A classic example of how “the science” is subject to intentional distortion, I give you the principal claims of these assert that “the release of CO2 into the atmosphere as a result of humans burning oil, gas and coal is producing changes to climate that will be catastrophic, and this is settled science “.
A good look at a wider range of peer reviewed research teaches us than none of the foregoing claims are true. “The science” is so severely politicised that public debate on the topic is systematically censored and proponents of such debates are smeared & marginalised.
As in other fields of endeavour, money is used to maintain & increase the shrillness of the warnings broadcast to the public. Researchers rapidly learn that only certain kinds of research topics get funded & only certain types of results get published and amplified in the media.
It’s not a surprise to find that some “climate scientists” are willing to perpetuate statements & assumptions that they must know are unsupported by the empirical evidence.
The situation is so distorted that the general public largely doesn’t suspect this & does what most people do in similar situations: assume it’s not quite as bad as those pushing them to accept restrictions on their lives are saying, but also accept that there’s surely something in it? After all, most people can’t conceive of an enormous lie being said & not being corrected.
However, my own searching, reading and listening to a wide range of opinions leads me to be quite secure in saying that not only is there no evidence whatsoever that our activities are even capable of changing climate at the planetary scale, but that there’s been no meaningful change in climate associated with industrialisation at all. The claimed modest warming since 1880 is wholly explained by the “urban heat island effect”, where the few long term weather stations that exist have mostly moved, as a consequence of urban development, from rural to suburban or from suburban to city locations, which are naturally warmer. Taking only the stations not subject to the urban heat island effect, there’s been no warming at all.
That marries up with satellite data which, though only of modest duration, accords more with these latter observations and is in conflict with the commonly pushed agenda of “global warming”.
There’s an entirely separate line of evidence that destroys utterly as overt lying the very idea that CO2 is a powerful enough “greenhouse gas” to make any difference at all to global climate. I’m convinced that it isn’t. There’s extensive evidence showing that historical fluctuations in atmospheric temperature always precede changes in atmospheric CO2, which follows in the same direction, after a delay of hundreds of years. The most reasonable conclusion is that external factors, mostly changes in solar output and variations in earths orbit and inclination to the ecliptic, are responsible for changes in temperature. Furthermore, CO2 is as close to zero influence as you could find & is merely a trailing & passive indicator of temperature change caused by these external factors (I’m referring here to ice core data reported by several different research groups and countries). Interestingly, the probable source of increased atmospheric CO2 isn’t our burning of carbon based fuels but the oceans. Warmer water holds less dissolved CO2 than does cold water. When the atmosphere cools, the oceans then act as a sink for the reducing atmospheric concentrations of CO2.
Counter narratives like the one I’ve summarised used to be reported in mainstream TV documentaries until as recently as 15 years ago.
Like lies about pandemics, stories of climate catastrophes are also lies, promulgated by the same group of crooked chances. The same group has been pushing a third lie, that the world is overpopulated & must be reduced. There’s no objective evidence for this at all.
So much for “the science”.
By the way, in over 40 years of contact with scientists both academic and industrial, I’ve never heard a single scientist use the phrase “the science”.
The CO2 narrative is easily disproven. The oceans contain 50 times more CO2 than the atmosphere. When the earth warms up, some of this CO2 is released - with a delay of hundreds of years. The reverse applies.
Ask most people how much CO2 is in the atmosphere and they will say 4% or thereabouts. It is only 0.04%. - one hundredth of popular belief. If it falls below 0.02%, plants cannot survive.
Yup - by releasing the CO2 sequestered in “fossil” fuels we’ve extended greenness of the planet probably by some hundreds of millions of years, something we should celebrate. We need more CO2, not less.
Science is like a hammer, where its power can only be realized by the person wielding it. Do we believe in hammers?
Of course not.
Science doesn't have a hierarchy or any sort of authoritarian structure. No one is in charge. Science itself mostly exists within a consensus bubble. Those we listen too, are the ones that have achieved some level of social status or fame within that bubble, or these days, possibly from a viral tiktok video. I think a mediocre scientists could be a notable figure by simply hiring a PR firm.
I was debating someone on this site who claimed, he had faith in science. I don't know what that means either. Faith as a concept being applied to a falsification process, or the scientific method, seems a bit odd. I argued the point briefly, telling him that faith was best left with the faithful, as they are far more skilled in wielding that beast. The guy blocked me after that, although I think I presented a reasonable argument.
To claim belief in science is literally belief in those doing science, and everyone associated with the messages coming out of a consensus bubble, both directly and indirectly. And that's everyone and no one to a certain extent, claiming they know the science.
The whole concept of believing in science is extremely convoluted.
Keep in mind, I'm an atheist. No, I do not believe in science, nor do I disbelieve in science, anymore than I have faith in a hammer. I have confidence in my ability to wield a hammer, most swings, but I'm also reasonably confident I'll smash my damn finger with it every once in a while.
Every statement made by a person engaged in science is conditional; can only be valid until it is revised based on more data. Thus every statement is a hypothesis; i.e., a "best guess." A person who "believes in" science is at best a fool; or a dupe; or a charlatan. Such a person has given up their heritage as a thinking human being, most likely due to fear or greed or some other base emotion.
“Believe in science” and “Follow the science” are the two most vacuous slogans that were used to manipulate and coerce citizens during the plandemic. I have no doubt that this vile and heinous sloganeering by psychopathic government bureaucrats with “scientific” credentials has damaged the essential role the scientific enterprise plays in our society.
Dr Bass - As the holidays almost upon us, I was wondering if you could point me to some concise information that I could copy and distribute to my family regarding (in)efficacy of masks? I’m afraid that people will start doing this again this year, and would like to provide info they can understand and trust to help them move on from this protocol. Thanks!
I also didn't finish medical school. And you, now, also started to have a good feel for what kind of a group of people you wanted to become a part of.
Let me tell you about science. Not a single published research paper properly and fully states assumptions. And we are taught to state assumptions exhaustively in research papers in first years of undergrad. It's very, very key to the scientific method. You go figure how rigged the entire landscape is at the very foundation.
Science as a individual experimental results is one thing, there's probably a lot of truth in there. This is what we did. This is what happened. Even though what gets funding to be studied in the first place is subject to bias, even though the results can be gamed by setting up the experiment oddly, even though sometimes important data is just made up or excluded. What is really not to be believed is the interpretation of the data. Putting results together to make a story, and then worse making important decisions based on that story. Here we often go way off the rails. We often miss huge parts of the story either because we don't have them yet or because we're just ignoring the larger context.
Now now Hudson. See how you get when you don’t stay on your medication? Simmer down boy and report back to the hospital where you can get the help you need. Perhaps one day you can resume your place in polite society.
Do you know society has degraded to a point of unbearable for those with an IQ above their waist size when all you receive on a social media platform as a reply to truth is ad hominem bullshit. Self immolate if you want to help the team. Sometimes to help the team you gotta take one for the team. Stupid bot boy
You’re confusing science with intentionally disingenuous bullshit this guy is the science. Science is real. It is truth. It is factual. You are essentially advocating for the existence of alt facts. Thanks for contributing to the disingenuous bullshit disinformation matriculation. Bitch
I never insinuated it was anyone’s property. I do not disagree with the process of exploring and hopefully finding truth or as near to it as possible. I understand the process and I don’t exactly understand your reply whatsoever.
People are using the word “science” as an incorrect verbiage. There’s only one science just like there’s only one American football. It’s not Australian rules football it’s not soccer, it’s American football. All these stuff that is labeling itself science which is nothing more than agitprop bullshit with this mattering of science thrown in cannot be qualified to science. I don’t think you will argue that point that’s all I meant. I’m really good at miss communication more than occasionally. I apologize for the lack of clarity. Did you see what I did there? 😏🙈
I apologize if you somehow received my blunt forward communication style as rude. It is not intended to be so and I don’t know how to engage otherwise. I’m not smarter enough to do subtle here innuendo. I have a hard enough time being direct. I am being 100% sincere here. No facetiousness or satire. Again, I apologize if that reply came off offending and rude to you. Certainly not my intent.
I can prove that. I’m 100% hetero and you’re quite an attractive young lady. … I would never be rude to the nastiest vamp, let alone a good looking brilliant capable woman of the world. And, I can provide references to that fact😂 true story🤷♂️🙈
A classic example of how “the science” is subject to intentional distortion, I give you the principal claims of these assert that “the release of CO2 into the atmosphere as a result of humans burning oil, gas and coal is producing changes to climate that will be catastrophic, and this is settled science “.
A good look at a wider range of peer reviewed research teaches us than none of the foregoing claims are true. “The science” is so severely politicised that public debate on the topic is systematically censored and proponents of such debates are smeared & marginalised.
As in other fields of endeavour, money is used to maintain & increase the shrillness of the warnings broadcast to the public. Researchers rapidly learn that only certain kinds of research topics get funded & only certain types of results get published and amplified in the media.
It’s not a surprise to find that some “climate scientists” are willing to perpetuate statements & assumptions that they must know are unsupported by the empirical evidence.
The situation is so distorted that the general public largely doesn’t suspect this & does what most people do in similar situations: assume it’s not quite as bad as those pushing them to accept restrictions on their lives are saying, but also accept that there’s surely something in it? After all, most people can’t conceive of an enormous lie being said & not being corrected.
However, my own searching, reading and listening to a wide range of opinions leads me to be quite secure in saying that not only is there no evidence whatsoever that our activities are even capable of changing climate at the planetary scale, but that there’s been no meaningful change in climate associated with industrialisation at all. The claimed modest warming since 1880 is wholly explained by the “urban heat island effect”, where the few long term weather stations that exist have mostly moved, as a consequence of urban development, from rural to suburban or from suburban to city locations, which are naturally warmer. Taking only the stations not subject to the urban heat island effect, there’s been no warming at all.
That marries up with satellite data which, though only of modest duration, accords more with these latter observations and is in conflict with the commonly pushed agenda of “global warming”.
There’s an entirely separate line of evidence that destroys utterly as overt lying the very idea that CO2 is a powerful enough “greenhouse gas” to make any difference at all to global climate. I’m convinced that it isn’t. There’s extensive evidence showing that historical fluctuations in atmospheric temperature always precede changes in atmospheric CO2, which follows in the same direction, after a delay of hundreds of years. The most reasonable conclusion is that external factors, mostly changes in solar output and variations in earths orbit and inclination to the ecliptic, are responsible for changes in temperature. Furthermore, CO2 is as close to zero influence as you could find & is merely a trailing & passive indicator of temperature change caused by these external factors (I’m referring here to ice core data reported by several different research groups and countries). Interestingly, the probable source of increased atmospheric CO2 isn’t our burning of carbon based fuels but the oceans. Warmer water holds less dissolved CO2 than does cold water. When the atmosphere cools, the oceans then act as a sink for the reducing atmospheric concentrations of CO2.
Counter narratives like the one I’ve summarised used to be reported in mainstream TV documentaries until as recently as 15 years ago.
Like lies about pandemics, stories of climate catastrophes are also lies, promulgated by the same group of crooked chances. The same group has been pushing a third lie, that the world is overpopulated & must be reduced. There’s no objective evidence for this at all.
So much for “the science”.
By the way, in over 40 years of contact with scientists both academic and industrial, I’ve never heard a single scientist use the phrase “the science”.
The CO2 narrative is easily disproven. The oceans contain 50 times more CO2 than the atmosphere. When the earth warms up, some of this CO2 is released - with a delay of hundreds of years. The reverse applies.
Ask most people how much CO2 is in the atmosphere and they will say 4% or thereabouts. It is only 0.04%. - one hundredth of popular belief. If it falls below 0.02%, plants cannot survive.
Yup - by releasing the CO2 sequestered in “fossil” fuels we’ve extended greenness of the planet probably by some hundreds of millions of years, something we should celebrate. We need more CO2, not less.
Except Anthony Fauci, “I am the science.”
Science is like a hammer, where its power can only be realized by the person wielding it. Do we believe in hammers?
Of course not.
Science doesn't have a hierarchy or any sort of authoritarian structure. No one is in charge. Science itself mostly exists within a consensus bubble. Those we listen too, are the ones that have achieved some level of social status or fame within that bubble, or these days, possibly from a viral tiktok video. I think a mediocre scientists could be a notable figure by simply hiring a PR firm.
I was debating someone on this site who claimed, he had faith in science. I don't know what that means either. Faith as a concept being applied to a falsification process, or the scientific method, seems a bit odd. I argued the point briefly, telling him that faith was best left with the faithful, as they are far more skilled in wielding that beast. The guy blocked me after that, although I think I presented a reasonable argument.
To claim belief in science is literally belief in those doing science, and everyone associated with the messages coming out of a consensus bubble, both directly and indirectly. And that's everyone and no one to a certain extent, claiming they know the science.
The whole concept of believing in science is extremely convoluted.
Keep in mind, I'm an atheist. No, I do not believe in science, nor do I disbelieve in science, anymore than I have faith in a hammer. I have confidence in my ability to wield a hammer, most swings, but I'm also reasonably confident I'll smash my damn finger with it every once in a while.
love this
Every statement made by a person engaged in science is conditional; can only be valid until it is revised based on more data. Thus every statement is a hypothesis; i.e., a "best guess." A person who "believes in" science is at best a fool; or a dupe; or a charlatan. Such a person has given up their heritage as a thinking human being, most likely due to fear or greed or some other base emotion.
“Believe in science” and “Follow the science” are the two most vacuous slogans that were used to manipulate and coerce citizens during the plandemic. I have no doubt that this vile and heinous sloganeering by psychopathic government bureaucrats with “scientific” credentials has damaged the essential role the scientific enterprise plays in our society.
great 🙃🙃🙃🤗🤗🤗😘😘😘😍😍😍🥰🥰🥰
Agreed
Dr Bass - As the holidays almost upon us, I was wondering if you could point me to some concise information that I could copy and distribute to my family regarding (in)efficacy of masks? I’m afraid that people will start doing this again this year, and would like to provide info they can understand and trust to help them move on from this protocol. Thanks!
I also didn't finish medical school. And you, now, also started to have a good feel for what kind of a group of people you wanted to become a part of.
Let me tell you about science. Not a single published research paper properly and fully states assumptions. And we are taught to state assumptions exhaustively in research papers in first years of undergrad. It's very, very key to the scientific method. You go figure how rigged the entire landscape is at the very foundation.
Have you read this paper yet? Re: med vax safety. Why aren't COVID vax being pulled? https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09246479241292008
Why do you try to emulate a REAL doctor in your profile pic?
That is my medical student badge picture.
Science as a individual experimental results is one thing, there's probably a lot of truth in there. This is what we did. This is what happened. Even though what gets funding to be studied in the first place is subject to bias, even though the results can be gamed by setting up the experiment oddly, even though sometimes important data is just made up or excluded. What is really not to be believed is the interpretation of the data. Putting results together to make a story, and then worse making important decisions based on that story. Here we often go way off the rails. We often miss huge parts of the story either because we don't have them yet or because we're just ignoring the larger context.
All you got is projection? Fucking week. Talk about infected with disinformation. I don’t know how you fucking sleep at night.
Now now Hudson. See how you get when you don’t stay on your medication? Simmer down boy and report back to the hospital where you can get the help you need. Perhaps one day you can resume your place in polite society.
Do you know society has degraded to a point of unbearable for those with an IQ above their waist size when all you receive on a social media platform as a reply to truth is ad hominem bullshit. Self immolate if you want to help the team. Sometimes to help the team you gotta take one for the team. Stupid bot boy
Believe in #Science. Do not believe in #TheScience…
Their greatest vulnerability is social disgrace.
Understand that, and you understand what to show up to the fight with.
Well written. I may take some quotes from this article. Thank you.
PS - I’ll give credit!
You’re confusing science with intentionally disingenuous bullshit this guy is the science. Science is real. It is truth. It is factual. You are essentially advocating for the existence of alt facts. Thanks for contributing to the disingenuous bullshit disinformation matriculation. Bitch
I never insinuated it was anyone’s property. I do not disagree with the process of exploring and hopefully finding truth or as near to it as possible. I understand the process and I don’t exactly understand your reply whatsoever.
People are using the word “science” as an incorrect verbiage. There’s only one science just like there’s only one American football. It’s not Australian rules football it’s not soccer, it’s American football. All these stuff that is labeling itself science which is nothing more than agitprop bullshit with this mattering of science thrown in cannot be qualified to science. I don’t think you will argue that point that’s all I meant. I’m really good at miss communication more than occasionally. I apologize for the lack of clarity. Did you see what I did there? 😏🙈
I apologize if you somehow received my blunt forward communication style as rude. It is not intended to be so and I don’t know how to engage otherwise. I’m not smarter enough to do subtle here innuendo. I have a hard enough time being direct. I am being 100% sincere here. No facetiousness or satire. Again, I apologize if that reply came off offending and rude to you. Certainly not my intent.
I can prove that. I’m 100% hetero and you’re quite an attractive young lady. … I would never be rude to the nastiest vamp, let alone a good looking brilliant capable woman of the world. And, I can provide references to that fact😂 true story🤷♂️🙈