Kyle M
Member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2016
- Messages
- 1,407
Now I'm propping up state violence? That's quite hysterical.
I'm arguing that all sources are not equal. Do you dispute that?
State funding and regulation of science is based on violence, do you dispute that?
All sources are NOT equal, but my assertion is that in climate science, and many other fields besides, the main stream sources have become less reliable than some outside ones.
That's you relying on your credentials, and it's very arrogant thinking to claim that nobody 'outside' of research could possibly understand it like you
I'll ask again- are these people at least trying to publish in journals with much greater readership and reputation? If they aren't then they are in effect asking to be judged by different standards than everybody else. Aka special treatment.
Rhetoric about thought control and conspiracy to suppress truth is mere speculation and rhetoric, unless you can prove it.
I'm not relying on credentials, but actual real life experience. If someone had done 4 years of a 5 year PhD program and quit because of the corruption, they would have the same experience even if they didn't have the degree (the credential itself).
Can you see the difference?
I'm simply saying that not having the real-life experience of being around scientists, and seeing how the decisions are made and how things are controlled and incentivized, causes one to have a naive view of the system. It's not about the credentials, which is why I haven't pointed out my PhD, it's about the experience, which is why I focus on my time spent working in science.
Suppression and conspiracy is publicly available information for those willing to find it. Climategate, and the stories of the scientists I've mentioned that have been on or in the orbit of that podcast are a good start.