What frightens me is that all these academics and professors etc., actually believe all this. It's the 'herd effect' at its worst. If you're not with the herd, you're nothing. Leap off the cliff with the lemmings.
These people aren't lying; they are simply seeing the world through a lens that requires that some leaps of logic, some disregard for inconvenient alternative interpretations, and a strong belief in the narrative. Which is itself partly political.
All of this is easy to achieve if everyone else one knows is constantly reinforcing this methodology and interpretation. It is easier to herd than not.
The problem isn't that the methodologies or interpretations are askew; it is the willingness of their proponents, or their necessity, to reject the alternative. In this, the rejection is based upon belief and not scepticism, which is the basis of scientific enquiry. Always has been, until recently.
It's not eased by an apparent political slant being offered by commentators, both left and right; nor by the overwhelming political bias toward left leaning ideologies in universities across the West, and the decline of a 20th century pluralism that saw media, government and the academy held in a workable if tense balance, reflected in the broadly moderate politics of the public to whom these entities referred - at election time, through the transactional nature of news consumption, or the effect both of these mechanisms had upon education policy and practice.
Since the abandonment of the public for the more rarified atmosphere (!) of elitist (and latterly, identarian) political belief, and the rise of social media, the decline of legacy media and its replacement by anyone with an opinion (factual or merely nutty), the heavens have been let rip. And here we are. IMO. 🤔
Nah, they're lying, or they're not aware of basic scientific facts, which I find hard to believe, because even ideologically driven scientists are still scientists.
For example, water evaporates from the oceans at a faster rate when those oceans are heated directly by incoming short wave solar radiation - as has been the case in 2023/24 with the decline of low level cloud cover, especially over the tropics. Thus, it's not the oceans being 'heated' by low energy, long wave back radiation from the accumulation of greenhouse gases which has heated the oceans and increased evaporation, it's the increase in high energy solar radiation which has.
No scientist, however ideologically driven or under the spell of groupthink, innocently makes that mistake, especially when we have two scientific papers pointing to the decrease in low level cloud cover in 2023/24.
Melting ice caps! Not at the Antarctic though...
https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/ice-glaciers/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum/
What frightens me is that all these academics and professors etc., actually believe all this. It's the 'herd effect' at its worst. If you're not with the herd, you're nothing. Leap off the cliff with the lemmings.
What is this crap you're writing?
Ooh! Is this an enlightened and informed critique of my work? I do hope so. I just love enlightened and well informed criticism. Please tell me more!
These people aren't lying; they are simply seeing the world through a lens that requires that some leaps of logic, some disregard for inconvenient alternative interpretations, and a strong belief in the narrative. Which is itself partly political.
All of this is easy to achieve if everyone else one knows is constantly reinforcing this methodology and interpretation. It is easier to herd than not.
The problem isn't that the methodologies or interpretations are askew; it is the willingness of their proponents, or their necessity, to reject the alternative. In this, the rejection is based upon belief and not scepticism, which is the basis of scientific enquiry. Always has been, until recently.
It's not eased by an apparent political slant being offered by commentators, both left and right; nor by the overwhelming political bias toward left leaning ideologies in universities across the West, and the decline of a 20th century pluralism that saw media, government and the academy held in a workable if tense balance, reflected in the broadly moderate politics of the public to whom these entities referred - at election time, through the transactional nature of news consumption, or the effect both of these mechanisms had upon education policy and practice.
Since the abandonment of the public for the more rarified atmosphere (!) of elitist (and latterly, identarian) political belief, and the rise of social media, the decline of legacy media and its replacement by anyone with an opinion (factual or merely nutty), the heavens have been let rip. And here we are. IMO. 🤔
Nah, they're lying, or they're not aware of basic scientific facts, which I find hard to believe, because even ideologically driven scientists are still scientists.
For example, water evaporates from the oceans at a faster rate when those oceans are heated directly by incoming short wave solar radiation - as has been the case in 2023/24 with the decline of low level cloud cover, especially over the tropics. Thus, it's not the oceans being 'heated' by low energy, long wave back radiation from the accumulation of greenhouse gases which has heated the oceans and increased evaporation, it's the increase in high energy solar radiation which has.
No scientist, however ideologically driven or under the spell of groupthink, innocently makes that mistake, especially when we have two scientific papers pointing to the decrease in low level cloud cover in 2023/24.
I literally could not live with myself if I lied as these folks do. But similar to everything that is upside down, lying is the new truth. 🙄