Climate Change

I just got published in Nature because I stuck to a narrative I knew the editors would like. That’s not the way science should work.

I Left Out the Full Truth to Get My Climate Change Paper Published

 

I took the time to explore the paper cited and it’s citations. I should add that I worked in natural resource policy and in the research branch of the Forest Service for many years. The issues the author raises are valid….to a point. Are there other issues besides climate change in the increase in acres burner in the US? Of course. Population increases in the urban wild land interface have been a concern for many years. And economic development issues certainly need to be considered in climate change strategies.

But I am troubled by the Pollyanna attitude that technology will take care of everything. And special consideration given to the oil and gas industry. Smells like the industry (not hydrogen sulfide!) may be an invisible hand in the policy drivers for the Breakthrough Institute. And I remain troubled by the hints that economic and environmental policy implications of climate change are both irreversible and uncompensatable in any meaningful sense. The cost of a bad decision may be so large that society can never repay future generations.

 

Just heard of this big report, y'all.
Kinda sux, glad that some of ya dislike it as well, tho. Heard it on ground zero radio, which i don't always agree with. Nor do i always agree with coast to coast am, mind you. Those ain't my only info sources.
Getting obvious, this is orchestrated by fill in the blanks. Just now heard of the tx power debacle.

 

I find it hard to believe that there’s pressure to form a narrative regarding climate change, or that CNN and Nature magazine possibly aren’t giving the full truth. This can’t be possible.

“In theory, scientific research should prize curiosity, dispassionate objectivity, and a commitment to uncovering the truth. Surely those are the qualities that editors of scientific journals should value.

In reality, though, the biases of the editors (and the reviewers they call upon to evaluate submissions) exert a major influence on the collective output of entire fields. They select what gets published from a large pool of entries, and in doing so, they also shape how research is conducted more broadly. Savvy researchers tailor their studies to maximize the likelihood that their work is accepted. I know this because I am one of them.

Here’s how it works.

The first thing the astute climate researcher knows is that his or her work should support the mainstream narrative”…

Again I’m just really, REALLY surprised about all this. One could even say I’m stunned…

 

Kinda reminds me, of bush sr saying new world order. Then jr saying if ya aint with us, you are against us. Every once in awhile, they do get bold. Then, will throw us a bone, just for appearances.
Look for the bone, after this drasticity. Some kinda techy toy, or money scheme.
Barbie was oppie's bone, & look well that worked.

 

I suppose anyone and everyone is entitled to an opinion about climate change., pro and con. I also suppose that that is the way of all or most discussions in and about situations in life. The arguments will go on and on. However , the truth is that ---time will tell. Yup. Given enough time --the answer will become obvious. Me? I'm just another dumb ass passing through this life with observations from the 40s through the present. Many, many issues are very different than when I was a youngin', including the climate, crime, politics, medical advances, social discourse, etc,etc. I'll be long gone, but ---TIME WILL TELL. And of course those who turn out to be wrong will not admit it.

 

He said the New World Order bit on September 11, 1990 of all dates. Coincidence? Could be.

Also, trillions of dollars were announced to have gone missing the day before 9/11/01. Coincidence?

 

Pretty active Twitter page https://twitter.com/PatrickTBrown31

Pretty hilarious how on his Twitter and in the Free Press article he verifies nearly every point I made in this forum debate, from the percentage of how wildfires are actually started to how valid scientific research gets suppressed if it doesn’t serve a bigger agenda with ulterior motives. Almost like I knew what I was talking about lol smdh…

 

WrongAgain

User Clip: $2.3T Missing | C-SPAN.org

9/10/2001: Rumsfeld says $2.3 TRILLION Missing from Pentagon

 

And you should also watch the second link I posted where the whistleblower admits they’re covering up these missing transactions.

 

Even were it spent correctly, ain't particularly reassuring, either. Especially coming from rummy, oh we can trust him...not. In some cases, correct spending=BlackOps.
Does anyone else, understand the term fiat currency? Please read:It came from jekyll island. facts are, that our money jes' ain't worth much. It's partly why we bully our way around. & we ain't as nice as rome was. Please read:big secrets, & it's sequel bigger secrets. Sorry, my whole life, this stuff jumps out @ me. I jes' can't help, passing stuff along.
& yeh china, ihad that same feeling abt the synchronicities. This happens alot on radio, altho it's censored alot.

 

Kinda depends upon what 911, may have been. Why would a connection surprise you?

 

I really wish you wouldn't encourage him!

 

I simply asked if it was a coincidence in relation to 9/11. And we taxpayers deserve to know why our hard earned dollars are being spent in secret on unknown projects that are being covered up don’t you think? Not only do we deserve to know why it’s being covered up, but also what the projects actually are in order to clear up any suspicion. A lack of transparency and coverup on unknown spending doesn’t exactly build trust.

Also, I never said that Government corruption surprised me.

But I digress, this is getting off topic…

 

I Left Out the Full Truth to Get My Climate Change Paper Published

…