DOGE exposes how to manufacture a scientific consensus

The list of ridiculous government spending DOGE is finding grows by the day.  I found these wasteful projects to be particularly interesting.

Over $1 million for ‘ SILOS: Structural Inequities across Layers Of Social-Context as Drivers of HIV and Substance Use’

Over $1 million for ‘Measures of structural stigmatization and discrimination for HIV research with Latine sexual and gender minorities’

Over $100,000 for ‘Monitoring Microaggressions and Adversities to Generate Interventions for Change (MMAGIC) for Black Women Living with HIV’

Over $250,000 for “Culturally-focused HIV Advancements through the Next Generation for Equity (CHANGE) Training Program”.

The studies on that list have 2 things in common;

1. They are all ridiculous.
2. And, they are all linked to HIV without having anything to do with HIV.

I have discussed this before.  This is how you manufacture a scientific consensus.  People who pursue advanced science degrees are smart enough to understand that linking their research to a trending issue increases your chance of funding.  That is how the government manipulates them.  When the government wants a consensus they hand out grants to research that pays lip service to the topic of the day.  This is exactly what fuels the scientific “consensus” on climate change.  Government agencies fund research tied to climate change even when that research really has nothing to do with climate change.

A couple of decades ago I did an intellectual exercise.  I went to the IPCC web page and clicked on the research page.  I found hundreds of papers with climate change in the title but very few papers actually about climate change.  The vast majority of the papers were studies about what might happen if the earth warms.  They made no comment on how the warming might happen but that makes no difference to the consensus sausage making.  All of the research into the possible effects of warming is counted as part of the consensus.  I mean why would someone research the effects of warming if they did not agree that the warming will happen?

Congratulations you now have a fake consensus to fool the public with.  It is sad how well this works.  If people had paid more attention in science class they would realize that “consensus” is not part of the scientific method, neither is peer review.  It does not matter how many scientists agree or disagree with anything.  All that matters is who has the right answer.  In 1933 Albert Einstein fled NAZIS Germany.  Einstein was a rare scientist who had public recognition so his defection was embarrassing for the NAZIS.  To discredit him 100 German scientists published a critique of his work called “100 Authors against Einstein”.  When asked about this “consensus” Einstein quipped “if I was wrong it would only take one”

A consensus means nothing to science but it is a powerful tool for governments.  Governments use the consensus argument to intimidate people into silence.  Anyone who questions the consensus driven narrative is easily marginalized.  They are just heretics who have no right to question all of those scientists.  The purpose is to shut down any questions about very questionable science like this.

Every ton of carbon dioxide we emit is supposedly going to cause $220 USD in losses in the future, which justifies throwing lots of money at efforts to reduce emissions — like subsidizing EVs and solar panels, and inventing cricket burgers. This is called the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC). But half of that imaginary cost was the devastation higher temperatures would theoretically wreak on agriculture — which doesn’t make sense given that plants eat CO2 for breakfast. But for years bureaucrats and scientists have been telling us the damage in crops was going to cost $102USD per ton of carbon, and investors and politicians have been feeding that into their cash registers, and it’s all wrong.

Once again thanks go out to Jo Nova for her article exposing the fraud underpinning the climate cult.

In 2014 governments wanted justification to tax carbon dioxide.  Think about that for just a moment.  The government wanted to tax air.  No one would have agreed to this if the government could not prove somehow that the air had a cost associated with it.  So, grants were given to researchers to prove how expensive Carbon dioxide induced warming could be.  Again this research was not about whether CO2 could cause dangerous warming but about the possible impacts of warming.  Why prove the cause when you can jump right to the effects.

The researchers dutifully did what they were paid to do.  They produced research that placed a high cost on CO2 largely due to lower crop yields.  According to them any warming at all caused reduced crop yields.

Anyone who knows anything about history knew that this research was fraudulent.  Crops do not fail in warm periods they fail in cold periods.  Warm periods are good for crops.  We know that because the earth has been warmer and humans prospered during those periods.  Warm periods were so good for humans that we used to call them climate optimums.

All of the research underpinning the climate hysteria is fraudulent.  Anyone who dares point out the fraud is shouted down with the consensus argument.  This will continue until the public takes the pedestal out from under scientists.  A science degree does not make someone virtuous.   Scientists are people with all the usual human fallibilities.  They can be wrong and their opinions can be bought.  A consensus can be manufactured with the proper application of money.

Science is not a thing.  It is not owned by anyone.  It is a process of discovery that cannot happen without questions.  If you are not allowed to question it, it is not science.  Anyone who shouts you down with the consensus argument is hiding the truth.  Or, they are a useful idiot unwittingly helping the government propagate lies.

There is no climate emergency.  Don’t take my word for that though.  Go out and ask your own questions.