Guys, what the fuck is with the scientific community?

There's science and there's scientism. Scientism is a branch of utopian liberalism, which means it's fundamentally opposed to realistic thinking and honesty, allied with other branches such as feminism and communism, and it uses tactics of infiltration and abuse of position.

The soft sciences like sociology and psychology have been taken over almost completely, while politically-relevant hard sciences with hard-to-verify results like climatology are seriously compromised.

Basically this
The people writing those articles certainly aren't scientists, they are english and journo majors that just spent 4 years being brainwashed by the hyper leftist machine that is liberal arts

The problem is, as usual, you have to divide into two groups to have a chance of getting anyone elected. Most scientists, being of relatively sound mind, realized that the modern """conservative""" republican party is anti-scientific if anything, religious to the point of insanity, and all around more interested in how to squeeze a few more pennies between their ass cheeks than in the pursuit of truth and knowledge. The generic "liberal" claims to be interested in science and learning, but in reality they are only superficially so inclined; they support science only if it confirms their existing viewpoints. That's arguably better than outright denial of what is effectively factual information on evolution and climate change, though.

This is one of the leaders of the march Ms. Strassman is joining.

Is it scientifically accurate?

Here's another of the organizers.

Is Sharia the truest form of science?

>.t neet who doesn't even have a degree in STEM

>n-no people smarter than me don't represent my ideas

Gee has nothing to do with the fact that Drumpf is a climate denying vaxxer and will accept any conspiracy theory convenient for him.

Also /pol/

I actually went to Scientific American to comment directly on the article only to find that Scientific American disabled their comment system four years ago and accompanied the announcement with this cartoon.

>wtf I hate science now!

I don't have any idea what you're trying to pin on the scientific community, but you don't sound stable.

And?

All these liberal sites make it harder & harder to post, or just disable it altogether

And apparently their own publication is just a large, overly legitimized form of shitposting?

I wonder why a scientist would be opposed to the guy that wants to fuck up the climate even more than it already is.

But don't worry, his excuse is that it will generate 15 billion dollars for the working class. That's about the same price he'll waste on his autistic wall while seriously expecting Mexico to pay for it.

scientific debate and thought is getting harder and harder as the pop-science eliet act more and more like the clergy

>I wonder why a scientist would be opposed to the guy that wants to fuck up the climate even more than it already is
In her article she actually specifies that she's against Trump due to "his flagrant disrespect and discrimination against women, religious minorities, the disabled, the LGBT community and people of color"

And?

And?

that doesn't sound very scientific

Holy fucking shit, I didn't want to believe that you guys were this retarded. Scientific American isn't a science journal.

you seem noticeably upset. are you a popsci tard perchance?

>Scientific American isn't a science journal.
yea we said that

It used to be good, though. I remember when it was good.

It was a nice middle-ground between accessibility and detail. They didn't print papers, but they wrote good technical articles about new scientific results, interesting research underway, and emerging technology.

As they got political, their standards slipped.

>"""conservative""" republican party
but the """conservative""" republican party doesn't make taboo research topics like the "liberal" democratic party, though.

in fact, a lot of science research is supported through air force, army, navy, and department of defense which are all republican leaning.

lol wat.

Religion is just something to make weak minded people feel better about death. Totally unrelated

that's not the definition of religion. don't skip your classes you dumb techie

What about research into gun-related deaths/injury?

Liberal "taboo" research topic is mostly about implying that blacks are genetically dumber, yet there is still plenty of research on that and at most you get ostracized if you actually come out and say that blacks are dumb. Then liberals respect ethics but so do conservatives except their ethics are even more strict.

Conservatives on the other hand hate a lot of medical science for fear of god, and are evolution denialists in big part. And denying evolution is pretty much denying modern biology. Cutting the core while liberals cut some branches.

And no military isn't doing any big science, it's tons of engineering applications and no basic sciences at all. Barely any science research is supported by the army and then it doesn't mean a lot since military budget of USA stays always high even during democrats and if anything they will just cut on the numbers. They surely do like the idea of drones and doing shit without wasting manpower.

I've worked with Islamic finance. Interest is replaced with rent but is close to being the same thing.

Mate your gay.

Hi, I'm doing a PhD on human machine interfacing (basically I'm "making anime real" as you say on /pol/).

Currently I'm more interested in doing post docs etc in china once my PhD is done, especially after you clowns voted in a reality star as a president. I'm not gonna risk spending years on research in USA, it's just too volatile and unpredictable.

but don't worry, he'll make a wall!

China might be incredibly shitty in its own right, but at least there's a measure of stability and ability to think more than 2 years forward in time.

>the """conservative""" republican party doesn't make taboo research topics
-anything using embryonic human stem cells
-causes and management of gun violence
-climatology
-natural disaster monitoring

>a lot of science research is supported through air force, army, navy, and department of defense which are all republican leaning
military agencies are officially nonpartisan, and it's a stretch to say they align themselves with the GOP. remember, the Republicans are the ones who keep throwing money at the Pentagon for projects of dubious quality that the military doesn't want and doesn't need.
are military commanders as a group more conservative than the average American? probably, yeah. are they representative at all of attitudes in the GOP? no.

I guess that's why /pol/ came here to shitpost instead

>I wonder why a scientist would be opposed to the guy that wants to fuck up the climate even more than it already is
And you read it where? On Scientific American? Or on HuffPo? See, this is the reason why this thing needs to be stopped. There is no free discussion of this topic nowadays, mostly because everything that is said that is opposing to the scientific consensus is deemed as "unscientific," which is exactly opposite of what science is supposed to be: a variety of opinions, all of which are being considered and evaluated equally.

ijr.com/2014/11/202982-2-princetons-galileo-atomic-physicist-defies-climate-change-consensus-blasts-propaganda/

Okay. Now get back to your study.

I'm sure that an atomic physicist knows more about the climate than climatologists

Science is a logic dominated field, moralfags need to be banned form STEM.

You mistake the pop-sci community with the scientific community.
Watching videos on youtube is not the same thing as studying a particular field.
From the few talks I had with my univ teachers, most of them seemed quiet conservative.

>complains about HuffPo
>posts article from IJR

article:
>le 1998 start point
>Happer
Happer literally writes stuff defending CO2 in exchange for secret petroleum money.
>In December 2015 Happer was targeted in a sting operation by the environmental activist group Greenpeace; posing as consultants for a Middle Eastern oil and gas company, they asked Happer to write a report touting the benefits of rising carbon emissions. Concerned that the report might not be trusted if it was known that it was commissioned by an oil company, Happer discussed ways to obscure the funding. Happer asked that the fee be donated to the climate-change skeptic organization CO2 Coalition, who suggested he reach out to the Donors Trust, in order to keep the source of funds secret; hiding funding in this way is lawful under US law. Happer acknowledged that his report would probably not pass peer-review with a scientific journal.

>science is supposed to be: a variety of opinions, all of which are being considered and evaluated equally
no, science is supposed to be: a confluence of ideas, in which the ideas SUPPORTED by the evidence are retained and those REJECTED by the evidence are discarded. you're giving me the same old "teach the controversy" claptrap, acting as though all ideas have equal merit. you want a participation trophy for your batshit conjecture? go somewhere else.

"Water vapor is the main cause of global warming". Water vapor also has an extremely short residence time so changes in water vapor concentrations in the atmosphere are feedbacks not forcings.

It's kinda ironic that people whine so much about climate science being government funded and pointing out that it's a sign of corruption cause big bad government wants to sell us to the Chinese and kill our business, yet fucking denialists get caught red handed.

Nice. And now let's take a look at a primary source.

>TheBestSchools
>We understand that you were recently the object of a purported “sting” operation organized by Greenpeace. Defamatory claims about you growing out of this incident are rife on the Internet, even including in your Wikipedia article. Would you care to share with us briefly your side of the story?

>William Happer
>Greenpeace is one of the many organizations that have made a very good living from alarmism over the supposed threat of global warming. They are unable to defend the extremely weak science. So, they demonize not only the supposed “pollutant,” atmospheric CO2, but also any scientists who seem to be effectively refuting their propaganda.

>The smear campaign began in 2015 when I received an email from a Greenpeace operative posing as an agent for a Middle Eastern “client,” who wanted me to write something about the benefits of CO2. As we will discuss below, I have long been persuaded that more CO2 will benefit the world, mainly because it makes plants grow more efficiently and increases their resistance to drought, and because the warming from more CO2, predicted by establishment models, has been exaggerated by a factor of three or more.

>For years, I have used every avenue possible to spread the good news about the benefits of CO2, so I was quite willing to write an op-ed or essay on this topic for the client. As far as I was concerned, I was using the client, not vice versa. I would urge any reader interested in this episode to read the complete email exchange between me and the Greenpeace operative. It can readily be found on the internet.

Holy fucking shit. When will you /pol/tards stop leaking into other boards already and fuck off back into your containment boards? We don't give a shit about Trump or any of your fucking ideas, and you have proven that you are worst than the people you despise, Liberals. You come onto other boards and bring your bullshit with you and you will do anything to push your own ideologies if it means taking away from others.

>Here you see that I was willing to write something gratis, as a “labor of love,” as long as I could get my message (not the “client’s” message) to more people. The CO2 Coalition that I mentioned is a new tax-exempt educational organization that some friends and I have formed to help get out the good news about the benefits of CO2. I suppose you might call it a “CO2 Anti-Defamation League.” The Coalition leads a hand-to-mouth existence, with an annual operating budget of under $200,000 per year. Even a few thousand dollars from the “client” would help keep the lights on. The last I checked, Greenpeace has an annual operating budget of about $350,000,000, more than 1,000 times larger than the CO2 Coalition’s.

>I have never taken a dime for any of my activities to educate the public that more CO2 will benefit the world. I even make contributions of several thousands of dollars a year from my modest university pension income. If any readers of this interview would like to help the CO2 Coalition, they can find more information about how to donate at the CO2 Coalition’s website.

>The result of the Greenpeace smear included many hostile, obscene phone calls and emails with threats to me, my family, even my grandchildren. George Orwell wrote about these tactics in his novel, 1984, when he described the daily, obligatory “Two Minutes of Hate” for Emmanuel Goldstein (Leon Trotsky) and his agents, who were the enemies of Big Brother (Stalin) and his thugs.

>Greenpeace and other even more fanatical elements of the global-warming movement fully embrace the ancient lie that their ideological end — elimination of fossil fuel — justifies any means, including falsification of scientific data and character assassination of their opponents.

>thebestschools.org/special/karoly-happer-dialogue-global-warming/william-happer-interview/

...

Lets not forget that /pol/ ran the Pepe meme into the ground and got it classified as a "hate" symbol. /pol/ gained more traffic than /b/ and because of that, it ruined Veeky Forums and the majority of boards on here.

Leave this place and do not return.

I don't believe I ever claimed that

>Happer says he's innocent and that the people who caught him are just out to get him because they hate America or something
well, if he SAYS he's innocent, who am I to doubt him? surely he wouldn't lie about being caught doing what they accused him of doing, right?

you DO know that he was literally caught advising his "client" on how to obscure the source of the money they were paying, right? if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide...
>theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/08/greenpeace-exposes-sceptics-cast-doubt-climate-science

So you do prefer a secondary source to a primary source? Looks like you don't even know the foundation of an argument. I can say that I love cats, but the outlet that will be writing an article covering me can claim that I love dogs even without proofs and its readers will accept that as granted.

And of course, you're linking a completely unbiased article from le "The Guardian"

by your logic, OJ is clearly innocent.
after all, he says he's innocent in this PRIMARY SOURCE
>cnn.com/US/OJ/suspect/note/index.html
and it's only in SECONDARY SOURCES that they say he was found responsible for the murders
>web.archive.org/web/20081009230444/http://www.nbc5.com/news/15364921/detail.html

your argument is literally that we should believe an accused man who says it's all a big frame-up, and not pay attention to all the evidence arrayed against him.
now I know why you Trump supporters believe him when he says he never mocked a guy with arthrogryposis or ripped off his workers or groped an unwilling woman. you are so gullible, so credulous, that you are incapable of conceiving that some people might lie to make themselves look less guilty.

>Even though I understood his argument I'm going to endlessly argue about semantics

>science
>under attack by Christians
Really Ahmed?

>you have to believe a guy who swears he's innocent
>no matter what
>otherwise you're making a bad argument
keep trying, maybe you'll convince someone that it was all a big misunderstanding and he never meant to do anything wrong.

I'm not the guy you're responding to, I'm just calling you out for arguing in bad faith

Usually it' the unintelligent that maintain the idea of the personal god it's religion preaches, but the benefit religion brings to society is order; it maintains values that keep progressivism and degeneracy from becoming rampant. You should know by now that the aforementioned degenerate and progressive values are the sort that can be seen in today's deteriorating societies of the west

And they are not only seen in them, but they are contributing to the deterioration of those societies.

>Scientists are supposed to be one of the most open-minded people in the world,
If they truly are supposed to then they've always been complete failures.

>now I know why you Trump supporters believe him when he says he never mocked a guy with arthrogryposis
No, you do not. It only proves one more time that you are incapable of understanding all the sides of a particular situation, and modeling a valid argument.

>youtube.com/watch?v=5aYFC_7ZIn4

What you say is called "circulus in probando," and this is the exact thing I am talking about. If neither of the sides can put up a valid proof that he is innocent/guilty, then no side is able to state either of those arguments. And that is exactly why presumption of innocence was created. Everybody can accuse anyone in anything all the time. That does not mean that they really did that.

>If neither of the sides can put up a valid proof that he is innocent/guilty
It's worth noting that nothing he was accused of is illegal, merely immoral. Note also that he doesn't dispute his documented actions and statements, but rather claims that he had noble intentions. His entire defense is his claims about his motivation which conveniently cannot be conclusively proven or disproven. All he has the tactic of "here's what I was thinking at the time, you have to believe me".

>modeling a valid argument
you keep banging away about how you don't like my argument. all you've produced thus far is the ludicrous claim that we must accept all claims made by someone about himself in an interview, to the extent of discounting all information that doesn't come directly from the man himself (hardly a disinterested party). I'm not sure where you learned to argue, but they did you a disservice by instilling this sort of formulaic thoughtlessness in you.

it may be of interest to you that Trump claimed he couldn't be mocking Kovaleski's appearance because he'd never met him...and then it turned out he was lying about that too, as demonstrated by multiple independent accounts. if Trump lied about whether or not he'd met the guy, why are you unhesitatingly believing him about whether or not he was mocking him?
this is the sort of mindset that makes useful idiots of people; a willingness to believe WITHOUT QUESTION anything that agrees with one's preconceived opinions.

>You honestly think Donald "Grab her by the pussy" Trump deserves respect?
No no you misunderstood. Agreeing with Leftists is open-minded, disagreeing literally makes you a fascist.

>this is the sort of mindset that makes useful idiots of people; a willingness to believe WITHOUT QUESTION anything that agrees with one's preconceived opinions.
But you missed the point of the video.
He never mocked him. Period.
He may lied about never meeting him (again, I am not sure about it even with your "independent" sources) but that is completely irrelevant.

>it's a "my retarded identity politics is more important than whatever the fuck you guys are rioting over" episode

It's OWS all over again

>He never mocked him. Period.
if you keep saying so, maybe it'll be true.
Trump does a spot-on impression of the guy's disability (with the phrase "you gotta SEE this guy") while mocking his statements. But he swears he wasn't making fun of his disability! You HAVE to believe him, right?
And why is it relevant that he lied about having met the guy? Because showing that he lied about one part of the story casts doubt on all his other statements. This is pretty simple to understand; have you never heard of cross-examination?

p.s. independent doesn't mean "neutral" in this context, it just means that the different accounts are literally from different people.

libcucks are still this assmad?

dumb frogposter

I know, I know, baby. Being Anti-Intellectual and a Hate Mongerer is something you should be proud of!

Don't let those mean scientists and liberals tell you otherwise!

They are so close minded!

>Happer literally writes stuff defending CO2 in exchange for secret petroleum money.
So?

I don't know who I dislike more: /pol/, Trump, and all the retarded ideas associated with them, or SJW's, the corporate media, and identity politics.

You're all fucking retarded and I'm moving to Iceland.

you can hate both, why bother quantifying it with your impotent rage?

We like to pretend that the sciences haven't fallen victim to the same kinds of social justice peer pressure culture you see in the liberal arts and other disciplines... but it's there.

Scientists aren't predominantly liberals (based on my experience, I'd say most fall in the center)... but the liberal voices in academia are frequently the only ones that can be this vocal and unabashed without fear of repercussion.

Open minds are for hippies.
We are the heretics.

>you panty-wearing crossdressing motherfucking cocksucking Repiglicker

It's funny, because you can pretty much sum up liberals with this one statement.

>tfw people think I'm weird because I don't talk about politics with other people
>don't even have any extreme views (at least to like 80-90% of people)

politics should have nothing to do with science

i don't get why half the things that are "political issues" are even that

Because you can get in to politics without knowing anything.

>Here we have a strong male personality who doesn't back down from anything, believes in what he stands for and his interests seem to lie with in the Americans first mentality and has no political experience. Has been bankrupt x amount of times, has been accused of having ties with the Russians and is a multi-billionaire.

>And here we have a more lenient Female candidate, who is the wife of an ex-president, a lot of political experience and power. In contrast to the male candidate she represents the acceptance and tolerance of anyone on American soil. Is endorsed by majority of politicians and her past indicates of manipulation and lies.

Well, Tommy, which one will you pick?

When you hear retard liberals claim demonstrably & obviously false things like Trump being bankrupt several times

You just ignore everything they say

>Somefag literally writes stuff attacking the petroleum industry in exchange for secret environmentalist money.
imagine how outraged you'd be if that were the case.
corruption is corruption. don't try to brush it off.

> pot calling the kettle black
I keep trying to get behind Trump.
Some of his policies seem alright.
Then he talks, and he's gotta be one of the biggest blowharding retards in the nation.
And that's saying something.

It takes a special kind of stupid to say the things he does.

>>actually supporting an anti-vaxxer
>>hanging out on a science forum
think you're lost

This is why I don't care about politics. Too many people spreading misinformation, and then the new people spread that misinformation further, while thinking it's true.

Trump himself stated on national TV that he's been bankrupt multiple times.

The libs are guilty of this, the Republicans are guilty of this, it's literally a game of who can push more believable bullshit around. Which is why STEM is the only safe haven for me. Nothing but cold hard facts, no opinions.

>How comes that they all became a bunch of pussies with "muh opinion matters, your does not"?

You sound like a fucking child. Apologies to children.

>Did Trump presidency just revealed stagnation and a literal sickness on the last stage?

Your messiah has many revelations, they never end.

>Scientists are supposed to be one of the most open-minded people in the world, but the fact that the behave themselves like pussies makes me hate science so much.

You don't know scientists. They don't give a fuck about you. Some things aren't real. Some things aren't true.

"Open-minded" is for people who don't know how to evaluate claims about reality. You believe in literally anything anyone says because you don't know how to think.

It does have one thing to do with science.
It has to embrace it.

He had a couple companies, all from Atlantic City go into chapter 11
Thats IT

It's also composed of right wing retards. Basically all politically convenient pseudoscience (e.g. race, economics, psychology, etc...) falls under the realm of social science.

This thread proves the USA needs a Pol Pot.

That's because if you have something substantial to say then you would submit another article in response.

Scientific debate means doing real research and publishing your results. There is a big difference between claiming a researcher missed something and demonstrating that they missed something.

Disabling comments makes science more efficient and wastes less resources. If you really have something important to say to the researcher then you may typically contact them directly (often they include contact information directly on their papers). That said they may not make time to respond unless you're another researcher (or student) interested in the material.

This.

That is not how academic discourse works in the slightest user. I understand you guys have sensitive feelings. Perhaps academia is just not for you?

No, you did not get the point of me posting here.
I came here to ask respectful scientists and representatives of scientific community about why a journal named ""Scientific" American," which should obviously represent the scientific part of America, is politicized and is publishing articles that are openly left-leaning in spite of a lack of proofs. That's it.
I mentioned Trump only because it started to happen only as he ascended. It exaggerated as he won the Presidency. I merely reimagining the events.