy instead. This is a pretty useful document in general for describing the various controversies in the first decade of this century, bad practices, deceptive and manipulative tricks etc and how outside attempts to report them were all ignored or blown off: https://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/climategate.10yearsafter.pdf https://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/climat... What you've been describing in this thread is the storybook version of science. It's how things are meant to work, not how they really do. People who disagree with climatological claims aren't deniers, it's actually the other way around: the people who insist that scientists would never do anything untoward are the ones living in denial. The rest of us understand that they're not only human, but humans who directly profit from their tactics and who aren't being supervised or held accountable in any way.