@Cierzo that is a naive type of skepticism. your argument is that since there is a political influence on science then all science is null and void. an alternative approach is to ascertain which science is tainted by corporate or political influence and that which is not. it's not difficult to ascertain actually.

it is also something of a chicken and the egg argument. the purpose of basic science research is to inform public policy, and public policy subsequently funds research that has a huge impact on public good.

it is also a matter of chicken and the egg in terms of political support offered by scientists. scientists tend to support whoever supports basic science, education, tech transfer, and so on. the america at least basic science is grossly underfunded given the size of our economy, and many scientists end up supporting democrats who under support these things, but more than republicans.

@CopperCicada I don't say all science is null. What I say is that I cannot take any scientific declaration like the whole truth when I know that certain opinions are broadly issued, and certain ones are censored.

@Cierzo i guess as somebody trained as a scientist i have a different attitude towards science, be it climate change or whatever. i don't do science through the mainstream media. i don't listen to nye or degrasse-tyson. i don't do blogs or youtube videos. i read papers and talk to the people who write them and take the attitude "i'm from missouri you'll have to show me." anyone can do that. there's no special club.

@Northwest I don't know about authorities, but there are quite a few here saying it and talking about karma. Those are the ones I meant.

@Cierzo OK, so then it's at least one person, maybe a few people. Not exactly "the left", defined as the broad left of Trump.

What I'm trying to say, is that, within every group, you're always going to find at least one person, possibly a few people, with unsupported opinions/claims.

Climate change is pretty complex, and cannot be reduced to a rigid political narrative.

@Northwest Agree, it is too politized. Science in general is too entangled with politics now

@therighttothink50 You described it perfectly. It is a cult. They do not accept you deny it, they cannot even accept you are skeptical since the evidence is not enough or biased.

@Cierzo The left thinks they are above everybody, anybody who dares to disagree with their view of the world is bad and evil. They see themselves as the model for virtue when they are the exact opposite. Leftism today requires living in an inverse reality.

vir·tue sig·nal·ing

noun: virtue signalling
the action or practice of publicly expressing opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one's good character or the moral correctness of one's position on a particular issue.
"it's noticeable how often virtue signaling consists of saying you hate things"

@Cierzo You forgot the "acid rain" 😂

@SW-User don't give a fuck either way ... carry on and have a good night.

@SW-User That too. But it looks like being skeptical is a crime.

@Cierzo quite honestly, i think most of the drama in our present time would be GONE IN AN INSTANT if people did just that. go to primary sources.

@CopperCicada Many people cannot do it. What are the primary sources anyway? Labs and colleges for climate change, and intelligence agencies for terrorism? Only those working there can access primary sources

But how can we be sure that the information they give to MSM is the truth? And this is the only information 99% of the population has access too.

@Cierzo as somebody trained as a scientist, the LAST THING i will do is to tell you to believe science on blind faith. i won't do it. if you were in my classroom i would be the same way. that is intellectual dishonesty. one knows science not through bill nye but by personal exploration.

i don't know a single scientist who is not open to public inquiry. in my own profession life, i have have had people walk in off the street to ask what is going on in my lab. [i]so, like what is that thing?[/i] my department has whole events to solicit that. i have had people bring their own puzzles and problems to me. [i]so this green shit is in my pipes, what is it? is it poisonous?[/i] i have had scientists, students, and regular citizens inquire about my research. [i]you showed this data in graph #2 but what did you use as a control? you didn't mention a control![/i] and i have had amateur scientists bring their own theories to me. my colleagues are all the same.

when it comes to my own scientific inquiries i have done the same. i've done it with global warming. i'm doing it now with this hurricane irma. i do that when i got to historical sites. zoos. museum. my attitude is: you're working for me, so let's go through this list of questions...

in the end, one is convinced or one isn't. also science isn't a binary thing. fuzzy logic. one might be 60% convinced.

from what i can tell, > 90% of people with an opinion either for or against any scientific subject in the public sphere have never done this due diligence at any level.

as for islam. i talk to muslims. i work with them and went to school with them. i talk to them on line. i talk to the people who hate them. i talk to the people harmed by them. i have been very close to israelis who have been very intimately harmed by them. i talk to us servicemen who have served in the mideast.

this is largely what i do here. i don't give a shit about people who agree with me. i'm here to learn from everyone else.

i've learned alot from climate deniers an people who are critical of islam. in the case of islam one narrative i'm new to is the experience of europeans dealing with huge immigrant populations.

@Anubis Yes, years ago, not any more, and it is the same unacceptable.

@Cierzo excactly

@Anubis about 1000 years ago. Doing barback things in barbarack times is not exceptional