• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Deniers, explained.

So you are claiming that all the world's leading scientific societies are all corrupt and promote bad science for grant money. If that is true how can you then trust any science in any field?

Also climate change are a small part of most universities and scientific organizations budget. So those organization would lose a lot more in lost trust from promoting bad science then they would get in grant money.

Also the federal grant money comes from federal agencies under the control and scrutiny of Republican climate deniers.

That can't you see how ridiculous and anti science your claims are?
Like many climate science rejecters who believe this ridiculous notion, he is projecting his OWN lack of integrity on to millions of scientists.
 
A voice of calm reason:

Five rules for evidence communication
Posted on November 21, 2020 by curryja | 50 comments
by Judith Curry
“Avoid unwarranted certainty, neat narratives and partisan presentation; strive to inform, not persuade.”
Continue reading →

"I just spotted this Comment in Nature: Five rules for evidence communication. Once I spotted co-author David Spiegenhalter, I knew this would be good. I have definitely been in need of an antidote to the Covid-19 and global warming propaganda that I’ve come across lately. I’m also working on a new climate change presentation; this provides an excellent check list.

Here is a [link] to the article (freely accessible). . . .

So how do we demonstrate good intentions? We have to be open about our motivations, conflicts and limitations. Scientists whose objectives are perceived as prioritizing persuasion risk losing trust.

  • Inform, not persuade
  • Offer balance, not false balance
  • Disclose uncertainties
  • State evidence quality
  • Inoculate against misinformation . . . ."
 
Back
Top Bottom