[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

Oh, look! A family of cheetahs! 😃

Oh no, they are going to scratch up the golf course.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Pugchief

3 years later and they're still transitioning? LOL, believe any narrative you want, but people who live in cities are complaining it's not as safe.

"People who live in cities are claiming that it is not as safe". I could complain that in the street that I live at in The Villages - cars, trucks, and golf carts are going by at about DOUBLE the speed limit. Some golf carts are exceeding 30 MPH. I have NEVER, in over 10 years, seen a traffic stop by Police. About 30 % of the golf carts go by at 20 MPH and 70% exceed that.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by CybrSage

The rise in global temps would be happening regardless of human activity. The Milkanovitch Cycles show this clearly. We can expect more warming by nature alone.

Well in THAT case, we better ALL contact California and tell them NOT to bother requiring automobiles to be ELECTRIC after a certain year. It is those WASSKALLY Milkanovitchy twitchy cycles causing ALL our Global heating problems.........who knew ?????

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by spd2918

When your science is politicized it is no longer valid. When your science is propped up by governments seeking new taxes it is no longer valid. When the media only reports science items favorable to the lie it is no longer exists.

And, as we see in this thread, when research papers are falsified to continue funding it is no longer valid.

Scientists go out of their way to NOT be affected by Politics. They are the most apolitical part of our society. As far as "governments seeking new taxes" goes it is hard for me to conceptualize ANY government NOT seeking new taxes. Should we still be taxing horse and buggies and NOT taxing automobiles because they are newer? Should we NEVER tax A.I. or Tik Tok because they are NEW?????
......I don't understand?

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by spd2918

When your science is politicized it is no longer valid. When your science is propped up by governments seeking new taxes it is no longer valid. When the media only reports science items favorable to the lie it is no longer exists.

And, as we see in this thread, when research papers are falsified to continue funding it is no longer valid.

Originally Posted by Shipping up to Boston

I have no skin in this one as I operate on my own observations/experiences. That said...

Couldnt your last sentence describe....for example, cancer research? Which ‘evolves’ on a daily basis. Slippery slope

When those that don't like the outcome determine that science is politicized or propped up by governments or only selectively reported by the media they don't agree with, then you have a cult.

Science learns and grows. What was understood to be a treatment or a cure for a disease at one point may be later shown to have no real connection. Long term research into something like cancer will likely have reached many dead ends while pursuing what looked like promising results; that's just the way science works. Unfortunately, that doesn't meet the standards of the cult's skepticism and 20/20 hindsight.

it would be interesting to know how many of those papers flagged by AI or some other algorithm as having potential plagiarism or an objectionable email address or an international connection were 1. guilty of the accusation; and 2. inaccurate/wrong. While a plagiarized paper doesn't add to the body of science and never should have been published, its results may be just as accurate as the papers it copied.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by Shipping up to Boston

Confused, since you packaged my post with someone else’s. My post was...in much less verbiage, was in the same spirit as yours. Thus the ‘slippery slope’ comment. But it is almost Halloween , and if cult is the theme, gotta find my purple shroud and purple Nike’s!

Sorry, I was attempting to agree. Science is criticized when it doesn't come up with the right answer the first time and very quickly. It gets accused of being wrong, slow, biased, etc. However, the right answer the first time doesn't always happen and for no nefarious reasons. You had a good example with cancer research - better and closer all the time but not there yet.

[Pugchief]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

"People who live in cities are claiming that it is not as safe". I could complain that in the street that I live at in The Villages - cars, trucks, and golf carts are going by at about DOUBLE the speed limit. Some golf carts are exceeding 30 MPH. I have NEVER, in over 10 years, seen a traffic stop by Police. About 30 % of the golf carts go by at 20 MPH and 70% exceed that.

And your point is what? Yes, some Villagers have their golf carts rigged to exceed 20mph. No one argues that fact, it's accepted. Feel free to complain. But just like that reality, crime is way up, but certain forces want you to believe otherwise, based on cooked data.

[Pugchief]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

"People who live in cities are claiming that it is not as safe". I could complain that in the street that I live at in The Villages - cars, trucks, and golf carts are going by at about DOUBLE the speed limit. Some golf carts are exceeding 30 MPH. I have NEVER, in over 10 years, seen a traffic stop by Police. About 30 % of the golf carts go by at 20 MPH and 70% exceed that.

Also, math says that double the speed limit (20 mph) would be 40. But you say the speeders are going 30. More fake data.

[Pugchief]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Scientists go out of their way to NOT be affected by Politics. They are the most apolitical part of our society.

Not just false, but the opposite of reality.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by CybrSage

The rise in global temps would be happening regardless of human activity. The Milkanovitch Cycles show this clearly. We can expect more warming by nature alone.

Agree that Earth would be warming on its own, but not this quickly. It is human activity in total that has kicked the warming into overdrive. We can expect more warming, but it won't be by mother nature alone.

[jmpate]

I take most "research" with a hand of salt bc their data is neither "valid nor reliable;" two terms that measure accurate (reliable and valid) data. I become most incensed when the research involves clinical/medical treatments bc patients' lives and their well being are affected.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Sorry, I was attempting to agree. Science is criticized when it doesn't come up with the right answer the first time and very quickly. It gets accused of being wrong, slow, biased, etc. However, the right answer the first time doesn't always happen and for no nefarious reasons. You had a good example with cancer research - better and closer all the time but not there yet.

Science is bunk! Bring back blood letting, leeches and voodoo! 👹👹👹 (I hope you realize this is a joke!

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Oh no, they are going to scratch up the golf course.

I was attempting to get golfing eagles mind back on his African trip. 😀😄☺️

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by Pugchief

Also, math says that double the speed limit (20 mph) would be 40. But you say the speeders are going 30. More fake data.

What about the cars and trucks? 50+ on some stretches, particularly on BV and Morse Blvd. Let's just say that exceeding the speed limits by 50% is very common.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by Pugchief

Also, math says that double the speed limit (20 mph) would be 40. But you say the speeders are going 30. More fake data.

A statement exaggerated to make a point is simply that, an exaggerated statement. Not "data", real or fake. And not presented as data. Jmho. 🫠