lr64
Well-Known Member
Yes, it's so tragic that oil companies are penniless.
"We don't know...yet" Science in action
- Thread starter prfesser
- Start date
Help Support The Rocketry Forum:
NTP2
Well-Known Member
It appears that we aren’t going to change your mind so I’ll just say that we didn’t have very good models in 2015 and that they get better as the situation gets worse.
This post is from when I first joined the forum, but I think it bears repeating here.
You can substitute "talking head" for "politician."
You can substitute "talking head" for "politician."
NTP2
Well-Known Member
pretty accurate, they were trying to convince people but it’s backfired pretty bad.
Some have undoubtedly seen this image of the moon, taken by NASA's lunar orbiter:
View attachment 639787
Immediate wild speculation online about space aliens. Probably speculation on Bigfoot, Loch Nessie, space lasers, hollow moon, etc.
In science, when we don't know...we say so. What we don't do is indulge in fantasy merely because it's satisfying. Instead of "Proof of Space Aliens!", NASA asked "What could possibly have caused this phenomenon?" And it didn't take long to find that Korea Aerospace Research Institute's Danuri lunar orbiter was paralleling the LRO's orbit. And at the speed it was going, it would have been a blur, just as seen in the image.
To some, the explanation won't make any difference. Supporting facts and results are ignored. "Space Aliens!! NASA is lying!!! etc. ad nauseum". So it goes. You can lead a person to knowledge but you can't make them think.
Last edited:
So let me get this straight.
Big money funds scientific studies, so the conclusions must conform to big monies' interests.
So if the raw data points otherwise, then it must be falsified to conform.
And this is happening worldwide across thousands of studies and hundreds of thousands of researchers and scientists.
With not a single whistleblower among them.
And it passes the peer review process because they're all in on it too.
Yeah, that's it, yeah.
Big money funds scientific studies, so the conclusions must conform to big monies' interests.
So if the raw data points otherwise, then it must be falsified to conform.
And this is happening worldwide across thousands of studies and hundreds of thousands of researchers and scientists.
With not a single whistleblower among them.
And it passes the peer review process because they're all in on it too.
Yeah, that's it, yeah.
I look at that [picture of Kilimanjaro] and what I really see is, “tiny data point, probably a cherry-picked counter example, maybe not even a true one”.
Further digging confirmed the first two.
(Edited)
I found out that the snowfall on Kilimanjaro varies with the seasons of the year.
So the time of year that the photos were taken comes into play.
Edit: And the face of the mountain being photographed also comes into play.
(See the post about "doesn't look like the same mountain").
And although the glaciers on Kilimanjaro have declined in size by 90% over the past hundred years, the cause may not be due to global warming as much as the dynamics of weather over the Indian Ocean, where the snowfall on Kilimanjaro comes from.
So the choice of Kilimanjaro may not have been the best, but other glaciers around the world have been rapidly declining and scientists attribute those to global warming.
Last edited:
And apparently "the government" and universities are motivated to spend massive amounts of money to pay off all these scientists because they can... use the results of this research to control people? Hamstring the economy? I don't know why the government would want to do that, but I guess it's a guiding motive.So let me get this straight.
Big money funds scientific studies, so the conclusions must conform to big monies' interests.
So if the raw data points otherwise, then it must be falsified to conform.
And this is happening worldwide across thousands of studies and hundreds of thousands of researchers and scientists.
With not a single whistleblower among them.
And it passes the peer review process because they're all in on it too.
Yeah, that's it, yeah.
Meanwhile, a plucky band of rich and powerful multinational energy companies are the only ones willing to stand up to the government, by paying for unbiased research, motivated only by a desire to see science done properly.
NTP2
Well-Known Member
Well no one’s addressed this yet so I’ll do it, MRN vaccines do affect immune cells but not by affecting the DNA the immune cells use the mRNA as a plan for antibodies.
Al Gore - scientist?
Then don't tar and feather scientists!
Multinational energy companies are "unbiased"?And apparently "the government" and universities are motivated to spend massive amounts of money to pay off all these scientists because they can... use the results of this research to control people? Hamstring the economy? I don't know why the government would want to do that, but I guess it's a guiding motive.
Meanwhile, a plucky band of rich and powerful multinational energy companies are the only ones willing to stand up to the government, by paying for unbiased research, motivated only by a desire to see science done properly.
Sarcasm.
I'm not a scientist, but my eldest daughter is a true scientist. She does/has-done medical research (specifically protien design/manufacture) in both academia and the commercial world. Her and I have had serious conversations about the integrity of research. Based on her experiences she estimates that 5-10% of true scientists have been biased in some manner. The other 90-95% of true scientists are just trying to do good research and communicate valid (as currently known) results. This does not speak to business people and/or talking heads, and other ideologues.
lakeroadster
When in doubt... build hell-for-stout!
Talking heads... those are scientists too. You know, the scientists who do the talking.
lr64
Well-Known Member
I would like to know more details about this big money action, so I can help my impecunious friends who are scientists get in on it.
And let us not forget that they are the Puppet Masters of way too many politicians.And apparently "the government" and universities are motivated to spend massive amounts of money to pay off all these scientists because they can... use the results of this research to control people? Hamstring the economy? I don't know why the government would want to do that, but I guess it's a guiding motive.
Meanwhile, a plucky band of rich and powerful multinational energy companies are the only ones willing to stand up to the government, by paying for unbiased research, motivated only by a desire to see science done properly.
By the time they run out of counter examples (they usually only pick one), the problem will be long irreversible and inescapable.
Nice shirt
lr64
Well-Known Member
Here's an anonymous quote that's better placed here than in the quote thread:
If you are unwilling to learn from those whose very purpose is to seek knowledge and share with others, instead choosing to follow the advice of people who are also unwilling to learn, then you've already failed yourself, your family, and community.
And IMHO peer-reviewed publications are a lot like Churchill's statement about democracy: the worst possible form of scientific publication. Except for all the others.
Yes, thanks, I got it; easy for me to recognize because I dish it out too.
Similar threads
