- Joined
- May 11, 2020
- Messages
- 495
- Reaction score
- 798
There is a great deal of difference between the true (real, honest, classic, actual, verifiable, "hard") sciences - physics, chemistry, biology, geology, etc. - which can be trusted, and the so-called "soft" sciences, which cannot. Psychiatry, for example, was for a century (even self-admittedly) the "least exact" of all sciences.
But a few decades ago, that 'position of honor' was replaced by a new invention called "climate" science. It cannot be defined, exactly, and does not have any of the usual characteristics of true science. It was just sort of 'discovered' one day, by someone who pulled it out of thin air (or more likely out of their anal orifice). They magically made it fit all their preconceived notions. Worse, all its reports and conclusions are only allowed to be "reviewed" by the "peers" that specifically agree up-front with those preconceived conclusions. That whole canard is intentionally passed off to the public as something to be revered, since it has the (knowingly deceitful) tag of "science" attached to it.
Is it obvious that this subject pisses me off??
But a few decades ago, that 'position of honor' was replaced by a new invention called "climate" science. It cannot be defined, exactly, and does not have any of the usual characteristics of true science. It was just sort of 'discovered' one day, by someone who pulled it out of thin air (or more likely out of their anal orifice). They magically made it fit all their preconceived notions. Worse, all its reports and conclusions are only allowed to be "reviewed" by the "peers" that specifically agree up-front with those preconceived conclusions. That whole canard is intentionally passed off to the public as something to be revered, since it has the (knowingly deceitful) tag of "science" attached to it.
Is it obvious that this subject pisses me off??
Last edited by a moderator: