global warming- what's your take?

[S209]

Scientific journals are available to read by anyone, but you can’t publish in it without approval of the editors. And perhaps the journals may still publish studies against their agenda as long as it’s backed by solid data. However, try publishing your valid scientific theories that aren’t backed by solid data. You’ll get labeled a conspiracy theorist and convicted of wrongthink. IMHO, suppressing scientific theory is a suppression of science.

People should not disseminate theories without some evidence backing them up. You can have whatever theories you want, but without evidence, it’s just more noise.

Where have you seen “theories” published in any scientific journal without evidence backing it up?

[S209]

This comment leaves 3 options

1. You thought he was referring to there being any evolution of any sort
2. A dumb straw man argument
3. Things having to do with emuna

Which is it?

I honestly have no idea what the OP was “truly” asking, so I answered the actual question as best as I could. I don’t know what you mean.

[Lurker]

Printed or pre print?

Some of both? I don't know. I do know a bunch got enough exposure to make it to DDF, which is well outside the scientific community. The point is, theories of all kinds get out for debate. If there is something to the theory, and there is data to support it, it survives. If there's no data, or the data contradicts the theory, it gets trashed until there's something to back it up. Saying things get quashed, never to see the light of day, with no debate just because it's not PC... I'm not sure that's true.

[avromie7]

Some of both? I don't know. I do know a bunch got enough exposure to make it to DDF, which is well outside the scientific community.

Most of it only made it out into the public by the anti vaxxers.

[S209]

Yet it was still shot down for a long time. And finally the theory has gained some traction, yet nothing changed except the politics.

“The politics”? What in “the politics” changed, in your opinion?

See my post up thread, there were plenty of scientists not discrediting the idea last year (though you may not have seen that in the media much) and more credible evidence has now come to light, somewhat shifting the direction.

Makes you wonder - how long would it take the scientists to reverse course if the politics remained the same? The answer isn’t pretty.

Sorry, what exactly do you mean by “the politics”? Vagaries don’t cut it. “The politics” is a great way to end a conversation because there’s no way to refute it. Is there a specific political goal being attained by specific people that wasn’t attainable earlier that is somehow relevant to a lab leak theory?

[Lurker]

Most of it only made it out into the public by the anti vaxxers.

So what? See my edit. I don't care who puts it out or how it gets spread. There will always be people willing to debate any theory, no matter how controversial.

[S209]

Most of it only made it out into the public by the anti vaxxers.

Great! Anti-establishment lunatics are a part of the information eco-system as well.

[S209]

Remember, when anti-establishment lunatics put out “data” the world gets to

A) ridicule and discredit it by pointing out the obvious flaws
B) ignore it, allowing it to grow and gain traction
C) acknowledge the truth of it or
D) agree to the true parts and discredit the falsehoods

[aygart]

I honestly have no idea what the OP was “truly” asking, so I answered the actual question as best as I could. I don’t know what you mean.

Ahhh so option 4

You didn't even bother putting thought into what you were responding to.

How many other responses were the same?

[avromie7]

Great! Anti-establishment lunatics are a part of the information eco-system as well.

If their take on COVID is true, why are you discrediting their take on global warming? You don't hear much about either of them because the media hides it. Additionally, COVID is still new, so there hasn't been much brainwashing from the media to the schools to try to discredit the lab leak.

[S209]

Ahhh so option 4

You didn't even bother putting thought into what you were responding to.

How many other responses were the same?

He asked a question and I answered the question as directly and truthfully as I could. If there’s one thing I’ve seen on DDF it’s that reading between the lines fails more often than it succeeds.

[Lurker]

If their take on COVID is true, why are you discrediting their take on global warming? You don't hear much about either of them because the media hides it. Additionally, COVID is still new, so there hasn't been much brainwashing from the media to the schools to try to discredit the lab leak.

This thread is a testament to the fact that we still get to hear the theories even if the media doesn't like it.

[S209]

If their take on COVID is true

Who’s take? Anti-vaxxers?

Why are you discrediting their take on global warming? You don't hear much about either of them because the media hides it. Additionally, COVID is still new, so there hasn't been much brainwashing from the media to the schools to try to discredit the lab leak.

What is their take on global warming? By all means, please share. I asked upthread. Can you name any reputable scientists armed with data who don’t believe that we are currently experiencing (and will likely continue to experience for at least the immediate future) a significant warming of the climate with weather and other ecological ramifications?

[S209]

Additionally, COVID is still new, so there hasn't been much brainwashing from the media to the schools to try to discredit the lab leak.

So to be clear, your opinion is that with more time science gets less clear and more hindered? Tell that to the iPhone XXX or whatever they’re up to now.

[aygart]

He asked a question and I answered the question as directly and truthfully as I could. If there’s one thing I’ve seen on DDF it’s that reading between the lines fails more often than it succeeds.

When was the last time you had a conversation with a frum person mentioning evolution and meant virus variations when it wasn't that specific context?

[avromie7]

What is their take on global warming? By all means, please share. I asked upthread. Can you name any reputable scientists armed with data who don’t believe that we are currently experiencing (and will likely continue to experience for at least the immediate future) a significant warming of the climate with weather and other ecological ramifications?

Until everyone made an about face, the lab leak claim would not have fulfilled these requirements.

ETA: Define reputable scientists, anyone who doesn't tow the line automatically gets labeled as not reputable.

[Lurker]

When was the last time you had a conversation with a frum person mentioning evolution and meant virus variations when it wasn't that specific context?

When was the last time you had a conversation with a frum person, said the world evolution, and they didn't assume you were talking about the big bang theory? There's little nuance in the frum world.

[S209]

When was the last time you had a conversation with a frum person mentioning evolution and meant virus variations when it wasn't that specific context?

When was the last time someone claimed to know the “truth” about evolution?

[S209]

Until everyone made an about face, the lab leak claim would not have fulfilled these requirements.

Fact check- false. See my long post upthread.

ETA: For reference, here is the WaPo article I quoted upthread from April 2020


Can you show a similar citation of diversity of thought vis a vis the hard undisputed facts about climate change?

[S209]

ETA: Define reputable scientists, anyone who doesn't tow the line automatically gets labeled as not reputable.

Fair. Can you name any scientist armed with data who disagrees?