Do you remember it being colder

76 here in south LA today, schools are closed Tuesday because they're calling for 3-4" of snow.
 
In the mid 50's here today. Sunday night through Thursday is supposed to be below freezing, but I expect that to change.
 
Record snowfall predicted along the Gulf Coast, TX to FL.
 
omicron1792 said:
It’s an appeal to authority fallacy.

I have two BS, a masters, and doctorate in science. My undergrad research was in ecology.

I feel most of the science data is skewed, biased, and politically motivated.
Click to expand...
Not picking a fight here .... if one guy does tests on something & documents the data for a number of years, and reports his findings - then another guy does tests on the same thing, but his reports are the exact opposite of the first guy ...... who do we believe? Now multiply the findings of the first guy by a number of testing groups finding the same results, but another tester agrees with the second guy. Should we believe the majority of testers, or the 2 that say hogwash?? An impartial panel of scientists?? Good luck with that one.

Couldn't the same "skewed, biased, politically-motivated" charge be levied in the other direction?? IMO, a key question to such things is - who benefits financially from a "finding"?? Great example is Purdue Pharmaceuticals, the maker of Oxycontin. Their "scientists" found it wasn't an addictive substance, while being a good pain killer. Turns out those "scientists" were 100% wrong about being addictive, and we have an opioid crisis all across the U.S. that began with Oxycontin. Investigations found that Perdue sent sales reps to doctors everywhere to pressure & push the use of Oxy - and the facts have come to light. Who benefitted financially for years to the tune of billions in sales on that one??
 
Bowsnbucks said:
Not picking a fight here .... if one guy does tests on something & documents the data for a number of years, and reports his findings - then another guy does tests on the same thing, but his reports are the exact opposite of the first guy ...... who do we believe? Now multiply the findings of the first guy by a number of testing groups finding the same results, but another tester agrees with the second guy. Should we believe the majority of testers, or the 2 that say hogwash?? An impartial panel of scientists?? Good luck with that one.

Couldn't the same "skewed, biased, politically-motivated" charge be levied in the other direction?? IMO, a key question to such things is - who benefits financially from a "finding"?? Great example is Purdue Pharmaceuticals, the maker of Oxycontin. Their "scientists" found it wasn't an addictive substance, while being a good pain killer. Turns out those "scientists" were 100% wrong about being addictive, and we have an opioid crisis all across the U.S. that began with Oxycontin. Investigations found that Perdue sent sales reps to doctors everywhere to pressure & push the use of Oxy - and the facts have come to light. Who benefitted financially for years to the tune of billions in sales on that one??
Click to expand...
The second paragraph above proves my point. Climate change is a big business (pharma) and the science is skewed because of the money.
 
Single digit temps here today, wind chill to be -20 or lower for a few days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

bigbendmarine
Tribute to A Man From The Greatest Generation
Replies
15
Views
2K
Merle Hawggard
Merle Hawggard
Back
Top