Rugoz wrote:I cannot recall an entire field of science deliberately lying about something.
There are scientists who are skeptical of global warming. They generally do not get press coverage. Science in Western societies is generally funded by government, which is inherently political. Politicians lie routinely. The effort of politicians to leverage science--largely because they don't understand that the foundational philosophy of science is skepticism--is because they think scientific conclusions represent indisputable truth, which would allow them to further their proposed policies and suppress democratic debate. Unfortunately for them, science and skepticism go hand in hand.
Rugoz wrote:For starters, Russiagate wasn't a hoax, there were circumstances that justified an investigation (circumstances the Trump campaign did not deny).
There was no justification for limiting an investigation to the Trump campaign. Clearly, there were ties between the Hillary Clinton campaign and British and Russian operatives. Yet, the investigation was limited to the Trump campaign. We learned that the initiation of the investigation started with Hillary Clinton's dossier. So again, we have political motive.
Rugoz wrote:Second, we're talking about journalists, who are forced to report what people want to hear.
Journalists are not forced to report anything at all. People who use journalism to try to make economic profits may need to sensationalize their reporting to try to gain a larger and more profitable audience. This is similar to using science to further an agenda. Journalists used to report multi-sourced facts. Today's muckrakers do not bother to ensure the reliability of what they report. Their goal to attract the largest audience to make the most money or to influence a political objective overrides any restraint for presenting reliable information.
Rugoz wrote:Scientists are professionals who seek recognition (aka citations) among their peers.
When the funding is controlled by politically motivated actors, scientists do what they are told to do if they want to make money. Most of them do.
Rugoz wrote:Science is the exact opposite.
Actually, HadCRU did their level best legally to stop people from publishing their data and harry_readme.txt. Try finding any of the original material released "illegally" from HadCRU. You will have great difficulty finding it if you do. In this case, science was not open at all. Instead, it used the heavy hand of government to hide their machinations even after it had been exposed to the world.
Rugoz wrote:I happen to have personal experience with scientific research and find your claims about "capture" absurd.
Why were all the sites publishing harry_readme.txt taken down? It's clear that there is a government-sponsored project on foisting a global warming policy on countries throughout the world.
Truth to Power wrote:I guess that must be why AGW screamers like Michael Mann refuse to release their data or the computer code they use to interpret and adjust those data...
Yeah. Mann even sues people who disagree with him. It's very clearly political in nature.
Truth to Power wrote:I suggest you look at the history of ideological capture in fields like economics, medicine and psychometrics, where baldly false ideas have persisted for decades because they served certain favored ideological or financial interests.
Frontal lobotomies, forced sterilization, etc. Heck, even up until the 1970s, the entire field of psychiatry considered homosexuality a mental disorder. Now, the field of law wants us to believe that the authors of the 14th Amendment intended to require homosexual marriages, even though marriage literally means procreation. They also need to maintain the fiction of "gender is a social construct" so that they can continue with medical billing fraud of "gender reassignment surgery," which is obviously physically impossible, but nevertheless profitable. For whatever reason, the same people bag on Joseph Mengele for his experiments.
Truth to Power wrote:The orange bar represents people who do not believe climate is changing or has changed. I've stated many times that it has changed, and continues to change, as it always has.
Right. The ancient Mesopotamian city of Ur used to be on the shore of the Persian gulf. It is well inland now, because sea levels fell. The city was abandoned, because it was no longer a viable sea trading city. During the Middle Ages, Bruges, Belgium was a major sea port and textile hub. Today, it is a sleepy inland town, because sea level fell. William the Conquerer's forces landed in an area that is well inland now, prior to the Battle of Hastings. Sea level fell. As sea level fell, the Dutch began reclaiming tide waters, literally doubling the size of their country. All of this happened with no internal combustion engines, coal or industrial processes. The climate will continue to change. Rising sea levels mean that coral reefs that were exposed and became islands will submerge again. Kiss the Maldives good bye. It has nothing to do with anthropogenic factors. These processes are global scale and humans have no way of stopping an ice age or starting one for that matter.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Do you have evidence that all the change on the past century has been caused by nature?
You do realize that humans are part of nature, right? We are not separate from nature. 100% of climate change is caused by nature.
"We have put together the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics."
-- Joe Biden