How can you expect science get the climate correct when they can’t even determine who is a man and who is a woman?
There is an explicit bias towards the climate change narrative. Virtually all article dealing with energy production or improvements in efficiency include the boilerplate comments on climate change.
And if you don’t include it, you’re not likely to get funded in the future.
...ESPECIALLY when that authority wears a white lab coat.
In the audience-based approach to science communication, the transmission of facts is less important than creating resonance with an audience’s everyday world (Nisbet, 2009a)
Science or Control? Neither, really. This scam like nearly all scams is about money. Trillions in wealth “transfers”, with people like Al Gore taking a cut. Lots of beaks have been getting wet over these rigged computer projections, going on thirty years.
One poster on WUWT points out that whenever an alarmist article starts out with “scientists warn…,” it means we are about to leave the world of scientific data behind and sky off into the rarefied atmosphere of extravagant extrapolation.
The statement illuminates the difference between science, which requires measurement and collection of data to test hypotheses, versus modeling, which does not. Model projections are not data, they are hypotheses, which then need to be subjected to scientific scrutiny, tested empirically, and confirmed before being taken seriously.
The public narrative typically stops with the projections as if they are reality. Once loosed from the tether of scientific hypothesis testing, modelers are free to set the media hair on fire with assorted cries of climate apocalypse.
The challenge is to separate reality from the narrative of “catastrophic androgenic global warming” (CAGW) perpetrated by corrupt politicians, sellout scientists, and mendacious media willing to prostitute themselves for the sake of an exciting lede.