The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show significantly less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show significantly less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.
Article: Conservative agenda aims to kill science in United States
|
Quote:You posted propaganda and nothing more. It satisfies a bias you have and makes you feel better about yourself. It's as simple as that. Your so-called "propaganda" was an opinion piece from a retired engineering professor, who specialized in measurements and statistics. His reason for opining on this subject was because he saw a misuse of science in the climate science field. His main thrust has been pointing out statistical abuse in epidemiology. He has not received a red cent of "fossil fuel money," nor have most of the skeptics. "Fossil fuel money" is a lie propagated by your far-left sources. I base my opinion on science, and science alone. Any alignment with my political beliefs is coincidental. For example, I don't buy Intelligent Design as a viable hypothesis. I do not claim to understand more than the experts, but I can look at the actual data and draw a conclusion that is not steeped in self-interest. The experts are living their lives off of tax money. Without it, most would be bagging groceries in Publix. They have to include the very unlikely (if not impossible) scary scenarios to keep the funds flowing. Kids need braces, mortgages have to be paid. The 97% questions did not ask about future disaster (and considering the mild generality of the questions, I would be among the 97%), but the leftist politicians and their media are very willing to push the implication that 97% believe in catastrophic warming. Most scientists are not in the "catastrophic" camp, but are not willing to risk their careers to voice disagreement with the few who push that narrative. If you only accept the statement of an expert in the field (whatever that means, and you don't know for sure that I'm not one, do you?) check out the "Professor and former Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology and President (co-owner) of Climate Forecast Applications Network (CFAN) ." https://judithcurry.com/ "Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?" |
Users browsing this thread: |
1 Guest(s) |
The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.