Quote:
Originally Posted by S griffin
Sadly some people still turn their noses up at science, thinking they know better despite all it's evidence to the contrary
As for the subject matter, F1 is getting more involved with environmental issues and has made progress. We'll see how much further it gets. It's got better with cleaner fuels, although I'd say Indycar is probably ahead of it in turns of sustatinable fuels
|
That depends on who does the science, who is funding it, what agendas are in play, and how the research is conducted.
Simply saying 'the science' isnt enough.
There are dozens of stories from the 2000's to 2015 of researchers and professors losing tenure and having their funding cut, or being released from universities because they did not tow the narrative that was deemed to be conducive to getting funding, and the people simply bent down or left their institutions.
even the famed 97% of all scientists was a fake.
At a climate conference several 1000 attendees' discussion on climate change was voted on and less than half the attedees voted positively or climate change occurring.
So in evaluating the vote the leaders decided that a number of the attendees werent really climate scientists at all so their vote was simply eliminated.
So if there were 4000 attendees and 1940 voted for the proposal, less than half, then they would have eliminated 2000 votes and 1940 of the remaining 2000 meanyt that 97% agreed.
Those are not the actual numbers, i'd have to go back to research it, but it taught me something about the power of money and influence.
My nephew is a research scientist in biochemistry and this sort of thing is not unusual.
His doctorate was on a way to eliminate carbon from the atmosphere. It was workable and he received plaudits for it but it proved to be uneconomic in dealing with significant volumes.
Simply believing mainstream generalities is not sufficient evidence. Truth is not based on a vote of agreement. It is based substantiated fact, and people who believe everything they are told, without researching what is really going on, are different from the animals in Orwell's Animal Farm.
Theu were told by the pigs that mantra 'four legs good, two legs bad' but when they looked in the window at the pigs walking on their hind legs, entertaining the farmers, they couldn't tell who was who.
To them there was no difference.
And people who believe what they are told and cannot argue their case on current evidence and research data, are sadly no different. They are just as deceived.
So if you people who turn their noses up at science, you have to show what science you are talking about. Who, what, when, where, how, what the precepts were and under whose authority the conclusions were drawn.
There are organizations of scientists who will argue that climate change rhetoric is fake. One group has over 30000 members, all with master's and doctorates who agree that it is not what popular media says it is.
So who's science are people following?
That is the beginning of understanding what is real and what is not real.
I'm not here to argue with people.
I'm simply explaining what real and true about climate data.