Michael Mann "Hockey Stick" Definitively Established To Be Fraud - Page 7 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15066694
Sivad wrote:
let's ask Mike Hulme, Professor of Climate Change at the University of East Anglia, how rational and dispassionate of an enlightened discourse Science! really is:

Mike Hulme, Professor of Climate Change at the University of East Anglia, which was ground zero of the Climategate scandal, suggested that the UN IPCC had “run its course.” He complained about its “tendency to politicize climate science” and suggested that it had “perhaps helped to foster a more authoritarian, exclusive form of knowledge production.”

Hulme warned, “It is possible that climate science has become too partisan, too centralized. The tribalism that some of the leaked emails display is something more usually associated with social organization within primitive cultures; it is not attractive when we find it at work inside science.”


That only speaks to climate science, not all science. Further, even this problem (assume it's real), can be changed through the natural course of science eventually.

The thing about science is, when it's wrong, EVENTUALLY, EVENTUALLY it will get rectified.
#15066704
Sivad wrote:
I'm a bad faith actor? I'm pretty sure you're the one acting in bad faith here. If you were acting in good faith you would simply acknowledge the plain truth that Michael Mann's conduct was unacceptable and that he clearly violated quite a few of the fundamental norms of science. At this point Mann's misconduct is so manifestly pronounced and conspicuous that only the most shameless of the bad faith babbitt dinks would even attempt to deny it.


It's hilarious that you think the Michael Mann controversy is some kind of serious scientific event when dozens of reconstructions of the record since then have confirmed MBH 98. Michael Mann does not matter anymore and it's pretty common for researchers to insufficiently root out bias or lack proper controls, which is why scientific journals are peer-reviewed. Read: science is a discourse.



Oh spare me the wide-eyed paeans to your precious Science!, you know exactly dick about how the science sausage gets made.


You don't know the first thing about me, friendo.

Maybe ideally science is supposed to be a "discourse" but in reality it's heavily tainted by groupthink and tribalism and politics and careerism and money. And in the context of climate science it's extra rich, all we hear is "there's no debate" "the science is settled" "97% consensus" "jail the deniers", etc. The junk science of alarmism hasn't been "settled" through good faith rational discourse, it was imposed via fraud, manipulation, intimidation, censorship, and outright bullying.


Did you really just say science is supposed to be a "discourse", while putting discourse in quotation marks? :lol: Science is a discourse, full stop. Put down the bone broth. That has never changed, nor has the influence of politics, money, etc., which is also nothing new. Are you actually saying anything here?


How good faith of you to characterize the presentation of expert opinion and thoughtful informed analysis as "posting youtube videos and links". Your discourse is sooooo good faith, you're just the paradigm of intellectual honesty aren't ya? :lol:


Please note that I did not describe the content that you posted as "bad faith", I described you as a bad faith actor. The fact that you have interpreted this as a descriptive of anyone other than yourself is a pretty good example of sloppy critical thinking.


What in the gibbering fuck does that even mean? Are you really claiming that presenting relevant critical analysis from qualified experts is anti-science? If so, the a) that's just fucking retarded and 2) it's not even honest retarded, it's retarded bad faith gibberish.


Again, science is a discourse. "Relevant critical analysis from qualified experts" is fine and good, but if you're not going to use your own words to mediate their data into your own argument, all you're doing is hiding behind it and hoping no one notices.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

The vast and overwhelming majority of the world's […]

@Godstud By that ridiculous measurement we ca[…]

Not what I did. Yeah it is, own it. You're so u[…]

Too Many White People

I would amend that statement. I think the governm[…]