Conspiracy theorists... are they all just a bit thick?

[Jasandjules]

Kawasicki said:

Top scientists and scientific organisations disagree with you….

The people who say what they are paid to say? Ok then.

Here are some health experts

[Gadgetmac]

Jasandjules said:

Kawasicki said:

Top scientists and scientific organisations disagree with you….

The people who say what they are paid to say? Ok then.

Here are some health experts

A cigarette ad saying that in the 50's doctors were smoking?

That's it?

[Gadgetmac]

Kawasicki said:

Gadgetmac said:

Kawasicki said:

Gadgetmac said:

There's peer review and there's Peer Review.

PH Climate deniers love quoting from a particular outlet, The GWPF, that's a mouth piece for the oil industry and who conduct their own 'peer review' where they basically all mark each other's cards studies. These studies then get quoted on PH as bona fide peer reviewed.



https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/b...

Don’t both sides of the climate debate conduct pal review?

Aren’t government funded climate scientists funded by the government? Aren’t they just a mouthpiece for climate activists?

jUsT aSkiNg quESTioNs

No.

hOpE tHiS hElPs

You think government funded scientists aren’t funded by the government.

I would have thought that was self evident.

It's the part where you appear to think that climate scientists are just mouth pieces for climate activists. Is that a global phenomenon then because there are thousands of climate scientists from around the globe publishing science papers that confirm MM Global Warming.

And their funding is dependent on ALL of them coming to the same conclusions because of...er...what exactly? What's in it for all of the Governments and how are they coordinating it all so that they are in lock step?

Edited by Gadgetmac on Thursday 16th March 23:34

[anonymous-user]

Jasandjules said:

Kawasicki said:

Top scientists and scientific organisations disagree with you….

The people who say what they are paid to say? Ok then.

Here are some health experts

Thread title proved.

Again.

[MBBlat]

Jasandjules said:

Kawasicki said:

Top scientists and scientific organisations disagree with you….

The people who say what they are paid to say? Ok then.

Here are some health experts

You do know that in the 50’s the cigarette manufacturers ran a big campaign to try and discredit the science that smoking causes lung cancer? It worked well enough that the oil and coal companies are using refinements of the same tactics to try and discredit climate change, creationists to try and discredit evolution and anti-vaxers to try and discredit vaccines.

Part of that is to pay their own “experts” ( actual expertise in the subject is optional) to promote their belief while simultaneously insisting that any actual experts on the opposing side must only be doing it for the money.

Ps academia is not a well paying profession and not everyone is as corrupt as the average marketing executive.

[robscot]

Thread of three good vids showing active structured radicalisation of people in the UK https://twitter.com/paraicobrien/status/1636124638...

[LF5335]

Jasandjules said:

The people who say what they are paid to say? Ok then.

Here are some health experts

I can’t see the bit where any of these doctors are actually promoting cigarettes. They all say they smoke one brand, but none of them are saying anything else.

[andyeds1234]

robscot said:

Thread of three good vids showing active structured radicalisation of people in the UK https://twitter.com/paraicobrien/status/1636124638...

That really is scary.
Imagine being part of a demo, hoodies and all, while having such a limited view of why you are there, and what it stands for.

Edited by andyeds1234 on Friday 17th March 05:58

[Al Gorithum]

Dear CTs,

It is actually OK to be wrong about something. I've been wrong plenty of times. In fact that realisation can be beneficial in terms of learning/growth, humility and other positive attributes.

It can be difficult when your social network and/or algorithms are spoon-feeding/gaslighting you BS for whatever reasons, but seriously it is bad for mental health and torture for those around you. Is that what you really want? For no benefit to you whatsoever?

Please have a think about your own level of education and/or qualifications and how much proper research you do actually do, and then maybe recalibrate. You'll find there's more respect for this than doubling-down on BS.

Wishing you a blessed day.

Al G. x

[tangerine_sedge]

andyeds1234 said:

robscot said:

Thread of three good vids showing active structured radicalisation of people in the UK https://twitter.com/paraicobrien/status/1636124638...

That really is scary.
Imagine being part of a demo, hoodies and all, while having such a limited view of why you are there, and what it stands for.

Edited by andyeds1234 on Friday 17th March 05:58

I think it illustrates a few points; people have real concerns, they don't trust the government (don't believe the police when they say there's not been an increase in crime), they believe hearsay and anecdotal data over actual data, there's a myriad number of political activist groups online that can tap into those concerns, people don't question what the groups objectives actually are and people are carried along and used by the group to show support for something that they don't even understand properly.

I think those 3 video clips illustrate perfectly how people can find themselves at the fringes of political activity without really realising how they got there. It's not a stretch to think that similar applies to CTers...

[Unreal]

Al Gorithum said:

Dear CTs,

It is actually OK to be wrong about something. I've been wrong plenty of times. In fact that realisation can be beneficial in terms of learning/growth, humility and other positive attributes.

It can be difficult when your social network and/or algorithms are spoon-feeding/gaslighting you BS for whatever reasons, but seriously it is bad for mental health and torture for those around you. Is that what you really want? For no benefit to you whatsoever?

Please have a think about your own level of education and/or qualifications and how much proper research you do actually do, and then maybe recalibrate. You'll find there's more respect for this than doubling-down on BS.

Wishing you a blessed day.

Al G. x

Could you share a couple of meaningful examples?

[shtu]

Unreal said:

Al Gorithum said:

Dear CTs,

It is actually OK to be wrong about something. I've been wrong plenty of times. In fact that realisation can be beneficial in terms of learning/growth, humility and other positive attributes.

It can be difficult when your social network and/or algorithms are spoon-feeding/gaslighting you BS for whatever reasons, but seriously it is bad for mental health and torture for those around you. Is that what you really want? For no benefit to you whatsoever?

Please have a think about your own level of education and/or qualifications and how much proper research you do actually do, and then maybe recalibrate. You'll find there's more respect for this than doubling-down on BS.

Wishing you a blessed day.

Al G. x

Could you share a couple of meaningful examples?

Yes, we demand proof, preferably in the form of a rambling Youtube video.

[Raccaccoonie]

robscot said:

Thread of three good vids showing active structured radicalisation of people in the UK https://twitter.com/paraicobrien/status/1636124638...

Not watched it but get the gist. One thing is though the government is putting these people in the poorest parts of the country, where the poor might not actually get this leveling up thing touted by west minister saps. I'm sure if they were housed in middle class neighborhoods would they still be welcomed with open arms?

More than one in three children in three Black Country boroughs are living in poverty

https://www.expressandstar.com/news/local-hubs/wol...

I think people just get a bit pissed off when 2.5 billion a year is spent , when people in the UK are still struggling?

I also think it feels like these things aren't really open for debate, similar to the 37 billion wasted on track and trace system, and 100 BIllion on HS2? The Tory government is very good at just throwing money at problems that add no value to anything.

[Blown2CV]

Slagathore said:

andyeds1234 said:

That’s what peer review is all about.

Present the data, let equally qualified people oppose, or provide additional context, try to find a consensus.

Here’s a clue, a “Peer” in this context is an expert in their field, is not any idiot with 10 mins of research done on YouTube.

For fks sake do we have to play this silly game forever?

Edited by andyeds1234 on Thursday 16th March 17:42

it's not a perfect system. Go and have a look at papers that have been retracted etc. They pass peer review and then end up being retracted because they are wrong.

If you Google 'peer review fraud' you'll not be short of reading material.

To touch on what someone posted earlier - that we should simply yield to any expert or person with qualifications - that is madness. Being intelligent and educated has absolutely no bearing on someone's behavior or ethics.

A well-educated expert could have just as bad intentions as a thicko conspiracy theorist.

When you consider the money involved in academia/research, don't be surprised to find scientists and journals behaving favorably to those who fund them!

It has been a problem for a long time and most likely will continue.

no one is saying it is faultless, but it's about least risk and maximising likelihood of getting to the truth. If peer review fraud was detected then surely that means the system works.... Just because peer review fraud could happen does not mean that all peer reviewing is fraudulent. Most 'peers' are not in collusion. The most dodgy part of science is where companies fund studies in order to build 'evidence' for the conclusion they would like. The point is that doing everything in the open is better. Allowing anyone to see what you've done, how you've done it, and try to replicate it is intended to weed out bias, errors, improve upon what is done. Just because a person/scientist was detected doing something dodgy doesn't mean the whole universe of science is nonsense... clearly you can see that? When the alternative is no checks and balances, no culture of properly testing evidence and methods, no openness whatsoever, and those that shout loudest get the most attention?

[Al Gorithum]

Unreal said:

Could you share a couple of meaningful examples?

I'll excuse the lack of politeness (it's customary to follow a request with "please"), but yes. Off the top of my head:
1. I believed Nigel Farage and Reece-Mogg.
2. When I was in was a niche Engineering role I thought I was at the very top of my game. Until I met others more knowledgeable/experienced.
3. At the start of my career in business I assumed that a young Asian man enquiring about a big project was a time waster. Turned out to the Crown Prince of Quatar who became my best client for a while. I've never since then judged a book by it's cover.
4. Trusted people which cost me a lot of money.

There's many more.

I quite like the Hierarchy of Competence model which some may find helpful https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_stages_of_compe...

[Unreal]

Al Gorithum said:

Unreal said:

Could you share a couple of meaningful examples?

I'll excuse the lack of politeness (it's customary to follow a request with "please"), but yes. Off the top of my head:
1. I believed Nigel Farage and Reece-Mogg.
2. When I was in was a niche Engineering role I thought I was at the very top of my game. Until I met others more knowledgeable/experienced.
3. At the start of my career in business I assumed that a young Asian man enquiring about a big project was a time waster. Turned out to the Crown Prince of Quatar who became my best client for a while. I've never since then judged a book by it's cover.
4. Trusted people which cost me a lot of money.

There's many more.

I quite like the Hierarchy of Competence model which some may find helpful https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_stages_of_compe...

Thanks. That's ok. I'll excuse the poor punctuation and spelling.

How did the Crown Prince and your engineering colleagues speak to you about your incorrect assumptions?

[Zumbruk]

Al Gorithum said:

"it's not necessary to have an opinion on everything". That's my motto nowadays

And a very wise one it is, too.

[Zumbruk]

andyeds1234 said:

Kawasicki said:

Both scientist opinions are peer reviewed.

…and the whole scientific community has simply stopped at that point. No further scientific study from that day onwards. All decided.

Drivel. Why do you feel you can comment on matters you obviously know nothing about?

Edited by Zumbruk on Friday 17th March 11:39

[Zumbruk]

Al Gorithum said:

Dear CTs,

It is actually OK to be wrong about something. I've been wrong plenty of times. In fact that realisation can be beneficial in terms of learning/growth, humility and other positive attributes.

It can be difficult when your social network and/or algorithms are spoon-feeding/gaslighting you BS for whatever reasons, but seriously it is bad for mental health and torture for those around you. Is that what you really want? For no benefit to you whatsoever?

Please have a think about your own level of education and/or qualifications and how much proper research you do actually do, and then maybe recalibrate. You'll find there's more respect for this than doubling-down on BS.

Wishing you a blessed day.

Al G. x

Well said.

BTW they don't do any "proper research" at all. When I was an actual working scientist what they do was called a "literature search". It wasn't, and isn't, "research". I've done actual research. In a lab. Pipettes and all that kind of thing.

Edited by Zumbruk on Friday 17th March 11:41

[Zumbruk]

[quote]

I also think it feels like these things aren't really open for debate, similar to the 37 billion wasted on track and trace system,


[/quote]

T&T didn't cost £37bn.