Comments by "TeeKay" (@teekay_1) on "" video.

In the case of climate "science" it's worse than you're making it sound. In reality we don't have accurate climate models (none of them can even show how the climate has gotten to where it is today), the data we have prior to the early part of the 20th century is not measured, it is calculated, and none of the models even starting in 2000 can show accuracy 20 years out. That should be a major red flag. Climate scientists are not eager to share the data they have "lest it be misused". What's worse, is the suggestions to "fix" the climate have no metrics on how we prove that (for example) eliminating carbon emissions will improve the climate. So near as we can tell "scientists" are proposing we spend 55 trillion dollars without metrics to say after you spend the first trillion that it's actually working. Which is why climate science is a modern religion, since there's no reliable hypothesis, no models that work, and no metrics even proposed on how we can prove remediations will fix the climate, nor a definition of what "fixed" even means.
8
@theBear89451 Equality of outcome is what destroys a society. It starts with the provably false premise that all people are exactly the same at birth and the only difference is opportunity. And it ends when everybody figures out it's no use working harder because it results in no gain. But we know that some people are smarter than others, some are more clever than other, and others are more inclined to work harder given material gains. So the ideal way to give everyone an opportunity and if they fail, they bear the consequences, and if they succeed, they get the reward.
7
@JohnJ469 I wish I could upvote you about 400 times.
3
@andykitt0762 Yes, there have been plenty of examples peer review really isn't. It's partially a problem of "publish or perish", and nobody has the desire to actually "peer review", even STEM subjects. But extra problem in the humanities that often studies are not constructed properly and frankly there's so much ideology in the humanities that they don't really care as long as the study proves what they want to prove.
2
@geometerfpv2804 ".but the idea that lay people can just look at some info and pick out these "obvious flaws" that imply we shouldn't listen to climate scientists is a silly idea" That's a straw man. Scientists should welcome pointing out the obvious flaws simply because it's the only way to get to a better hypothesis. And using the "but the world is on the verge of a catastrophe" is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary proof. If you don't have that proof, then either your models need help, or admit that your models don't work particularly well. And I'm not saying that we shouldn't be good stewards of the planet, but what's being proposed now in the name of science is bad because it raises costs for food, heating their house, and is causing a lot of people to act irrationally because they "believe in the science" (which is an oxymoron).
1
@andykitt0762 " Ptolemaic models were much better at describing the motion of celestial bodies than Copernican models for a very long time." If you're saying that Copernicus's models weren't fully developed as part of his hypothesis, well, no, of course not. But the reality is that Copernicus was correct and his model explained the behavior of planets that seemed to be moving randomly. And Newtonian Physics is dead-on accurate at the macro level which was the only thing anybody knew about until the early 20th century.
1