On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 09:39:30 +0000, Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:

>On 25 Mar 2024 16:26:16 GMT
>Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
>
>> RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
>> > On 25 Mar 2024 at 11:01:50 GMT, Joe wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 10:22:23 +0000
>> >> Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 03:07:07 -0000 (UTC), RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Well, apparently over 90% of scientists (97%?) support the
>> >>>> anthropogenic climate change hypothesis. You disagree with each
>> >>>> one, and their related research and published work I take it?
>> >>>
>> >>> Indeed I do. If you watched the documentary, you would have known
>> >>> that all these "scientists" rely on funding to produce these
>> >>> "reports" of theirs, and generous funding it is, too. However,
>> >>> that funding instantly disappears if anyone dares to depart from
>> >>> the official line of yumans and farting cows being responsible.
>> >>> They know where their bread's buttered, these "scientists."
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> It's a bit more than that, actually.
>> >>
>> >> " In 2013, U.S. President Barack Obama sent out a tweet claiming
>> >> 97 per cent of climate experts believe global warming is “real,
>> >> man-made and dangerous.” As it turns out, the survey he was
>> >> referring to didn’t ask that question, so he was basically making
>> >> it up."
>> >>
>> >> "The most highly cited paper supposedly found 97 per cent of
>> >> published scientific studies support man-made global warming. But
>> >> in addition to poor survey methodology, that tabulation is often
>> >> misrepresented. Most papers (66 per cent) actually took no
>> >> position. Of the remaining 34 per cent, 33 per cent supported at
>> >> least a weak human contribution to global warming. So divide 33 by
>> >> 34 and you get 97 per cent, but this is unremarkable since the 33
>> >> per cent includes many papers that critique key elements of the
>> >> IPCC position."
>> >>
>> >> https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/putting-the-con-in-consensus-not-only-is-there-no-97-per-cent-consensus-among-climate-scientists-many-misunderstand-core-issues
>> >>
>>
>> > Or you could read a recent study by people who know what they're
>> > talking about, using proper methods:
>>
>> > https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966/pdf
>>
>> Is it as easy to get a ‘sceptical’ paper published as a ‘believer’
>> one? If that isn’t so, then all this paper reports is based on a
>> flawed data set.
>>
>> This might be of interest:
>>
>> BBC's six-year cover-up of secret 'green propaganda' training for top
>> executives
>>
>> By David Rose for The Mail on Sunday
>> 23:52, 11 Jan 2014 , updated 23:52, 11 Jan 2014
>>
>> Pensioner forces BBC to lift veil on 2006 eco-seminar to top
>> executives
>>
>> Papers reveal influence of top green campaigners including Greenpeace
>>
>> Then-head of news Helen Boaden said it impacted a 'broad range of
>> output'
>>
>> Yet BBC has spent more than £20,000 in legal fees trying to keep it
>> secret
>>
>> <https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2537886/BBCs-six-year-cover-secret-green-propaganda-training-executives.html#ixzz2qBlfEG9a>
>>
>
>https://off-guardian.org/2024/03/27/why-do-people-claim-they-own-the-science/
>
>"What SUFI and Dr Stea appear to be describing is “the Science™.
>
>The Science™ is a closed shop where only certain “experts” are deemed
>credible, usually by each other. Dissent from “the Scientific
>Consensus™” is actively resisted by non-scientific means. Censorship,
>personal attacks, denial, ridicule, refusal to debate and so on.
>
>Ignoring scientific evidence, denying evidence exists—when it clearly
>does—applying made up propaganda labels to evidence, in order to
>marginalise or discredit evidence without examining it, refusing to
>discuss evidence and misreporting evidence—to deceive people into
>imagining the evidence is not relevant—are not principles found
>anywhere in any version of the scientific method. But they are found
>everywhere in “the Science™.”
>
>********************************************************************
>
>"In case you weren’t aware, the United Nations (UN) owns “the Science™.”
>Speaking at the WEF’s anti-disinformation panel, UN
>Under-Secretary-General for Global Communications Melissa Fleming
>outlined how the UN had partnered with Google and TikTok to rig their
>respective search results and told the enthralled attendees:
>
> We [the United Nations] own the science, and we think that the
> world should know it.
>
>Yes, the world certainly should know that a bunch of self-appointed
>technocrats not only believe they own science, their grasp of the
>scientific method is so pitiful they imagine it is possible to own
>science. Dr Stea seemingly shares the same delusion."
>
>********************************************************************
>
>"Instead, Hotez declined and, unwilling to defend his Science™ in a
>public debate, he said:
>
> In science, we don’t typically do debates. What we do is we write
> scientific papers [. . .] one doesn’t typically debate science.
>
>Hotez’ excuse was abject anti-scientific dross. The scientific debate
>couldn’t be more important to science. It is only completely irrelevant
>in the Science™. There is no debate in the Science™ because it is based
>upon “the Scientific Consensus™” which cannot be questioned according
>to Drs Stea, Hotez and others."

IOW they've taken over science and no dissenting views are permitted!