Science is not done by consensus, it isn’t a vote.
“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.” — Michael Crichton
Regarding anthropogenic global warming (AGW), the most widely-publicized ’97 percent consensus’ study was that done by Australian John Cook. Cook’s study was widely publicized and to this day is still being cited (knowingly or not) by all those in Camp Alarmist: “97 percent of peer-reviewed climate studies confirm that climate change is happening and that human activity is largely responsible.” — John Kerry
Crucially though, Kerry’s assumption is patently wrong and demonstrates a complete misunderstanding/misrepresentation of the data. Climate researcher David Legates demolished Cook’s study soon after its publications but, surprise-surprise, Legates’ “0.3% consensus, not 97%” revelation was not so widely circulated:
That’s right, the much-vaunted 97 percent consensus turns out to be a mere 0.3 percent consensus.
As touched on in my the headline, we have the vast divide over publishing and peer-review. In recent years, the claim that almost all published papers support AGW in ‘some way’ is correct, but only because the vast majority of skeptical papers are now refused at peer-review, as the entire process has been completely subverted to support AGW. This gives the totally misleading impression that everyone agrees, when they most certainly do not.
On that thread, and at the risk of losing my advertising again, scientific integrity has managed to sink even lower since the onset of the pandemic. As noted by Dr. Bret Weintstein in a recent DarkHorse video (embedded below), a new and much anticipated study into the prevalence of myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle) following a COVID vaccination has, at the eleventh hour, been refused by the publishers — this is even though the paper passed the peer-review process!
As Dr. Weinstein, an environmental biologist, explains: “This paper had passed peer-review and was headed for publication when the Elsevier Journal, a cardiology journal, replaced the pre-print of the paper with a note saying that it had been removed.”
Dr. Weinstein goes on to point out how highly irregular this move is, noting that 1) this wasn’t a paper being rejected because of any fundamental issue, and 2) that the authors still haven’t been given an explanation.
It suggests some kind of “behind the scenes shenanigans,” added Weinstein. This is a topic that we’re told has a strong scientific consensus, “but here’s a paper that ran against that consensus and suddenly mysterious things are happening to it.”
Weinstein reiterates his suspicions, saying: “I just want to emphasis how unusual it is for no reason to be given. It definitely suggests that something has happened behind the scenes, and in light of the contentious nature of the ‘phenomena in question’ it appears to be the construction of the appearance of consensus by the targeting of anything that goes in the other direction.”
In other words, it seems it is now all-too easy for those with the means to build whatever consensus they want and within any topic, too — all that is required is stifling of conflicting research which is achieved by the refusal of its publication.
This of course isn’t science, it is censorship.
“It is intolerable that thoroughly qualified scientists and doctors are having publications that have passed peer-review, that have done everything correctly eliminated from the record before they even emerge, without explanation,” concluded Dr. Weinstein.
And this circles us back to AGW.
Alarmists are quick to claim that ‘the science is settled’ and that ‘the debate is over’, but little do they realize the scientific establishment is now setup in such a way to allow only certain theories and particular narratives to enter the public domain. An honest pursuit of the truth has been traded for the vested interests of the powerful, and both COVID and AGW have fallen foul of this.
We find ourselves in a reality where facts and agendas are now nigh-on impossible to distinguish between–which is by design. However, one truth does remain, and always will: the science, in any subject, is never settled, and therefor scientific debate should never be shutdown. My new favorite line, lifted from the DarkHorse video: “Follow The Silence”.
I’m off to continue harvesting my olives, before the rains arrive — 2 trees down, 38 left to go!
Social Media channels are restricting Electroverse’s reach: Twitter are purging followers while Facebook are labeling posts as “false” and have slapped-on crippling page restrictions.
So, be sure to subscribe to receive new post notifications by email (the box is located in the sidebar >>> or scroll down if on mobile).
And/or become a Patron, by clicking here: patreon.com/join/electroverse.
The site receives ZERO funding, and never has.
So any way you can, help us spread the message so others can survive and thrive in the coming times.
Grand Solar Minimum + Pole Shift
The post Corruption Of The Peer-Review And Publishing Process: “Follow The Silence” appeared first on Electroverse.