This is addressed to whom and to what?
The common name for sailfish in east coast and gulf waters is Atlantic sailfish and the genus and species are Istiophorus albicans. The term sailfish would only be capitalized at the beginning of a sentence.
Science isnât bias, but people are. So, to weed out the bias of scientist there are mechanisms in place called the scientific method and peer review. Rapant scientific misinformation doesnât come from science and scientist. Itâs corrupted by people generally outside of scientific constraints. You canât pick and choose because you believe in some preconception. This is what is done when you donât want to believe the science. Science isnât static. It changes as new information is proven that require it to change.
1 Like
You need to broaden your sources of information about science. You might want to actually read some scientific journals to see how science really works. Listining to talking heads and influencers with agendas based on making money based on hits and ratings. Doesnât paint an actual picture of reality.
Yes, I agree with you about sailfish being amazing creatures. Life is definition of intertwined complexity. Thanks to those corrupt scientist we are learning more and more about just how amazing it really is.
1 Like
I have seen Sailfish capitalized in different reference material but was unaware that technically it should not be capitalized, it looks strange in lower case. I thought it was Genus. Still a fascinating creature, I am captured by it.
I have seen science bought with my own eyes, right in front of me and played out over a 3-4 year period. Then after buying the science launched a multi million dollar marketing campaign to sell the phony science because there was big money involved. One man stopped them, to this day I do not know how he did it, they were a well oiled machine. No one can tell me science can not be bought, I saw it with my own eyes and it would have been terribly destructive environmentally and would have destroyed a culture and these were âEnvironmental Groupsâ that were doing it, because there was really big money involvedâŚ.Just one example.
See my previous post, a real world example. I live in the real world.
What you describe isnât science if it didnât go through a peer review or was based on using the scientific method. Sounds more like an agenda and corporate greed claiming to be science. Your example is vague on just what false âscienceâ was used to drive their goal. I worked in science for a number of years in ecology and fisheries and I can tell you that those I know working in it take it seriously. That anything else is mislabeled if itâs called science. Thatâs like saying some one pulling a con is who they claim to be. The one example that you might have witness is a very small sample size and would be scientifically inadequate to prove it is a common practice. It would not be a proof of it. I agree that corruption that calls itself science exists. But within the scientific fields it isnât a common thing from my experience. I posted earlier âRapant scientific misinformation doesnât come from science and scientist. Itâs corrupted by people generally outside of scientific constraints.â That some may cheat for fame and fortune is true, but when their claims are put to the test, they are soon shown to be false. It is rejected as such by those working in the field, but that doesnât mean that those that want to believe will stop using the false narrative.
1 Like
What you have not refuted and the fact remains, scientists were bought and produced phony science to support politicianâs and fraudulent operatorâs projects and were told before the research was even started what outcome they wanted, in what terms they wanted it and in what timeline they wanted it and the scientists cooperated with them. Granting your depiction of scientific competence means that the scientists involved knew their results that would be marketed was phony and politically motivated. That is what happened. It is irrefutable. That is reality, all scientific methodology not withstanding. That was the end result, that is the reality in the real social, political world and they could not have done it without the cooperation of âScientistâsâ cooperation.
The âoneâ example sighted would have led to environmental devastation on a massive scale and the destruction of a culture. Those are significant consequences as compared to arguing scientific research theory. One example? Lets throw in the construction of MRGO. Lets throw in the dynamiting of the Mississippi Levee in Caernarvon by the New Orleans Mayor in the great flood of 27. Lets throw in the Environmental Scientist at LSU who pointed out and documented the Corps of Engineersâs deficiencies in constructing the levee system around New Orleans which led to the devastation of Katrina, the worst natural/ man made disaster in the history of the country who they got fired to get him out of there wayâŚAre we beginning to see a pattern here?
So, it was a scientist that called them out. It seems to work until it becomes political and money making. Were you involved with what was happening on a professional level, or just following the reporting?
Once again you dodge the issue. It is not just the scientists directly involved in all four of these examples and these are not marginal examples, each one of these resulted in or would have resulted in horrendous destruction and in one case the lose of 2,500 lives and it could have been far, far worst. Katrina, worst natural/man made disaster in the countryâs history, but Canal Street was basically dry, if Katrina had not made a sudden and unexpected turn to the East at the last minute and went up the West side of the MRGO there would have been 18â of water on Canal Street. Butin all four cases there was NO outcry from the scientific community, not even the Academic Scientific Community. None. George Ricks had to single handily defeat the politicians, the politically connected business people and contracting companies and the crooked, corrupt âEnvironmental Groupsâ including major players like the Sierra Club to stop the Large Scale Diversions. I do not know how he did it. You trust the scientific/academic community, I live in the real world.
Be honest you enjoy the tit for tat.
It wasnât the science that was driving all this now was it. Do you have any real experience with working in science?
1 Like
What a clueless diversion. None of this could have been done without the cooperation and actual promotion by the scientists involved and the whole backbone of each project was fabricated by the scientists involved and to me what makes it worse is that no one in the scientific or academic community called them out, no one, not one person and it has nothing to do with âtit for tatâ or its enjoyment or not, facts, logic, reasoning and truth, dispute any objective fact that was presented. I will wait.
You have such an aloof attitude, do you belong to a Yacht Club or something?
I am a retired scientist, and I could work with castoff. Standing up for knowledge.
Thank you.
No more conversing with the guy with the For Sale sign.
2 Likes
With all due respect and the fact I am pulling back a bit, I have documented numerous incidents where false science was bought that lead to catastrophic destruction and loss of life. My objection is to the scientists willing to do this and the ethical scientists and academics that do not speak up and expose them. A great deal of damage and loss of life could have been prevented.
1 Like