Manufacturing Scientific Consensus
I have a question I could use some help with. To preface it let’s review the definition of Irony according to the Cambridge dictionary.
A situation in which something which was intended to have a particular result has the opposite or a very different result:
So here is my question. Does a scientist who loses her funding and research for studying whether scientists are intimidated into silence count as Irony?
A university has “confiscated” the findings of an academic studying Britain’s gender wars in a row over her “dangerous” research data, The Telegraph can reveal.
She never even finished her research and the government stepped in to confiscate her dangerous data. Notice the government did not confiscate the data because it was fraudulent only because it was dangerous. Just another time government intervenes for your safety I guess. Wouldn’t it be nice if just once government asked us if we felt unsafe before they censored information?
I don’t know if this is truly irony but I do know this is how Government manufactures scientific consensus. It is easy to get scientists to agree when you punish the ones who don’t. Scientists are not saints they are people with mortgages and car payments. Advancing science takes a back seat to feeding their families. That is why we see so few scientists step out of line.
We saw this during COVID. A Red Deer Alberta doctor was fired on the spot for using Ivermectin to treat 8 critically ill COVID patients in his ICU. Thanks to his intervention all 8 patients recovered quickly but the doctor never got his job back for defying government. Hospitals in Canada are run by the government and the Jason Kenney government already had plans for these 8 people. They were supposed to die so that they could fuel COVID propaganda.
Saving 8 people was not part of the plan; this could not be allowed to happen again. Doctors had to be reminded to get with the program and be part of the consensus. Premier Jason Kenney easily manufactured a consensus about Ivermectin by persecuting one doctor. Ivermectin is dangerous. Not for the patient but for any doctor that would dare use it.
The heavy hand of government is also behind the climate change consensus. Government doles out large grants to scientist willing to say the earth is in jeopardy. As long as the hoax continues the gravy train continues and they all know it. The scammers need no more incentive than that to justify attacking critics who challenge the narrative.
Judith Curry was labeled a climate heretic for simply noting that the case for anthropogenic climate change was not as certain as some scientists suggest. Basically she politely said that the climate alarmist crowd was doing sloppy science and need to pull up their socks. At the time Judith Curry was the head of the earth and atmospheric studies department at the Georgia institute of Technology. She ultimately lost that job for refusing to climb aboard the climate change express.
A similar thing happened to Willie Soon. Willie Soon is an astrophysicist that had the gall to not only point out that the climate models are wrong but to show exactly why they were wrong. For the crime of advancing science Willie Soon was hounded out of his job and for a time did not even do any climate research. It just wasn’t worth being subject to the abuse that came with telling the truth.
Dr. Soon is back doing climate research and recently gave a presentation to the heartland institute. His presentation shows the recent warming is explained completely by increased sun activity. All that is needed to reach this conclusion is uncontaminated data and, you know, actual science. Watch for yourself and tell me if this is a man who deserves persecution.
The real crime here is that the government is using your tax dollars to stifle real science. It is not an accident that a scientific consensus always forms supporting government objectives. Your money is being used to purchase a consensus and eliminate any dissenting voices. That fake consensus is then used to justify taking even more money from you. It is a vicious circle of taxpayer funded fake science.
