Quote:
Originally Posted by golfing eagles
As a scientist (not a climatologist), and even having had a graduate course in paleoclimatology, I would agree with you 99.5% of the time.
However, once a scientific concept becomes highly politicized with trillions of dollars on the line for those that can control the narrative, the whole game changes.
read the post from the TOTV member whose son IS a climatologist, but disagreed with anthropogenic global warming.-----Grants---DENIED, tenure---DENIED publications----DENIED. Professional reputation ruined. Family to feed, a career ahead of you, most of would just tell the world what the powers that be want them to. And "the peers" that review your research are in exactly the same boat. Then they come out with the claim that "96% of climate scientists are in agreement". Of course they are. Just as 96% (probably more) of people with a gun to their head will tell you that the Earth is a cube. Many early renaissance scientific advancements came from France, until the French Academy of Sciences in the early-mid 1700's became politicized and had to push only "approved" concepts. All new ideas and concepts that were at odds with the "accepted" narrative were squashed and scientific advancement moved on to England and Germany. Same here with climate change. Then, the narrative continues to claim that anyone who disagrees with "the science" (THEIR science) is a nut job or ignorant. Example----Believe Oswald wasn't a lone gunman?----you're a nut job, conspiracy theorist or worse.
So if I publish another paper in a journal, maybe something about the microorganisms in the carposphere of Laccaria trullisata, I would expect unbiased peer review. But I pity any climatologist who tries to publish anything contrary to the global warming narrative.
|
As you know, anecdotal events, not subject to scientific review, e.g. the son you refer to who is a climatologist but who was at odds to others, is, as you know, simply not scientific. Perhaps he expressed an opinion that had NO scientific basis whatsoever, perhaps he was just a poor professor, perhaps he was having an affair with the dean's wife or son. We don't know. There are many reasons why a professor may not gain tenure but to attribute it, as you do, to being in opposition to climate change, is simply not scientific. It is a good story, but without more, it is just that.
Science is science, There have been many examples where a readily accepted theory has been disproved by those who go against the grain. But, they have done so on the basis of scientific fact, and, more recently, by presenting their findings of scientific fact in a peer reviewed journal. Unfortunately, for your perspective, there are NO scientific peer reviewed journal articles (out of the many thousands that have been published on the subject of climate change and the human involvement in such a change) that I am aware of. NONE...not one! Can you present even one? Or is the earth really flat because a lone voice in the ether claims it to be so?