We can still trust the scientific method
though of course not politicians, industry nor the media
Well evidenced research, for example, showing that the UK needs to reduce its consumption of animal products by 30% to met Paris emissions targets (researchers knew that advising the actual reduction required of 70% would be rejected out of hand) is being rejected out of hand by Sunak, who says he’s not gonna tell anyone to cut down because there are a lot of beef and lamb producers in his constituency and he wants to be re-elected.
Thousands of studies show that animal fat raises cholesterol and that this is injurious to health (NB yes, statins preventing body the making what cholesterol it needs are of course bad!); so industry got together and designed misleading studies showing no difference in CVD outcomes; between really high saturated fat intake and even higher intake. As always, read the method section and follow the funding.
Yes, in between 1965 and 1979 6 out of 40 climate papers suggested that under certain conditions cooling instead of warming might occur. These were given disproportionate coverage in the media. However, during the 80s when it became obvious that these conditions had not been met and that it was getting significantly hotter; some of the scientists even accepted that they had been mistaken. When scientists, like Einstein, who admitted that he was in error about repulsive energy, test and retest hypotheses with an open mind (and without industry influence); this is basically what science is. It doesn’t mean that we have to agree that every climate policy is the best thing since sliced bread.
Sunak and Truss also thought it was fun to save £100,000s by cancelling water inspections and allowing animal farmers to self-regulate the sewage they allow to run off into rivers. Guess how effective this was when the river Axe was tested? 95% had not complied with slurry storage regs and 49% were polluting the river. If citizens poison waterways they’re arrested; industry (like a racist Tory or Labour donor) get given a free pass.
Well evidenced advice which came from the CDC that we didn’t need to wear masks for ‘covid’ because if there was a virus it would go through the holes and children shouldn't wear them anyway cos they need to be exposed to pathogens for their 'immune' systems to develop, was later ignored in favour of completely unevidenced advice such as to wear masks at all times and to introduce the never before thought of idea of placing healthy people into 'lockdowns', a term used in prisons, to combat asymptomatic transmission isn’t even a thing and because of crazed mathematical models.
Again the evidence was ignored because it suited the agenda of industry and therefore politicians to do so. It’s well know that science is ignored by medical regulation and that Bill Gates has captured vaccine* policy. *Vaccinology and virology, as many of us have noticed, are problems because they do not follow the scientific method, therefore they are propaganda not science. They should have no ‘ology’. They should be vaccamarketing and viroganda.
If we did ‘trust the science’ and our logic we would do the opposite of what politicians say. And rightly so.
🐒
Is it not perhaps more accurate to say "we could trust the science if the scientific method, and not the funding bias, was what controlled outcomes" ?
I have a hard time trusting science when it is manipulated by the ones that fund the scientists. It should not be that way but it is. These days you have to question everything, at least in the so called "West".