The following infographic has been making the rounds.
The question WAS NOT "do you trust the scientific method, correctly applied and honestly communicated without bias".
The question WAS "do you trust the scientific community".
What's exceptionally frightening to me is not the very appropriate drop in trusting the scientific community after conflicting statements from them on COVID, Climate Change, Trans health, nutrition, and meds (such as Oxycontin).
What's exceptionally troubling is the rise in the people willing to completely trust whatever bullshit they are fed by "the scientific community". The sheep seem to be almost exclusively on one side of the political spectrum.
This blind trust extends beyond science to issues such as Joe Biden's influence peddling operation, which at this point is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt with the sworn testimony of Devon Archer backed up by records, documents, communications, whistleblowers, and other eye witnesses. The Democrats seems to completely ignore it.
The mechanism is as follows.
- Entities direct payments to Hunter Biden and other family members.
- These payments are multi-millions, involve a dozen different Biden family members, involve a web of twenty or so anonymous corporations.
- The payments come from entities such as Burisma in Ukraine and the ex-mayor of Moscow.
- In return, things in the US government break their way. The prosecutor going after Burisma is fired, the mayor of Moscow is kept off the sanctions list.
- Big payments were also received from China.
- In no case was any valuable work done in return.
- Joe lied that he was never involved. Devon Archer testified to 20 times Joe joined meetings. Records show Hunter complained about giving half his income to his Dad. There is an email reserving 10% for the "Big Guy". Eye witness testimony confirms the big guy is Joe Biden.
WE love you Julie Hope you are well and not letting the crazies get under your skin
ReplyDeletejj
Never that!
DeleteOutside of the political angle. The scientific method vs science opinion is a beautiful comparison . There is a reason it's called medical practice, more accurately medical guessing. Things like pharmacology are based on best guesses, otherwise if they were fully understood drugs wouldn't have side effects. AI can make these guesses 1000 times better than a doctor having the sum total of medicine at it's finger tips. So lets get doctors back to holding hands and whipping bottoms.
ReplyDeleteI value the experience that doctors bring to bear on common ailments, but if it gets obscure, I agree that AI could be a great assist.
DeleteJulie, you're misrepresenting what Archer testified. What he actually said was that Hunter took calls from Joe during various meetings, but that business was never discussed with Joe on those calls.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I just don't understand why you think there is anything very interesting, let alone shocking, about families of the rich and powerful trading on that wealth and power. I'm shocked! Shocked I tell you!
All I represented was that he testified that Joe took 20 meetings. The clear intent was a demonstration of access to power. No business needs to be discussed. These are slick operators.
DeleteApart from the minor issue of FARA violations (which is quite common, but only prosecuted for political reasons, apparently), Joe profited by having Hunter pay most of his bills. It's how Joe maintained a lavish lifestyle above what his disclosed income suggested was possible. And there is circumstantial evidence that Joe was behind things that directly benefitted the corrupt payers (that I listed). It may not be possible to prove a crime, there in fact may be no prosecutable crime, however this type of blatant influence peddling can be grounds for impeachment, and if commonly known, would no doubt have lost him the last election.
You're outrage over influence peddling would be more credible if it weren't so selective. You're an RFK Jr. fan. You really think that a former heroin shooter is the right guy to listen to about what to put in your body, and do you think that he would have any platform whatsoever for his crank opinions if not for the influence peddling potential that comes along with the name Kennedy?
Delete??? Unhinged
DeleteJule, were you an English major? Seriously, the scientific method has brought us all the goodies we now enjoy. My degree (MS) is in computer science, which was spawned from math. All I can say is that you need to read some reliable sources. July was earth's hottest month since we began keeping records in the 1800s. Suggest something to you? Maybe it's an aberration, but it also coincides with the highest measured level of co2 in the air since we have been tracking that.
DeleteI know you're not a Republican. You aren't legally allowed to be. You are, apparently, a Luddite. That's odd given your daily use of technology and science. You have to know better than to attack science.
In terms of Hunter Biden, I agree that he is a drug-addled sleeze. His dad is a career politician, which may be the same thing, now that I think about it. Joe Biden is president only because the alternative was impossibly distasteful to many AMERICANS
Hottest month was back in 2016. Almost as hot in 1998. Check the reliable satellite data yourself: https://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
DeleteYou make the beginner's mistake of confusing correlation with causation. From 1930-1980 global temps dropped while man-made CO2 went up. Why you cherry pick?
Glad we agree how sleezie Joe Biden is.
your suggestion of a question:
ReplyDeletedo you trust the scientific method, correctly applied and honestly communicated without bias?
would result in everyone saying yes, because everything is loaded into "honestly communicated without bias". Everyone wants "honesty" and "without bias". But who gets to decide what counts as "honest" and "without bias"? That's way too loaded.
I think the question as asked is the right one: I want to know if people trust the current scientific community. The great thing about actual science is that the results speak for themselves. Don't you think we are far better off now than 50 years ago in terms of disease prevention and treatment, and technology? If you think you know more, you can always show that your methods and results are better, and if they are, low and behold, people will believe you. If you are just bullshitting, then no one will listen to you (except the weak-minded).
So, show me the money, Julie. You talk a lot of bullshit. If you know better, then go out there and prove it. Your results will prove me wrong. But you and I know that you are just a lot of BS talk. Your crazy love of useless climate scientists at U Alabama Knoxville shows this. Give me Harvard, MIT, Stanford, U Toronto (for you Canadians).
So do I trust current scientists? Of course. Scientists are awesome.
I did prove it. Read my article on climate change.
DeleteThere is no Climate Catastrophe. It summarizes the actual science, not the bullshit you are fed. Go comment on that article.
If you have actually proven something submit it to actual scientists and see what they have to say
DeleteThat's a moronic comment. There are many scientists who share my point of view (rather, I share theirs). My article lays out THEIR position. Are you too dumb to read it and comment?
Delete"I did prove it."
DeleteWow. I guess you don't know what the word "prove" means.
Your claim is that no one at MIT, Stanford, Harvard, Yale, Toronto, UBC, etc. is doing worthwhile climate science. Instead, researchers U Alabama Knoxville are apparently the ones who really understand what's going on, and the government of every western country is in on the scam too.
Are you familiar with the term "conspiracy theory"?
that seems to be your mantra
More idiocy. There are many elements of climate science. The postulate that "human-induced CO2 will lead to catastrophic warming" is a question many IPCC scientists are very unsure about. That's political propaganda that you've fallen for hook, line, and sinker. Read my article referenced above which points to proofs. Drop a comment there if you disagree with any of it. Come on! You can do it! You have a brain!
DeleteI definitely have a brain. That's why I don't fall for your BS "proofs". Saying that anything you disagree with is due to "political propaganda" or "media" is your way of avoiding the fact that the scientists that you lean on are lousy scientists at second rate places.
DeleteOnly you and a select few true-thinkers can see the truth but no one at a top university agrees, huh? Oh that's because the media, and the universities, and all the governments are in on it too? Right.
You are a Republican stooge who knows what you want to find before you get the results. Anti-science at its peak.
We'll leave it at that and let the readers decide who has a better grasp of the science, you or I.
DeleteReader here!
DeleteUmmmm... not even close?
Julie makes actual points.
This dumbass only uses "argument from authority" which is no argument at all.
🙏
DeleteThere are 2 ways to look at the Biden Family.
ReplyDeleteOn the one hand, they could be the most low rent, low class, trashiest, dysfunctional family in America.
On the other hand, they could just be a pack of feral dogs.
Yep
DeleteThe problem is that all of this BS fizzles when it see the light of day - even when Jim Jordan is running the clown show.
ReplyDeleteNo, it doesn't. It holds up to anybody with the eyes to Mainstream media will seek to downplay it. Read the actual reports to get the true view not filtered through the propagandists.
DeleteI would say that the message given by "science" is agreeable to Dem's so they trust it. We all tend to respond positively when we hear things we agree with. Bogey
ReplyDeleteI think many Dems need a "cause" to "fight for". The less they have to do for their cause, and the more they can virtue signal, the better. They don't look deeply if the "solution" is useful or not. E.g., Plastic straws. They will react with a screeching outrage if you point out their "solution" is counterproductive.
Delete"There is no distinctly native American criminal class save Congress" Mark Twain
ReplyDelete"Only a Fool and his money get elected" Will Rogers.
This sums it up for me when I look at our government and those we selected to serve. Jack
Well, we still need to try.
DeleteAgree, but it is finding the starting place that is the problem. Jack
DeleteI'm breaking a promise to myself posting this and am fully prepared for the typical "Julie response".....which will inevitably and predictably contain dismissals and insulting phrases anyone familiar with this blog will no doubt be used to, but here goes nonetheless:
ReplyDeleteI believe that binary thinking when applied to anything from politics to science, to whatever, is a sad indication of just how stupid people in general have become. The inability of swathes of people to see that multiple, seemingly contradictory things can still be true, or that in the case of science there are differing degrees of certainty depending on the field of study, is unfortunate.
So many people are so devoutly loyal to their tribe that they don't realize that their fanatical flag-waving has obscured their vision of what would normally be quite clear and plain in front of them if they'd just put the damned banner down, look, and then thought for themselves with a modicum of logic and reason.
It may seem like this opinion digresses from the two post issues of trust in the science community and the Biden family.......but it doesn't.
And yet we agree 100%. It's only I think it applies to most Democrats while you no doubt think it applies to most Republicans.
DeleteI myself am never binary in my thinking and embrace nuance. I would argue the binary un-nuanced view is "man-made CO2 will lead to catastrophic global warming" and "nothing to see here" as it relates to Joe Biden's influence peddling operation, both being typical Dem positions.
>>>>>>>>>>>"And yet we agree 100%. It's only I think it applies to most Democrats while you no doubt think it applies to most Republicans."<<<<<<<<<<<<
DeleteActually, while you may think we agree 100%, your statements here and elsewhere contradict your self-characterization of being nuanced and non-binary in your thinking. Though I do believe you sincerely see yourself this way. (Even the irony of you defining our views in terms of "Democrat" and "Republican" while claiming a non-binary view of issues, is somewhat tragically comic.)
And, 'no' I do not think my opinion applies to most Republicans at the exemption of Democrats. I believe it applies to "most people". (and the more people I interact with, the more convinced I am of this position.) Even people who sometimes 'get it right' will demonstrate by their rationales that they somehow stumbled upon that view through sheer dumb luck or chance and not through reason and analysis. It's like answering the multiple-choice question correctly by having gone "eenie, meenie, minie, moe".
However, as I've written elsewhere, I no longer blame people for their own stupidity. As a species we are an unfortunate accident of evolution where upright, social apes developed a brain big enough to exploit their environment to a catastrophic degree without ever having evolved a sense of wisdom to balance that technological thinking. But then again, the process of evolution has never once selected for wisdom, so why should we expect it now?
Republican and Democrat are defined classes based on how they register. When we speak about them, we're speaking of broad-stroke averages. Useful shorthand at times if correlation with certain behaviours is high. It never means every individual.
DeleteThe war in Ukraine is a case where it does not seem useful, as both parties seem to be war mongers. With climate change and Joe Biden, the correlations are high.
As always, your comments are condescending to the max. You go on meta-rants without actually arguing any point of view. I put myself out there and argue my point of view. We are different that way.
Where we are alike is that we are both very condescending.
DeleteAnd I would think a nuanced person, as you describe yourself, would easily see the points I and others here make, and have made, but you regularly dismiss them as nonexistent.
It's OK. Coming here for an honest discussion is like when Cleese went into the cheese shop looking for cheese. Frankly I posted here expecting worse, so I'm going off to enjoy my day with visiting friends considering myself ahead.
You started it 😉
DeleteCan't be sure of the points you make as you have made only meta observations that are essentially tautologies. Still don't know if you think climate change is over-hyped or if you defend Biden's actions. Still don't know if you condemn blindly trusting scientific authority without looking into it yourself.
You come here attacking me for imagined past sins rather than coming here for a discussion re the subject of my post.
It's like this KDPierre character is a bot. He makes no actual points, just comes here to rag on you using generic language that would fit any topic. There seems to be only one condescending prick here, and it's this guy.
DeleteNo, he's a real'ish person. Just very grumpy (and almost religiously indoctrinated on these points).
DeleteIf Hunter has committed crimes he should be prosecuted (wait he was prosecuted and he is pleading guilty... I guess he wasnt prosecuted enough)
DeleteIf Joe has committed crimes, prosecute him, got no problem indicting a former president who committed crimes in or before office) I am sure there are enough law abiding or conversely Biden/Hillary hating prosecutors at federal and/or state level to work the case it if they can prove sufficient evidence.
If folks would rather just use the ballot to get rid of him, offer a credible, reasonable alternative I'll gladly vote for them. So far sadly I dont see that happening.
As far as you coming across as dismissive of people who disagree with you ...that seem 100% accurate to me. But while I think you truly hold the core positions you highlight; . I think you use your tone for clickbait/rage engagement. Kinda reminds me of the one who shall not be named....all publicity is good publicity... and further throwing
"....On the other hand, they could just be a pack of feral dogs"
and calling people with differing opinions "sheep"
Yeah, that really motivates me to step back and do some serious self reflection on whether I am being fair and balanced in my opinion versus "personality".
I make up my own damn mind based on multiple sources which in my case is very easy, having lived a long time within distance of NYC and South Jersey its easy as to which is the lesser of two evils.
Hunter was "prosecuted". They selected the two most minor crimes out of the >400 documented on the laptop, gave him a sweetheart deal and immunity from everything else (fortunately, the deal went South when a judge found the hidden bits that granted full immunity to everything else, asking four times if there was any precedent for this). This was the DOJ being such sweethearts. The rot runs deep.
DeleteI don't care about clickbait and engagement.
The "feral dogs" was from a fellow commenter, not me.
"Sheep" is an accurate characterization for those who don't question authority and orthodoxy. You disagree?
You seem to "make up your mind" based on some kind of media programming as you likely never met the man, have no first hand information, and have all your reports from media sources. You're like Sarah Palin saying she's an expert on Russia because she can see them from her back porch.
Ah the old standby: You're just a sheep following MSM...not looking for own facts.
DeleteYou use that line a lot when people disagree - How could I prove/defend that I am not a sheep? I cant because its trying to prove a negative.
(To be fair, I am not sure how I would prove I *am* a sheep either, maybe they have membership cards tt ...)
No I don't know either Biden or Trump in any personal way. I have to go by their actions and words (admittedly transmitted through what I assume you would call MSM ).
That is what I meant by referencing his historical record. Do you personally know / deal with him or everyone you support???
The fact that I hold an opinion that is popular does not make me a sheep, and similarly does not make it true; but I think it is
The bitterness and divisions he sowed and fermented in this country for being a sore loser (He lost the election - period). disqualify him from office and tend to nullify anything good that he stumbled into during his presidency.
Yes, you did not directly use slurs, it seems like you like to rev up a bitter crowd that are likely to then sling, so can just say "Yep" and feel above the fray.
You don't know anything about me nor I you. I hope that non of my language above comes across offensive/rude.
Arguably, to me reflexively calling someone a sheep, is slur-ish.
OK I am done now I have to go find what my Shepard needs me to do/think.
I prefer to argue from actual points. I note you just ignore the points I make, make none of your own, and then just make some meta-points that mean nothing. Provide an argument with actual evidence, please.
DeleteJoe Biden has a lot in common with former Irish Taoiseach Charlie Haughty who took blatant bribes in exchange for government support for decades.
ReplyDeleteHe lived on a private island that cost 5 times his annual salary and owned his own yacht yet even when his corruption became well known and proven was largely ignored.
In fact the Irish voters re-elected him not once but twice despite this.
Apparently the Irish voter thinks that corruption is ok and is an asset..
It seems like a lot of US voters feel the same way about Biden taking bribes.
In fact it is interesting that Biden managed to squeak a narrow election win because he won back all the Irish votes that Hilary lost!
Maybe it will work for Kennedt too?
Interesting!
DeleteTrying to separate the scientific community from properly applied science is a distinction without a difference. Using the scientific method, with rigor and peer review, is what the scientific community does. Such discipline does not support much of the republican agenda, so republicans, being people, reject what makes them uncomfortable.
ReplyDeleteIllogical. You assume all those who profess to be scientists are legitimate. That's a recipe to be duped.
DeleteThat's why peer review exists. No peer review, not part of the "Scientific Community". Denying science is the illogical problem.
DeletePeer review is problematic. It can block good papers that don't follow the orthodoxy, and it can pass bad papers with significant errors.
DeleteI spoke once with a scientist who does peer reviews. He says at its best they read the paper and check for any obvious problems, but don't even try to verify the accuracy of any data underlying the paper. He also said many of his colleagues don't take peer review as seriously as he does, and will sometimes not even read the paper if pressed for time, but rely on the reputation of the authors. Journals have limited space to run papers and will reject good papers if it doesn't fit their theme or they don't think the result is of sufficiently general interest to their readership. If the field is very specialized, they may not find sufficient numbers of people with knowledge of that area to conduct the review.
I don't know of a better mechanism, but your trust in peer review is misplaced.
It truly does not get mentioned enough how absolutely fucking ignorant you are. You probably won’t post this, and that’s fine. You’ll at least see it and know that you’re fucking ignorant and have no clue what you’re talking about. You regurgitate right wing bullshit and want to pretend you have an original thought.
ReplyDeleteIf you do post it, you’ll probably have some really ignorant reply about how I’m not presenting any facts. I don’t present facts to you people. You people show time and again that you’re stupid. Stupid people don’t understand THE truth, they understand their truth. You ignorant fucks get a piece of info that you like and then you add alternative facts to it and try to pass it off as real. This is why no actual respectable person takes republicans serious.
Not at all, happy to publish your ignorant comment. People should understand the quality of those on the opposite side.
DeleteHissy fit, really hoping this was from a millennial and not a grown up/
DeleteJulie as usual you are right on with the climate change and the Bidens. Most of the stupid people are the younger generation who have bought into the climate change problem and how to fix it. You wonder how come the wes coast and probably canada have so many fires. It's because no one does proper forestration. They don't remove dead trees and underbrush because they might take away some protected species from their environment. They used to remove this and plant new trees to
ReplyDeleteprotect these areas from burning. Thats why they have so many fires from lightening and stupid people not putting out campfires. This is the first time in illinois this summer we have ever had smoke from canada in the 68 years i've been alive, If they were worried about problems like the freon why do they keep changing the kinds of freon if its not just to make it mor expensive. And on top of that if they were so worried about it why aren't they more concerned about compressors that will last 50 years like the old refrigerators but instead the only last 5-10 like the new ones. Also why do they make it more expensive to fix something like appliances. Instead we send them to the landfill and buy new ones. Enough on the environment.
Now on to the Bidens . If this had been a previous republican president he would have been in jail by now. Not just impeached. Again you are right on in your opinions about Biden, The press, and all the other dems as not too many of them will take the time to do a little of their own research and learn the truth. Look what they are doing to Bobby Kennedy just because he doesn't agree with open borders and big government. He's just not Liberal enough. I'm just one of many americans that grew up in the 60s and 70s and when our country was great. We joined our military and wanted to serve our communities.Lets' not forger that the democratic party was the party we were fighting in the civil war, they were the party of the Ku Klux Klan, Jim Crow, integration of the the black population into our schools, and now trying to turn our country into a socialist country. The most of the far left are being led too slaughter because they don't pay attention to which way the world is going. Better wake up soon or this country is gone. And don't get me started about the weaponization of our justice system. Thanks for being such a bright light among all the dimwits. God Bless You for publishing the truth. Firefighter Steve
Yes, as if a bare
DeleteYes, as if a not even noticeable increase in global temps and LESS extreme weather would cause forest fires to increase. Lunacy.
I’d like to weigh in on the science of global warming. I don’t think it’s disputed that we’ve radically changed the earth’s atmosphere with carbon emissions (as well as methane).
ReplyDeleteYes I know climate change has always occurred, we’ve had ice ages and hot periods etc. But our recent increase (over the last century or so) is quicker than what we’ve seen in the past and there’s good reason to believe that changes in weather and food production etc may well threaten the earth’s human population.
How serious is the problem and what should we do about are challenges. Solutions are expensive. What’s especially frustrating is the partisan divide that prevents any real discussion in DC.
I do personally support a revenue neutral carbon tax (sometimes called the “untax”).
But my guess is that the earth will keep warming and we’ll resort to Geoengineering where we spray enough particles into the atmosphere to cool the planet (think the Mt. Pinatubo eruption that briefly cooled the planet). We don’t know what the consequences would be.
But we sorely need real communication between the chicken littles on the left and the head in the sand folks on the right.
Rosco
I dispute 'radically" the average concentration of CO2 is 0.043%, up from 0.027% in pre-industrial times. Less than a 0.02% change. It's been up to 1% in pre-historic times. You exhale 0.4%. Concentrations around farmers fields can easily rise to 0.2%. Water vapour, a much more potent greenhouse gas, is up to 20% concentration. CO2 is a dribble by comparison.
DeleteThere's no evidence that temperature rise we see now is quicker than the past. All the good proxies before thermometers only have about 30-year granularity, and there have been some big rises (as big and steep as now) over those timescales in the proxy record. Even raw thermometer data from long-standing, well-maintained, rural stations, show the warming out of the little ice age from 1890-1940 is as steep as modern warming,
I do not support any actions that will raise the cost of energy which disproportionately negatively impacts the world's poorest in the cause of reducing CO2, which is known to be highly good for the environment (greening the planet, increased crop yields). The case that CO2 will catastrophically warm has not been adequately made, and there is much counter-evidence.
I'm all for measures that reduce actual pollution, though.
what percentage of global warming can be attributed to industrialization? Glad to look at the numbers, consider actions. Not Not willing to just follow the herd...
DeleteI'm assuming we are discounting the so-called "rural heat island effect" which is a local thing that warms cities.
DeleteVery hard to attribute causes of warming. Most agree it's something. Some argue it's negligible due to offsetting feedbacks, others argue it's big due to reinforcing feedback.
Ocean currents and cloud cover creates giant uncertainties. Ocean currents have periodicities of millenia, centuries, and decades, all overlapping and chaotically unpredictable.
What influences big systematic changes in cloud cover over longer periods is also very mysterious. Some have theories of sunspots impacting clouds via the ionizing radiation. Others say clouds are a negative feedback to more CO2.
It's a remarkably rich field filled with questions. It's inherently hard due to the non-linear physics involved. Answering the question is as tough as forecasting weather over longer time periods.
The case has not been made that CO2 is a giant culprit, though it may be.
When you say CO2 has gone from .027 to .043, that’s an increase of 50% or so. The percent of a percent. I call that radical.
DeleteYou’re right, alternative energy costs will affect poor people the most. But if global warming is a problem, we ought to look for solutions.
I’m glad you think CO2 may be a giant culprit. The question is how do we figure it out and, if it is, how much do we do and how soon do we act?
Not simple. I like my gasoline and natural gas.
Rosco
Every plant on earth dies at around 0.017% so it's currently remarkably low based on any other point of the earth's history.
DeleteIt's like you saying the temperature went up from 1C to 1.5C and therefore we are now very hot. What? The temp increased by 50%! Radical!
You can't destroy poor people's lives on an "if". You should be sure. There are excellent arguments by economist Bjorn Lomberg that even if you accept the most dire predictions, the impact on humanity would be slight.
I am open to evidence that it might be, as it's a highly complex problem. However, based on the evidence I have seen, I think it's unlikely that it's large, and certainly not proven that it is.
The problem in making progress is that there is only one "politically acceptable" cause of climate change: CO2. Anybody who postulates anything else is called a "denier!" and is blacklisted and not funded. You cannot do proper science under these political constraints.
Julie- Science is not the problem. Science asks question after question after question. It is not a popularity poll. As new facts are discovered and verified experimental results should change answers. It is the political class that needs "fixed answers" for their objectives. Whenever you hear "the science is fixed" you are being lied to. Never accept political statements as "scientific fact".
ReplyDeleteWell said!
DeleteIf Biden is guilty then impeach him. I’m sure republicans will have no problem doing so and if he is guilty I hope both parties vote to kick him out of office. Until that’s happening I’m going to believe the reports saying Archer debunked more than he confirmed and that the weaponization of the government committee is aptly named. A healthy skepticism of science is good. Believing vaccines cause autism, thinking the earth is flat, and the moon landing was faked is all stupidity.
ReplyDeleteEarth is not flat.
DeleteDoubt the moon landing was faked.
Vaccines may contribute to autism.
Biden is guilty of influence peddling (which may not be illegal, just unethical).
The 1998 study that suggested a link between autism and vaccines was retracted and the author lost their license due to falsified information. There is absolutely zero scientific evidence that vaccines cause autism. That is not a healthy skepticism of science, it is believing something to fit an agenda.
DeleteThere's more than that. It's a "talking point" that there is only one study and it was debunked. There's a correlation that ought to be investigated. For example, see https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21623535/
DeleteCertainly something caused the alarming rise. We should investigate that. You being 100% sure on this complex nuanced thing that currently has no explanation is what fits the medical-industrial complex agenda.
Too bad about the conflict of interest Sounds good until you look at the details - https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/vaccines-cause-autism-until-you-look-at-the-data An economics professor who was head of an anti vaccine group doing a study wayyyy outside her lane. No disrespect- RIP.
DeleteWhat conflict of interest? Usual you need money for there to be a conflict of interest, like drug companies who profit from research going a certain way funding the research.
DeleteThis person is skilled at statistical analysis, has convinced themselves there's a link, and passed peer review. Who else will do this sort of research and risk being "branded" an "anti-vaxer!" By closed-minded people?
It's like a reverse conflict of interest. Their life is made worse for pursuing this line of enquiry.
I'm not saying there for sure is a causal link. I'm frustrated that there is a huge rise in autism and zero scientific curiosity about it. Smells like somebody hiding something.
Being on the board of a “non-profit” doesn’t mean there isn’t money involved. Also, she was on the board of a group that is starting with a conclusion (autism is environmentally caused) and then looking for science to back it up. That’s now how science works, I t’s how conspiracy theories work. As the article I shared showed by going through the numbers, the author had to really manipulate the data to get a statistical correlation which as you reminded us all earlier is not causation. Autism rates have risen sharply mostly due to awareness and widening the definition of what autism is. This is the conclusion not of the pharmaceutical industry but of people who are working in the field of medicine (not finance) and have made it their life’s work to end autism.
DeleteIf like any other non-profit, usually no money for serving on a board. If you know differently in this case and can quote the sum, I'd be interested, but until then, I'll assume the common practice.
DeleteAutism does not go away. So if there was just as much autism in the past, we'd see just as many autistic adults now as children, and that's not the case. Your head is in the sand on this issue.
Advocacy groups sponsor and do research that advances their point of view. On the other side, the drug companies spend a fortune on research to prove things of benefit to them. That, unfortunately, is how science really works nowadays, which was my point in this blog.
Yes, I agree, the correlation was weak, but neither was the rebuttal strong.
Does David ever tell you that when you go onto other subjects, especially political that he does not approve and going to bare your bottom for a sound spanking? Jack
ReplyDeleteNo. We have many views in common and he likes that I express myself. He does not like when I am rude without the commenter being rude first, and I have been spanked for that.
DeleteWhen I compare, using natural language processing software, Julie's 2013 posts to her 2023 posts, I find a 37.4% (95% CI 32.8-40.2) increase in mean and dismissive comments. Along with a 44.9% rise in caricaturizing democrats. Intriguingly, I find a 63.6% increase in mentions of spankings from David.
DeleteCausation, reverse causation or correlation?
Limitations: Further research is needed to assess the impact of currently unmeasured factors, such as Reader Comments and rising CO2 levels.
Conclusion: if this association is casual, and current trends persist, Julie's ass may become a brush fire.
More importantly, her uncanny ability to focus us on what we have in common, rather than what divides us, may be diminished.
Thank you for the analysis! 🙏
DeleteJulie, this discussion has made me curious about something. Politically and socially, I would define myself as a left leaning liberal. Some of your political views make me grind my teeth, so I am tempted to argue…but I don’t because it’s not politics that draws me to your blog. However, because I am turned on by sexual power dynamics, I find the fantasy of being spanked by by a MAGA hat wearing woman extra exciting because of the added element of being humiliated by an opponent. My question to you is, does the idea of being spanked by a political opponent have any erotic kick for you?
DeleteNot being spanked by a leftist. But I have many left-leaning views myself, such as UBI, various social safety nets, gay and bi-sexuality, real feminism, and the idea of being spanked by a hard-nosed conservative for those views does turn me on.
DeleteI think leftists liberals are very "female energy", hence submissive. MAGA Republican conservatives are very "male energy", hence dominant.
(N.B. I think male and female energy, yin and yang, exist in all of us regardless of sex. When I am dominant, I feel as if I'm expressing my Yang energy, when submissive, my yin).
Interesting theory, Julie. Paradoxically, based on stats about online porn searches, the highest demand for cuckold porn seems to come from socially conservative regions. What do you make of that? My theory is that part of the thrill of cuckold porn is that it is socially transgressive, so the thrill of being sexually humiliated by one’s wife would be ramped up in regions where attitudes are, for want of a better word, more patriarchal.
DeleteThe best kink comes from repressed folks!
DeleteThis society is changing, LBGTQ+ community is now apart of society. I was wondering is spanking a part of their cultural, it is just a thought and since you have addressed M/f, F/m, and F/f, why not this section of our society. Jack
ReplyDeleteF/f is part of their community, and I often talk about m/m (a big fantasy of mine!).
DeleteBeyond that, how dare you assume that F means only biological females and vice versa! Hate speech! Screeeeeeech!
Not aware in this day and age that F was hate speech, care to educate me. Jack
DeleteI was just joking, Jack.
DeleteI'll explain my joke:
You accused me of not being sufficiently diverse in my kink re the LGBTQ+ community. Given trans women would be offended if they were not included in 'F', I'm saying that because you are criticizing me about not including them, you are implicitly assuming they are not part of 'F', which is hate speech.
I did not intend that to be, I'm sorry.
DeleteNo worries. Just having fun.
DeleteI can't wait to hear the very loud gasp, and then the stunning silence when the Demoncrats and the MSM Media suddenly realize they helped cheat to elect our first Criminally Corrupt Capo Di Tutti I Capi!
ReplyDeleteNah. They are in complete brainwashed denial. Get Trump! Ahhhhhh!
DeleteIt is refreshing that at least one other person in the bdsm community uses common sense and critical thinking besides me.
ReplyDeleteAwww shucks - Thank you!
DeleteThe Democrats have dethroned Republicans to become the Anti-Science party. This wasn't easy because the Republicans have two profound natural advantages: they embrace Conservatism which is resistant to new evidence and Faith which actually means to accept without evidence. Science is all about deciphering the truths of the universe that Evidence can unlock.
ReplyDeleteBut despite the Republican's natural, god-given (hee-hee ;o) "advantages"... Miraculously the Democrats have managed to wrest the Anti-Science title from them! To accomplish this they needed a powerful secret weapon, Censorship and Totalitarianism. At its core its about the corruption of the University system which then spread outwards to the society at large.
The University system was designed and envisioned to be the Vanguard of the pursuit of Science and Truth. Tenured Professorship was envisioned to allow a man to pursue ANY Research to reach ANY Conclusion without fear of reprisal. The tenured professor University system was to be a safe house for iconoclasm and heterodox thought. But today though they've kept the tenured professor system in name, oftentimes the University system is functionally a roadblock to the pursuit of Truth. There are many subjects: Human-diversity, climate change, Covid, etc.. that can't be researched honestly for fear of exposing the Truth is not woke friendly. And everyone within the University System knows the penalty for stepping out of line.... CANCELATION.... which in it's more benign forms takes the form of shunning... the loss of any sort collegial relationship with anyone and everyone they know... and in it's more aggressive incarnations the loss of employment, public condemnation and even physical violence.
But it's actually MUCH worse... because the Universities have a stranglehold on Credentialism. If someone doesn't have University credentials, the left says they are not entitled to an opinion on Scientific matters because they are not a "credentialed Scientist". And on average, ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, credentialed scientists will tend to do Science better than others... UNLESS they are intimidated from doing so by a censorious and totalitarian University system.
So currently the truth is, democrats trust Scientists more than Republicans, but Scientists have been intimidated away from real Science. On contentious subjects the actual science is coming from unintimated non-scientists and overwhelmingly, these non-scientist men of science are trusted more by Republicans.
Very well said, Pablo!
Delete