Where did it say "popularity contest" because I overlooked it.
On climate, that has always been a popularity contest or act of dominance. People with specific views and set to make piles of money on soecific solutions gave funding for research that reinforced those views. Eventually, they dominated academic groups with dissenting views not allowed. Whatever results is not a scientifuc consensus since squashing dissenting work isn't science.
Further, people with that posotion started funding mamy documentaries and Hollywood blockbusters to push it on hundreds of millions of people. Liberal media outlets added it to the list of topics they'd repeatedlt emphasize to condition viewers' minds. Schools added it to their curriculums. Eventually, all these people started reoeating it on blogs, etc.
So, instead of an open discussion with grass-roots views, climate change as Progressives see it was always forced on people by elites in academia, philanthropy, Hollywood, and media. It was always a marketing campaign to make that idea win by a popularity contest. If dissent isn't allowed or is mocked, it was never science or very democratic either.
If anything, their numbers being at 60+% with billions spent show their campaign largely worked. I still want to see rigorous, peer review of all the stuff done strictly with observational science and not funded by Progressives. Esoecially exploring all alternative views that got censored. I'm curious what that would show.
nickpsecurity•1h ago
On climate, that has always been a popularity contest or act of dominance. People with specific views and set to make piles of money on soecific solutions gave funding for research that reinforced those views. Eventually, they dominated academic groups with dissenting views not allowed. Whatever results is not a scientifuc consensus since squashing dissenting work isn't science.
Further, people with that posotion started funding mamy documentaries and Hollywood blockbusters to push it on hundreds of millions of people. Liberal media outlets added it to the list of topics they'd repeatedlt emphasize to condition viewers' minds. Schools added it to their curriculums. Eventually, all these people started reoeating it on blogs, etc.
So, instead of an open discussion with grass-roots views, climate change as Progressives see it was always forced on people by elites in academia, philanthropy, Hollywood, and media. It was always a marketing campaign to make that idea win by a popularity contest. If dissent isn't allowed or is mocked, it was never science or very democratic either.
If anything, their numbers being at 60+% with billions spent show their campaign largely worked. I still want to see rigorous, peer review of all the stuff done strictly with observational science and not funded by Progressives. Esoecially exploring all alternative views that got censored. I'm curious what that would show.