Do you have an insider's knowledge of how many actually believe that climate change is not natural, versus how many include some mention of anthropogenic climate change in their publications and proposals as a way to increase chances of getting their work funded? I have seen many many mentions of "climate change" thrown into completely unrelated work. I admit it's been a while since I looked, but I have seen very little actual definitive evidence published in the scientific literature that humans have some sort of control over the climate.
On the other hand, many researchers have conducted mask efficacy studies. They have studied the ability of masks to block/slow small particles in a laboratory setting, and have looked at real world evidence of inhibition of Covid-19 transmission among real people wearing masks. Yes, masks do reduce transmission of Covid-19.
Any specialized knowledge always comes with some kind of propagandistic teaching.
The way it works is context. The context is made of adherence to tradition and allegiance to experts in the particular field. These two things are highly trusted by those being educated and trained.
Are you talking about advanced education in soft subjects such as humanities or social sciences, which are heavily reliant on opinion and conjecture? In the hard sciences, we are taught to judge based on evidence. We study historical ground-breaking experiments to understand how the processes of logical reasoning and rigorous collection of data (i.e. evidence) lead to scientific advancement. And we spend our careers designing experiments to reveal facts about the natural world. The fact that hydrochloric acid and sodium hydroxide combine in a 1:1 ratio to form water and salt is not alterable by my opinions on salt.
And in the context of coronavirus, if there were evidence that it was constructed in a lab, it would be as obvious as evidence that a picture has been photoshopped. You don't need anyone's opinion to find whether there is a multiple cloning site, or whether there are sequences from an unrelated virus contained within the SARS-CoV-2 genome, etc. Among the thousands of scientists looking at the SARS-CoV-2 genome, someone would have noticed the signs of genetic tampering if that had been done.
I didn’t say scientific facts themselves are in question.
My point was that scientists are very easy to fool. Just look at science textbooks. I don’t care if it’s high school or college level. Global warming is standard content. Bias favoring theory of evolution is universal. In classrooms, journals and textbooks you won’t find much in the way of careful or balanced discussion of how money from the political left influences mainstream scientists.
Scientists have tremendous power as an influence group. But they’ve mostly fallen for the lies, and the rest have completely sold themselves out. If they had any intellectual ability to use their collective credibility they would put a stop to garbage like the Paris Climate nonsense and so much more.
“Among the thousands of scientists looking at the SARS-CoV-2 genome, someone would have noticed the signs of genetic tampering if that had been done.”
You talk as though scientific research is like a buffet dinner where all honest participants are allowed to casually stroll by to inspect the entire thing up close. Scientific research doesn’t work that way. Big science has established various kinds of protections and safeguards against free and open discourse. If you’re known as a global warming denier, or one who questions evolution, you’ll never have a seat at the table. Working for research labs and accessing grants is better suited for the weak-minded.