Comments by "Atticus Herodes" (@atticusherodes6648) on "Jordan B Peterson" channel.

@tonyrmathis exactly look at how many scientists have quit forced out or fired for going against the narrative, and done used to be top scientists one was a hurricane expert for the un and he got black balled.
7
@EkiEkiFatangZooPoi it's called massaging and I had to shift through this crap four four years writing my papers. The biggest problem is people can't tell between published verse peer review, and several papers do not even peer review the sources they just cite them.
6
It seems all solutions are related to population control.
3
And I was taking psychology some of the students had to tie in their psychological research with climate even if the research had nothing to do with what we where researching.
3
The s science part of my degree is eutrophication , of the psychology degree, studies done a few times show that the non scientists are more informed then non scientists alarmist and activist.
3
And I am from a generation where they told me that there will be an ice age by 1999 and in order to mitigate it we had to cover the ice with ash.
2
@NimbleBard48 i love how the activist reverse that as needed. Its not climate that's weather except when we say so.. then now we say it's climate not weather. Of course unless we want to change the perimeters again. Because we say so and no one is allowed to disagree with us.
2
Denietdcus a political word made up by politicians not scientists, actual science doesn't use weasel words.
1
I worked for dow so all scientists who work for corporations are corrupt and ones who work for totalitarian governments and activist groups aren't? The 98 percent was a manipulated poll he faked the and exited the answers to fit his conclusion if 98 percent.
1
@NimbleBard48 I vote for the latter, I am in science , io psychology, and eutrophication science, unrelated, but they made me take it. I do consider myself a conservationist. Face it environmentalism is far beyond a cult at this point.
1
@NimbleBard48 actually it isn't much of that data came from non scientific means and tourist magazines. And it's the only science that can be wrong over and over again. Ipcc is corrupt as hell. And people can't tell the difference between peet and published. It does not take long to find excited data fake p values and questionable sources. If you actually do look at the source data, and done if it is hidden.
1
i hate auto to correct, i also got the sarcasm what i meant to say was the climate skeptics are more informed than the climate bug-eating cult/ for god sake we tricked them into banning water/
1
@gunnyb2163 you can not be on the left if you aren't a pathological lying tyrant.
1