It seems like every opinion people have their studies on it that affirm their opinion and all other studies are discredited because they don't affirm their opinion. So what we have is a bunch of people disagree and trying to add gravitas to their opinion.
You do cherry pick what you want to hear that's what most people do it seems to be standard operating procedure anytime someone brings up science. Anytime someone presents me with a study that affirms their position they specifically neglect anything that doesn't. My suggestion is realize you're not as smart as you think you are. And the reason you think the things that you do is probably more to do tribalism than it is with actual knowledge.
Peer review has been discredited. We all saw it happen when some scientists made some hoax papers that were published. Maybe you don't remember.
And the point flies entirely over your head. You dont know 'they usually get caught' because you dont know how many DON'T get caught. And you dont know that because ...they didnt get caught.
Believe me the ones that “don’t get caught” are not that influential usually - look at that idiot in France that did the early research on Hydroxychloroquine - if it were not for Trump promoting HCQ that “research” would have been a footnote in history, dismissed by the larger medical profession, quoted in a research paper or two but nothing beyond that. It was politicised and became important only because of politics. Politics - especially those whose proponents often have little to no understanding of science and academia, will latch onto “research” that agrees with their worldview - it is called cognitive bias. Analytical thinkers eschew this and look at the facts if anyone is willing to learn I, and others on here will teach how to do this. It won’t change your political leaning but it will enable you to tell for yourself what are the core solid facts
Never claimed to be smart. I try to rely on common sense. Global warming is happening and vaccines prevent disease. People much smarter than me agree.
Where this is rife and a very discussed subject is in the medical field which gets the most attention but also crops up in other fields like climate change.
There is a real problem in the fact that for many, publishing peer review is not only a requirement but the only way to either keep your job or advance. It leads to sometimes sloppy but sometimes fraudulent work. Where it is endemic is in the medical field, specifically pharma where billions are at stake. There is also a problem in peer review called pal review. Others that have an interest or stake in your work reviewing your work for publication. Agreement with a paper means nothing. What counts is if the work can be duplicated by others (science) and the only way to verify if the work is correct. Very few papers that are not sloppy or fraudulent, stand the test of time.
The media does, often not understanding the full extent of the paper because they are interested in sound bites so many people I have seen quoting something comes from the media.
Are you saying you can't trust the research you post? Or do you just throw stuff against the wall and hope something sticks.
People call all sorts of idiotic things common sense. And disagree, you cherry pick who you agree with.
Since I no longer drive to work and have ROKU television I seldom watch the news , or what passes for it anymore. And frankly, watching the news just irritates me. I feel better without it and I have no reason to get worked up over it.
Of course I pick who I agree with because a person makes up the mind. And I consider the source. I look to reputable sources because I can't know everything , and would trust an organization that brought honor to my country and put men on the moon than some random person on a political forum. And....what would you consider an idiotic thing that people would call common sense?
Depends on what you call reputable sources. For instance, NASA that put us on the moon was later tasked to work on Muslim outreach. Tell me that makes sense. These organization can change based on many things including politics and often the 'new' leaders have an agenda other than the organizations basic objective.
This is it in a nutshell. You disagree with the results so you discredit the source. Muslim outreach is not climate science and unrelated. It comes down to trust. Do I trust NASA or Hoosier8? Since where I lived as a youth had ice on the lakes a foot thick in the winter and now seldom freezes solid in winter I wonder. And the hardiness zones for plants moving north 13 miles per decade.....go figure.
Disagree with what results. Please expound. You are not even aware that the dire predictions are for the future, in fact the next century but instead you rely on local weather as a guide to 'global' climate. In effect you are not using science at all but opinion or only agreeing with the alarmism based on the least likely computer model.
your decision isn't informed. I'm willing to bet you picked who was correct based on political affiliation. if it affirms what you believe or not you cherry pick what is reputable and not based on what affirms your beliefs people who don't want to think say what they believe is common sense. It doesn't make it common sense.
