lol, lmao even

[Anonymous No.15724944]

https://www.thefp.com/p/i-overhyped-climate-change-to-get-published

tldr climate scientists are intentionally distorting their research to conform to The Narrative in order to get published in major journals t. climate scientist who got published in Nature by distorting his research

[Anonymous No.15724970]

>>15724944
Literally 99% of all scientists do this.
>Job has no security
>Requires constant begging for funding
>People then tailor results to keep their job

Thats why billions got wasted on Alzheimers based on the amyloid fibre theory.

[Anonymous No.15724975]

>>15724944
So? Banach and Tarski did the same thing. Your own voice isn't as important as your ventriloquy,

[Anonymous No.15725133]

Not only are scientists all liars who never publish anything truthful, but they all also fuck dogs.
The movies make demonic spirits out to be some sort of supernatural creatures with red skin, pointy ears, a tail and wings, but in IRL life demons are just regular people who decided to become atheists because they feel entitled to flaunt God's laws. They quickly go down the slippery slope from disobeying one or two rules when they children or teens to aggressively violating all of them by they time they're fully grow adults, by which time they're conspiring with their cohorts to make our Earthly paradise into a living hell.

[Anonymous No.15725160]

>In theory, scientific research should prize curiosity, dispassionate objectivity, and a commitment to uncovering the truth.
Wrong. Scientific research responds to the scientific community's needs and society's needs. That's why other scientists give you the time of day and that's why you're getting public funds. I don't care that research sates your personal curiosity if it doesn't benefit me as a scientist or as a person. I don't owe you my time or my money. If you want to "uncover the truth", do it on your own time and on your own dime.
>In my paper, we didn’t bother to study the influence of these other obviously relevant factors. Did I know that including them would make for a more realistic and useful analysis? I did. But I also knew that it would detract from the clean narrative centered on the negative impact of climate change.
This is always true regardless of your relationship with the editor. A scientific article is an argument and your goal is to defend it. You have to stay on track and not go off into tangents that make your point harder to understand. You're writing a scientific article for your peers, so it better be simple and cogent.
>But studying solutions rather than focusing on problems is simply not going to rouse the public—or the press.
Studies looking at how to handle climate change are published all the time in top journals
>Here’s a third trick: be sure to focus on metrics that will generate the most eye-popping numbers. Our paper, for instance, could have focused on a simple, intuitive metric like the number of additional acres that burned or the increase in intensity of wildfires because of climate change. Instead, we followed the common practice of looking at the change in risk of an extreme event—in our case, the increased risk of wildfires burning more than 10,000 acres in a single day.
How does he know this helped unless he got R&R'd for not doing this? And if he got R&R'd for this, why not mention it as evidence?

[Anonymous No.15725180]

>the "it's happening and it's a good thing" phase

[Anonymous No.15725188]

>>15725160
>"it's happening and it's a good thing" phase
When was that not the background for life?

[Anonymous No.15725192]

Scientists have always been a cowardly cog of the state. Call the narcissists 'smart' (they were never seen as smart as children, or told too often in the case of prodigies, so seek it like a heroin addict) and they will sell out everyone.

[Anonymous No.15725193]

>>15724944
everyone who makes currency is a sellout. no exceptions. simple as.

[Anonymous No.15725235]

>>15725192
>[Everyone whose name you know] has always been a cowardly cog of the state
Probably.

[Anonymous No.15725481]

>>15724944
science being fake and gay? again?
its almost as if all of science is 100% fake and gay

[Anonymous No.15726318]

>>15725160
I ain't reading ALLAT

[Anonymous No.15726354]

>>15725160
>spreading lies
>this is how i contribute to science