Climate Denier Hard To Refute

[Xenophon]

Climate Amarmists can’t compete with this guy. They got no one even close. Computer Scientists rule.

Is climate guilt real? I've never once felt that in my life.

[Martin Hash]

The Climate Deniers are crushing it.

[Martin Hash]

[Hastur]

What kind of science field keeps a blacklist of dissenters used to discredit and sabotage the careers of people not agreeing with consensus? What happened to critical thinking? The scientific method?

This is not science. It's a full-blown false religion.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielk ... be6f5e6368

A climate advocacy group called Skeptical Science hosts a list of academics that it has labeled “climate misinformers.” The list includes 17 academics and is intended as a blacklist. We know of this intent because one of the principals of Skeptical Science, a blogger named Dana Nuccitelli, said so last Friday, writing of one academic on their list, “if you look at the statements we cataloged and debunked on her [Skeptical Science] page, it should make her unhirable in academia.”

That so-called “unhirable” academic is Professor Judy Curry, formerly the chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, and a Fellow of both the American Geophysical Union and American Meteorological Society. By any conventional academic metric, Curry has compiled an impressive record over many decades. The idea that she would be unhirable would seem laughable.

But there is nothing funny about Skeptical Science. Today, Curry should be a senior statesperson in the atmospheric sciences community. Instead, she is out of academia. She attributes that, at least in part, to being placed on the Skeptical Science blacklist and its use, as expressed by Nuccitelli, to make her “unhirable.”

[Montegriffo]

Curry had admitted to taking money from oil companies. Fuck her.

[Speaker to Animals]

That’s not how science works, Monte.

[Montegriffo]

That’s not how science works, Monte.

No, it works with peer review and concensus. Bribing scientists to distort the truth is how it fails.

[Speaker to Animals]

That’s not how science works, Monte.

No, it works with peer review and concensus. Bribing scientists to distort the truth is how it fails.

Still, no.


Peer-review is not intrinsic to science, but to the modern publishing industry. Newton’s Principia was not peer-reviewed. What actually is intrinsic to science is that your work be reproducible by other scientists, yet virtually none of these global warming papers can actually be reproduced. Indeed, most papers published today cannot be reproduced, hence why we are in what is called the reproducibility crisis. Peer-review did fuck all to keep the fake science from overwhelming the system.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

As far as “consensus”.. That is the opposite of science. Science cares about evidence and proof. In fact, “consensus” is the enemy of science. Consensus dictated the Earth was the center of the universe. Consensus dictated eating fats made you fat.

And back to the peer review racket.. Remember that professor the Marxist loons went after at that low-brow teaching college, Evergreen? Turns out that guy is actually smart as fuck, was condemned there because his evolutionary ideas bucked against “consensus”. He tried to get a paper published about it and was rejected by peer review. Then one of the scientists who rejected his paper stole the idea, conducted her own research, and got a Nobel Prize without crediting him for his contribution. Peer review is a gate-keeping system meant to protect a club within academia. It is not really part of science at all, but actually detrimental to science.

[Hastur]

Consensus is just the new word used for Dogma.

[Speaker to Animals]

Consensus is just the new word used for Dogma.

Bingo


In America, some are taking to calling this the Blue Church.