Climategate? Really? Oh dear.
The double standards in your beliefs are astounding. You claim that the
method of peer review is a joke - which is an interesting if somewhat curious
assertion - and then post a *youtube* video about vaccinations to help
support your argument, as if that video is a bastion of scientific integrity
and accuracy.
Your hilariously hypocritical claim that the so-called climategate scandal
showed "data manipulation" is nothing more than a smear by big oil companies
to taint the well established scientific theory that humans are causing
global warming at a rate unprecedented in the last 65 million years. Do you
know how many climate scientists support the anthropogenic global heating
theory? 97% (http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus). There are more
climate scientists who attest to this theory than there are geologists who
support the tectonic plate theory. The science is sound.
But I will never be able to win this argument because you *know* you are
correct, and no matter what the peer-reviewed scientific literature says, you
will always remain skeptical. This begs the question: why are you not
skeptical of the claims made by non-climate scientists who assert that
anthropogenic warming is not occurring? Do you know who funds the majority of
the so called "climate scientists" that push for global warming skepticism?
Well, apart from big oil, a nice example is the Koch Brothers. They basically
buy the politicians in the American Congress via campaign financing and
lobbying, and surprise surprise, the congressmen are skeptical of global
warming - not because of the science - but because they get big payouts every
year from Koch funded thinktanks like the Heritage Foundation
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers#Anthropogenic_global_warming_skepticism).
But when there is a real, observable conspiracy involving big oil and
powerful conservative businessmen, you see right through it. But when there
is a non-controversy like "climategate", you somehow think that this is the
biggest scandal in scientific history. Spare me.
>As for "The Guardian", and other well-known mainstream publications, that I
also used to read, they're also controlled by the big economic interests...
Yes, I understand your concern. But again, the double standard is staggering
- for example, the FSF is sponsored by Google, IBM and Oracle. Are we now to
suppose that the FSF is a conspiracy? That the so called "free" distributions
of GNU/Linux are really distributions of hidden Google and Oracle malware?
Well, no, because the code is *peer reviewed*. Like science, there are built
in redundancies in free software that ensure that any malicious functionality
found within its code can be found, removed and modified.
Why aren't you skeptical of the FSF?
>And, notice also the very important fact that, the alternative ones usually
present their sources, for everyone to check what is being said, while the
mainstream ones usually don't, and just expect everyone to believe them, out
of a very naïve faith in them.
Again, if those sources are not reliable, then your so called "reliable"
news-outlet is also unreliable (garbage in, garbage out). The way to make
your own reliable interpretations is to look at the *data* itself - and not
someone else's *interpretation*.
Anyway, this thread is getting way off-track - I suggest a mod send it to the
troll-hole.
