Sure, some lied but that doesn't discredit all scientists or the entire field of study.

So, it's your opinion that the scientists who didn't bother to do their own analysis of the data that was manipulated don't deserve to be discredited, even though those scientists had no problem endorsing the conclusions?

So, it's your opinion that the scientists who didn't bother to do their own analysis of the data that was manipulated don't deserve to be discredited, even though those scientists had no problem endorsing the conclusions?

Which scientists are we talking about here? The ones who wrote the paper should be discredited, it is a blatant disregard for the field of science.

For the rest of scientists who just read the publications? I don't judge them so harshly.
My dentist often updates me every visit with new information about oral health. How bad gum health affects your heart, for example (IIRC). I don't expect my dentist to dive deep into each and every study that comes out, he most likely reads the summary of the results and trusts it because the peer review process of scientific publications try to filter out the bad science. But sometimes a bad study makes it through. I don't fault my dentist if he didn't catch it given that he is not a study reviewer, he just sees patients all day. 

Which scientists are we talking about here? The ones who wrote the paper should be discredited, it is a blatant disregard for the field of science.

For the rest of scientists who just read the publications? I don't judge them so harshly.
My dentist often updates me every visit with new information about oral health. How bad gum health affects your heart, for example (IIRC). I don't expect my dentist to dive deep into each and every study that comes out, he most likely reads the summary of the results and trusts it because the peer review process of scientific publications try to filter out the bad science. But sometimes a bad study makes it through. I don't fault my dentist if he didn't catch it given that he is not a study reviewer, he just sees patients all day.

Your post illustrates why I started the poll.

Dentists and Scientists are 2 different professions.  Unless your dentist is experimenting with his own ideas for new treatments or conducting studies on oral health issues, he's a practitioner, not a scientist.

So, the comparison is not apples to apples.  You're conflating trust in a professional vs. belief (faith) in science.

Climate and weather science is not the same as medicine.  And the predictions of a dentist based on a patient's condition/symptoms affects exactly one person -- the patient.

When a group publishes findings in professional journals, the rest of that professional community have a duty to try and understand the information and either confirm or challenge the conclusions.  That's the whole purpose of the journals -- not to just inform Dr. Jill Biden that there's a new way of calculating the thickness of icebergs.

So, yes, the other scientists have a professional and ethical duty to peer review anything that is in their wheelhouse of knowledge and experience.

As you said, you can't keep up with 100% of new facts, discoveries and reports in every topic.  Neither can the people publishing their findings.  It's up to EVERYBODY READING THE JOURNAL to contribute to the findings.  If they merely accepted everything published as fact, they ignored their professional and ethical responsibilities and SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE.   Discredited as a group would be a good start, as they are obviously disinterested in saving the planet in the next 12 years!   

dentists are not real doctors!

Which scientists are we talking about here? The ones who wrote the paper should be discredited, it is a blatant disregard for the field of science.

For the rest of scientists who just read the publications? I don't judge them so harshly.
My dentist often updates me every visit with new information about oral health. How bad gum health affects your heart, for example (IIRC). I don't expect my dentist to dive deep into each and every study that comes out, he most likely reads the summary of the results and trusts it because the peer review process of scientific publications try to filter out the bad science. But sometimes a bad study makes it through. I don't fault my dentist if he didn't catch it given that he is not a study reviewer, he just sees patients all day.

dentists are not real doctors!

that's just your uneducated opinion. You forget who you are talking to

Your post illustrates why I started the poll.

Dentists and Scientists are 2 different professions.  Unless your dentist is experimenting with his own ideas for new treatments or conducting studies on oral health issues, he's a practitioner, not a scientist.

So, the comparison is not apples to apples.  You're conflating trust in a professional vs. belief (faith) in science.

Climate and weather science is not the same as medicine.  And the predictions of a dentist based on a patient's condition/symptoms affects exactly one person -- the patient.

When a group publishes findings in professional journals, the rest of that professional community have a duty to try and understand the information and either confirm or challenge the conclusions.  That's the whole purpose of the journals -- not to just inform Dr. Jill Biden that there's a new way of calculating the thickness of icebergs.

So, yes, the other scientists have a professional and ethical duty to peer review anything that is in their wheelhouse of knowledge and experience.

As you said, you can't keep up with 100% of new facts, discoveries and reports in every topic.  Neither can the people publishing their findings.  It's up to EVERYBODY READING THE JOURNAL to contribute to the findings.  If they merely accepted everything published as fact, they ignored their professional and ethical responsibilities and SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE.   Discredited as a group would be a good start, as they are obviously disinterested in saving the planet in the next 12 years!   

Imagine you teach high school science. Maybe you have a teaching degree but not a science degree. Maybe you even specialized in an area of science. You would probably have to place a certain amount of reliance on what appears to be the scientific consensus on certain things. Then you build your class curriculum. Lets say you were the president, or a governor. Clearly you wouldn't have time to digest this all so you would rely on an expert advisor to shape your policy. A whole lot of this is just trying to pick what stance seems the most accurate one based on what is known to us.


I trust the scientific method as long as it is performed properly. There are still margins or errors and outright flukes occasionally but I trust the method. Do I trust the professionals or do I have faith in them? I think I would argue there isn't really a difference, or at least that those terms are rather interchangeable.

Imagine you teach high school science. Maybe you have a teaching degree but not a science degree. Maybe you even specialized in an area of science. You would probably have to place a certain amount of reliance on what appears to be the scientific consensus on certain things. Then you build your class curriculum. Lets say you were the president, or a governor. Clearly you wouldn't have time to digest this all so you would rely on an expert advisor to shape your policy. A whole lot of this is just trying to pick what stance seems the most accurate one based on what is known to us.


I trust the scientific method as long as it is performed properly. There are still margins or errors and outright flukes occasionally but I trust the method. Do I trust the professionals or do I have faith in them? I think I would argue there isn't really a difference, or at least that those terms are rather interchangeable.

Wrong topic.  The poll is where you should comment on your beliefs and "trust" of science."

Imagine you're a high school science teacher, and every bit of evidence you've read proves that climate scientists don't know what they claim to know.  Their failed attempts at making predictions, their constant attempts to relabel the science itself (Global Cooling, Global Warning, Climate Change), the news that major research data that countries relied on to set policy was fraudulent, etc, etc, etc. have given you the opinion that the science really isn't settled.  As a teacher, do you teach your classes the truth about how the climate change science might not be reliable, or do you teach the school's mandated "truth" about how people are killing the planet and have to change in 12 years before the damage is irreparable?

Wrong topic.  The poll is where you should comment on your beliefs and "trust" of science."

Imagine you're a high school science teacher, and every bit of evidence you've read proves that climate scientists don't know what they claim to know.  Their failed attempts at making predictions, their constant attempts to relabel the science itself (Global Cooling, Global Warning, Climate Change), the news that major research data that countries relied on to set policy was fraudulent, etc, etc, etc. have given you the opinion that the science really isn't settled.  As a teacher, do you teach your classes the truth about how the climate change science might not be reliable, or do you teach the school's mandated "truth" about how people are killing the planet and have to change in 12 years before the damage is irreparable?

So flapp what theory do you believe in?  The planets warming and weird weather getting worse.  All the co2 a known (or unknown to you) greenhouse gas.   Whats happening?  Magic?  God making planet warm?  Do you believe in causation?

So flapp what theory do you believe in?  The planets warming and weird weather getting worse.  All the co2 a known (or unknown to you) greenhouse gas.   Whats happening?  Magic?  God making planet warm?  Do you believe in causation?

.

Which scientists are we talking about here? The ones who wrote the paper should be discredited, it is a blatant disregard for the field of science.

Just because someone is a "scientist" doesn't mean what they print is correct.  Giffords org who is an anti 2a organization that has lots of funding recently published a paper about gun violence that was done by  "scientist" that supported Gif gun control agenda.  Problem is that these so called "scientist" didn't  cite peer reviewed sources who are not paid by other anti 2a groups of how they got their info.  So pretty much just making stuff up.

It's unfortunate that politics is giving science a bad name.  So we gotta be careful what studies to believe and not.

So flapp what theory do you believe in?  The planets warming and weird weather getting worse.  All the co2 a known (or unknown to you) greenhouse gas.   Whats happening?  Magic?  God making planet warm?  Do you believe in causation?

I don't "believe" in any theory.

I believe none of the data proves or disproves the claims being made by so-called climate scientists and people like Al Gore.  They toss around some numbers and recent comparisons (none of the data spans beyond the last 70 years), and try to sell us conclusions based on that?

I'm skeptical because they keep lying.  We only know about the ones who got caught.  We know government-funded research has a tendency to tailor their findings so government will provide even more funding.

I'm skeptical because the extreme predictions have not been right one single time.

I'm skeptical because some groups and governments are trying to use Climate Change as a political tool to tax the people and businesses more, and to drive a wedge between everyone using fear.

I'm skeptical because people who have no idea what the facts are trust the conclusions of those scientists based on authority alone.

I'm skeptical because we're constantly told there is a consensus among 98% (pick a percentage) of scientists that Climate Change is going to kill the planet if we do nothing.  No list of names of the scientists comprising that group.  Would it surprise you to learn that the 98% number was based on a statistical sample of scientists, not a panel or all-inclusive list of scientists?  And, I might have gone to school in a different era, but I was taught the definition of science, and consensus wasn't part of it.

I'm skeptical because to this day, there has been no actual numbers provided showing the portion of Climate Change that's attributed to humans.  Best I've seen is 14% at the high end.  Why is that?  Possibly because that FACT would show that, no matter what we do, Climate Change is inevitable.  Nature is causing 6 or 7 times the amount of carbon emissions than man.  The best we can hope to accomplish by driving civilization back into the Stone Age and having zero carbon emissions is slow the process down to a minor degree.  I don't see "some progress" in controlling our emissions as having any effect on the end result.  If you can't fix it, don't use it as a fund raising and taxation issue.  And you talk about selling snake oil?

Good summation.

That "believe" is a tip-off as to the quasi-religious zealotry of the globull warmng cult. 
Hence the continual proselytizing seen from immature millennials and bitter liberals..

Oh yeah, algore.  How many years ago now was Florida to be underwater?
What has his net worth increased without a real job?

Good summation.

That "believe" is a tip-off as to the quasi-religious zealotry of the globull warmng cult. 
Hence the continual proselytizing seen from immature millennials and bitter liberals..

Oh yeah, algore.  How many years ago now was Florida to be underwater?
What has his net worth increased without a real job?

If anyone bothers to read the 2-3 pages of AOC's Green New Deal, not only is most of it completely unattainable, but the things in it are not about saving the planet, but about moving the US economy to a Socialist one.

That's not science.  That's Marxism.  Create a conflict and sell Socialism as the cure.

Germany’s Renewable Energy Disaster – Part 1: Wind & Solar Deemed ‘Technological Failures’

https://stopthesethings.com/2018/08/13/germanys-renewable-energy-disaster-part-1-wind-solar-deemed-technological-failures/

Germany is/was at the forefront of replacing their conventional power plants with renewable energy. This article is rich with details and facts and lies about the German effort to deceive their citizens over their “Green New Deal”. Our government is lying to us about this as well. This is a disaster waiting to happen.

This article is long and dry so it will take a while to get through it all. But the facts bear out the bottom line. Renewable energy dependence is a farce and can never work.

A couple of highlights from the article basically states that renewable sources of energy (PV and Solar) provide power in peaks and valleys rather than a smooth supply. This is to be expected as wind does not always blow somewhere and at the same speed. And clouds don’t avoid solar panels. And night time occurs every day. The problem becomes that renewables cause instability in the power grids due to these peaks and valleys. So a fallacy of the renewables to provide enough power to the grid for everyone is that in order to maintain a smooth supply of electricity it requires conventional power plants to keep the grid stable. And here is the kicker. The more renewables you add to the grid the more and larger peaks and valleys they create into the grid the more unstable the grid becomes. So more power from conventional plants is required to keep the grids stable due to the logical nature of renewables, What? The technology of renewables actually creates more problems that have to be solved by more power from conventional sources? 

Another takeaway from this article is that because of all the peaks and valleys in renewables combined they only provided less than 1% of their total capability. What? 

The takeaway I got from this article about batteries is here. Here are a couple of paragraphs:

“Between 2014 and 2016, the largest battery storage facilities with feed-in capacities/energy storage capacities of less than 10 MW/10 MWh were built in Germany at costs of approx. €1000/kW or kWh. In May 2017 work started on the world’s largest battery store, rated at 50 MW/300 MWh, in Japan. In August 2017, a 16 MWh plant was inaugurated in Chemnitz (Germany). The cost was €10 million, which corresponds to €625/kWh. These examples show that very large power storage units can be made available by means of a modular design. Their specific costs over the last two years have been around €1000/kWh, but with a downwards trend. At €1000/kWh, the cost of storing one terawatt hour is €1 trillion. This would only be enough to cover the average electricity demand in Germany for 15 hours. To deal with a 10-day lull in the wind in winter, when light levels are low, batteries would be needed to store 16 TWh.

To do this, the worldwide annual production of such batteries (35 GWh in 2013) would have to increase by a factor of 450. Even the Tesla Gigafactory, which produces 500,000 lithium-ion batteries per year, could meet only a fraction of this demand when operating at full capacity, even assuming – somewhat implausibly – that the necessary raw materials were available.
 
The cost of storing 16 TWh would be around 16 trillion euros. Even with efficiency gains of 500% in battery technology, trillions of euros would still be necessary. Moreover, the durability of lithium ion battery systems is quite poor – typically around 10 years – so this level of spending would have to be repeated on a regular basis. The use of batteries to absorb the fluctuating output of renewables plants is thus far removed from any economic and physical reality.” 

Bottom line is renewable energy as we know it today with the technology that we have today is impossible based on Germany’s attempts to become reliant on renewables.

Which renewable is focused on by location.  We should learn from Germany.  Waves are fairly reliable. So is certain locations like Nevada desert which there's almost no clouds.  So solar works.    Then there's nuclear energy.  Also geo thermal which is very stable.

Learn from your failures but never stop trying.  The earth 🌎 and our future depends on it. 

Waves are "fairly reliable"?  Uh, whut? Please talk to HECO and other power companies about that. . .

The media and those pushing for "green power now" are ignoring the REALITIES of life!  Should we do more to transition to more sustainable power sources, sure.  But those pushes need to be tempered by the realities of what technology is available today, and what reliability.  This is something that I'm pretty well informed about and directly impacts much of my current day to day work responsibilities.  So to hear folks ignorantly parrot that crap is 

Anyways, I continue to encourage folks to look into the realities of much of what is being pushed.  Renewable energy sources have many short comings, and many of those short comings come with not so "green" tech to make up for the difference.  An aspect that many who push for everything green now" either dismiss or straight up ignorant about.

[end rant]