Also the fact that science is a conveyor process of taking extremely weak ideas and making them more grounded mostly through weeding out and refinement. Everything on the conveyor is science from day one to the end of the line. Thus a good 70% of real science, items on that conveyor, aren't that great. Science has to include not so great ideas to have feed stock sufficient to have great ideas.
So the idea you can't disagree with science is bunk. A good 70% is significantly worth disagreeing with. And that's when science is going well. Start adding grant seeking bias and such that encourages science to go wrong, and that number goes up.
Right. So that's not even science. That's "experts." You should trust science more than experts (not the conclusion they want) and not even "trust" science that much.
Point is science isn't a binary label where something is science therefore you trust it, or something isn't therefore you don't. Science is just ideas with hopefully honest error bars attached, and possible error on those error bars. Which means everything from the high error bar to the low error bar stuff, what makes it science is it's distributed with the claim don't trust me completely. That asterisk is what makes it science. So "trust the science" is really an anti-scientific phrase.
Science and religion are linked. It started by shamans seeing the stars and telling stories about them. But they'd say if you questioned their science you're going to hell. Similar to how they shriek and howl if you question global warming.
One does not believe science, science is not a religion.
I agree with you. Science isn't officially a religion.
But they have dressed it up, so that it's basically the same thing for most people.
They used to wear symbolic white overcoats.
The concepts aren't broadly understood by the pubic, so they basically place their faith in something that they don't actually understand; and this is the source of belief in science.
There's a scientific priest class who are politically connected and motivated to decide what is and isn't true. These
Scientists were given white priest robes, but they don't need to wear them today. Most people are programmed to accept what they claim as fact, until proven otherwise.
Ein-stein was the primary vehicle to push scientism with the theoretical physics bullshit, but he was a front man. It put the theory cart before the evidence horse.
Sciencism or something like that, but where did all the matter and energy come from in the universe?
Science in it's current form is controlled by Grant funding on the front end, and gatekeeping of publication in academic journals on the back end. No money for honest research, and nobody will publish the truth; even if it was somehow independently financed and funded.
Publishing is the currency of academia, and this will weed out honest science. But they'll publish fake research about training make dogs to be gay to combat patriarchy, and similar nonsense.
A super genius of physics might have already developed a solution to the world's energy problems, but we'll never have his research published because energy is the lifeblood of the modern industrial and the banksters and their allies are making too much money, and have too much power.
They'll destroy any competition.
The best way to prevent competition is to create a fake version of physics, and fund super colliders and dark matter research and other bullshit, and defund any practical physical applications.
The fact that they still teach kids that the sun is a ball of self compressed gas that emits light in a continuous full spectrum is proof that they aren't interested in science as a self correcting process.
In reality, it's a tool of control, which determines what can and can't be research.
Also, the big bang had been conclusively debunked in my assessment. I don't have an answer for the origin of energy, or matter, but they've been busy manufacturing false conclusions to keep the people under their control.
Their primary method of control is the money system, and it's busy collapsing in real time.
I think we decided to come to this place, and in this time.
We get to experience the most interesting period of all of human history.
Will the evil schemers who believe they own humanity succeed in their plan for an eternal injectable cyborg slave system?
Or will people awaken into a new era of freedom and humanity?
The Beatles album abbey road, John Lennon has a white coat on the cover. At the music studio abbey road, the producers like George Martin wore a suit and tie, the audio engineers wore white coats. Something symbolic to go from blue jeans like George on the cover, to suits like Paul and ringo, to the all white suit. Before that they had the white album.
The CO2 climate forcing factor can only be entertained, because they have deliberately eliminated the measured variations in solar output from consideration.
The sun is far from static in it's output, but the global warming agenda depends upon our ignorance of the primary temperature forcing factor.
They've managed to convince the world that the sun in a ball of self-compressed hydrogen gas that magically emits full spectrum light, which can only be produced by the lattice structure which is the material requirement for defining condensed matter. Literally.
Someone should ask these climate scientists what they think about fundamental misconception of the sun as a gaseous body.
The CO2 hoax similarly depends upon people believing it can absorb light and trap heat as it it was condensed matter.
They've reversed the physical properties of CO2 and the sun.
(Click bait thumbnail) Climate scientists hate this logical question...
Medieval England has records of warming that allowed for the growing of grape vineyards, and vintners making wine for decades or centuries.
It didn't make logical sense that a single degree increase could expand the growing zones from the France to extent to England. Particularly given the warm air that arrives in England originates in the gulf of Amerixico; facilitating the rise of the banksters Atlantic triangle involuntary indenturing of servitude by trading the Irish and Scottish "rednecks," for rum, and expanding to all the rest, as business grew.
The weather is still too cool in England to reliably grow seasonal vineyards.
I'm close to certain that expected a return to the cycle that allowed the flourishing of meDIEval Europe and now they're stuck salvaging a collapsing narrative.
What's the margin of error on a ridiculous narrative? That's a great question.
Log in
One does not believe science, science is not a religion.
Also the fact that science is a conveyor process of taking extremely weak ideas and making them more grounded mostly through weeding out and refinement. Everything on the conveyor is science from day one to the end of the line. Thus a good 70% of real science, items on that conveyor, aren't that great. Science has to include not so great ideas to have feed stock sufficient to have great ideas.
So the idea you can't disagree with science is bunk. A good 70% is significantly worth disagreeing with. And that's when science is going well. Start adding grant seeking bias and such that encourages science to go wrong, and that number goes up.
Remember Climategate, where they fudged the numbers?
Right. So that's not even science. That's "experts." You should trust science more than experts (not the conclusion they want) and not even "trust" science that much.
Point is science isn't a binary label where something is science therefore you trust it, or something isn't therefore you don't. Science is just ideas with hopefully honest error bars attached, and possible error on those error bars. Which means everything from the high error bar to the low error bar stuff, what makes it science is it's distributed with the claim don't trust me completely. That asterisk is what makes it science. So "trust the science" is really an anti-scientific phrase.
Climate Change was exagerated to be worse than it actually was. To scare and tax people.
I like pert tits - not ex-pert tits.
I like super models - not super climate models.
Hockey stick data... Any they court ordered the plaintiff to release the data, but he refused.
He decided to pay the contempt of court fines, rather than release the obviously falsified data set into the public forum of a courtroom.
Global warming isn't caused by humans. It's a pseudo $¢i€n¢€ hoax.
Science and religion are linked. It started by shamans seeing the stars and telling stories about them. But they'd say if you questioned their science you're going to hell. Similar to how they shriek and howl if you question global warming.
I agree with you. Science isn't officially a religion.
But they have dressed it up, so that it's basically the same thing for most people.
They used to wear symbolic white overcoats.
The concepts aren't broadly understood by the pubic, so they basically place their faith in something that they don't actually understand; and this is the source of belief in science.
There's a scientific priest class who are politically connected and motivated to decide what is and isn't true. These
Scientists were given white priest robes, but they don't need to wear them today. Most people are programmed to accept what they claim as fact, until proven otherwise.
Ein-stein was the primary vehicle to push scientism with the theoretical physics bullshit, but he was a front man. It put the theory cart before the evidence horse.
Sciencism or something like that, but where did all the matter and energy come from in the universe?
Science in it's current form is controlled by Grant funding on the front end, and gatekeeping of publication in academic journals on the back end. No money for honest research, and nobody will publish the truth; even if it was somehow independently financed and funded.
Publishing is the currency of academia, and this will weed out honest science. But they'll publish fake research about training make dogs to be gay to combat patriarchy, and similar nonsense.
A super genius of physics might have already developed a solution to the world's energy problems, but we'll never have his research published because energy is the lifeblood of the modern industrial and the banksters and their allies are making too much money, and have too much power.
They'll destroy any competition.
The best way to prevent competition is to create a fake version of physics, and fund super colliders and dark matter research and other bullshit, and defund any practical physical applications.
The fact that they still teach kids that the sun is a ball of self compressed gas that emits light in a continuous full spectrum is proof that they aren't interested in science as a self correcting process.
In reality, it's a tool of control, which determines what can and can't be research.
Also, the big bang had been conclusively debunked in my assessment. I don't have an answer for the origin of energy, or matter, but they've been busy manufacturing false conclusions to keep the people under their control.
Their primary method of control is the money system, and it's busy collapsing in real time.
I think we decided to come to this place, and in this time.
We get to experience the most interesting period of all of human history.
Will the evil schemers who believe they own humanity succeed in their plan for an eternal injectable cyborg slave system?
Or will people awaken into a new era of freedom and humanity?
We have front row seats.
You are referring to $cientism, the belief and trust in science (for profit).
Also sufficiently advanced science referred to as magic.
Science is a method of inquiry and elimination via repetition.
The Beatles album abbey road, John Lennon has a white coat on the cover. At the music studio abbey road, the producers like George Martin wore a suit and tie, the audio engineers wore white coats. Something symbolic to go from blue jeans like George on the cover, to suits like Paul and ringo, to the all white suit. Before that they had the white album.
"I am science"
~Dr. Fauci
The CO2 climate forcing factor can only be entertained, because they have deliberately eliminated the measured variations in solar output from consideration.
The sun is far from static in it's output, but the global warming agenda depends upon our ignorance of the primary temperature forcing factor.
They've managed to convince the world that the sun in a ball of self-compressed hydrogen gas that magically emits full spectrum light, which can only be produced by the lattice structure which is the material requirement for defining condensed matter. Literally.
Someone should ask these climate scientists what they think about fundamental misconception of the sun as a gaseous body.
The CO2 hoax similarly depends upon people believing it can absorb light and trap heat as it it was condensed matter.
They've reversed the physical properties of CO2 and the sun.
(Click bait thumbnail) Climate scientists hate this logical question...
Yes, climate scientists ignore the sun cycles and solar flares. Besides, it is only a 1-degree rise in 100 years; what is the margin of error?
I don't trust the 1° warming cooling narrative.
It's impossible to measure.
Medieval England has records of warming that allowed for the growing of grape vineyards, and vintners making wine for decades or centuries.
It didn't make logical sense that a single degree increase could expand the growing zones from the France to extent to England. Particularly given the warm air that arrives in England originates in the gulf of Amerixico; facilitating the rise of the banksters Atlantic triangle involuntary indenturing of servitude by trading the Irish and Scottish "rednecks," for rum, and expanding to all the rest, as business grew.
The weather is still too cool in England to reliably grow seasonal vineyards.
I'm close to certain that expected a return to the cycle that allowed the flourishing of meDIEval Europe and now they're stuck salvaging a collapsing narrative.
What's the margin of error on a ridiculous narrative? That's a great question.
You and I both want an answer to that.