I'm not arguing one way or another on the "Climate Change" issue, but this appeal to authority stuff needs to stop.
You're saying that there is no Climate Change crisis because 1,600 scientists, including Nobel Prize Winners, say so.
How is that any different than libs saying there IS a Climate Change crisis because X amount of scientists, including Nobel Prize Winners, say so?
Does it come down to how many scientists you have on your side? Because I'm sure libs can come up with 1,601 scientists to say there is a crisis.
Does it matter what type of science these scientists study? If libs find 2,000 geneticists or software engineers who believe in Climate Change, do they win? They're scientists, too.
It's embarrassing to see anons get ripped apart on other forums when they're trying to argue with other people on this type of stuff.
Seriously, I wish people would just look up a basic list of logical fallacies and understand what they are and why they shouldn't be used in arguments that are trying to persuade others of something. It's just embarrassing.
Especially since at this point science relies on consensus. Sure consensus based research allows any bullshit to be considered true in science so long as peers agree with it, but it doesn't change the fact that way more than 1600 scientists claim climate change is an imminent threat.
As long as the number of dissenters is a minority, even 1600 qualified experts, they will never be taken seriously by modern mob rule science.
Sometimes there are direct relationships between the news articles and the drops. Since this one is referring to propaganda, I figured it was relevant.
Also, it helps other Anon's look for clues in the news as:
I'm not arguing one way or another on the "Climate Change" issue, but this appeal to authority stuff needs to stop.
You're saying that there is no Climate Change crisis because 1,600 scientists, including Nobel Prize Winners, say so.
How is that any different than libs saying there IS a Climate Change crisis because X amount of scientists, including Nobel Prize Winners, say so?
Does it come down to how many scientists you have on your side? Because I'm sure libs can come up with 1,601 scientists to say there is a crisis.
Does it matter what type of science these scientists study? If libs find 2,000 geneticists or software engineers who believe in Climate Change, do they win? They're scientists, too.
It's embarrassing to see anons get ripped apart on other forums when they're trying to argue with other people on this type of stuff.
Seriously, I wish people would just look up a basic list of logical fallacies and understand what they are and why they shouldn't be used in arguments that are trying to persuade others of something. It's just embarrassing.
Agreed 100%.
Especially since at this point science relies on consensus. Sure consensus based research allows any bullshit to be considered true in science so long as peers agree with it, but it doesn't change the fact that way more than 1600 scientists claim climate change is an imminent threat.
As long as the number of dissenters is a minority, even 1600 qualified experts, they will never be taken seriously by modern mob rule science.
Per the article, 1,609 scientists:
u/#q1609
😐
I don't understand why you think this is significant. There are more than 5,000 Q drops.
I just don't see any special connection between that drop and the topic of the article, climate change.
Sometimes there are direct relationships between the news articles and the drops. Since this one is referring to propaganda, I figured it was relevant.
Also, it helps other Anon's look for clues in the news as:
Propaganda was only one of the many, many things listed in that drop.
Sorry, I just think it's a big stretch to read anything into the number of scientists in that article to be part of the "future proves past" stuff.
But hey, if it makes you happy, then go right ahead and believe it. (Not that you need my, or anyone else's, permission to do that.)