Can science be bought? | The story of Pott's Totts
Вставка
- Опубліковано 17 кві 2024
- Patreon: / drwilsondebunks
I rarely read UA-cam comments these days, so if you want me to see your comment, here is how you can contact me directly and I will be glad to respond to you when I can:
Email: dr.wilson.debunk@gmail.com
Facebook (direct message): / docwilsondebunks
Percival Pott:
www.britannica.com/biography/...
www.encyclopedia.com/science/...
Early epidemiological evidence that smoking caused cancers: www.science.org/doi/10.1126/s...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...
tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/conten...
www.scielosp.org/article/bwho...
Research mechanistically linking tobacco smoke to cancers:
aacrjournals.org/cancerres/ar...
www.science.org/doi/10.1126/s...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10207...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11522...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15958...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11585... - Наука та технологія
Interestingly, I was recently talking to a graduate student who teaches my physics lab, and he told me he struggled with his experiments for his PhD because a professor had published work where the data was massaged. I personally know that many papers in higher mathematics that could take months of hard labor to verify the exact calculations by hand, and this is if you can find someone to actually check your work. When I was a trader specializing in derivatives, so many peer-reviewed papers were just nonsense for a practitioner.
Thanks for that, Dr Wilson 👍👍👍
Dr. Wilson, thank you and appreciation for your sharing truth in a world of lies. Love for All❣️
Thank you for this Dr Wilson.
Please, please, please put out more videos like this. Storytelling is one of the most powerful tools of persuasion at our disposal, the crackpots of the world are experts at it, we need to catch up!
Excellent video as usual. Thank you, Dr. Wilson.
😂 goodness gracious !
🥴🤦🏽♂️🤡
Man I have been reading about the chimney sweeping children and it was an absolutely heartbreaking reality they lived in. 😢😢😢
Life for children working in Englands cotton mills (mule scavenger) was probably the worst child labour during Victorian times. Crawling between and under the machines crushed hands and broken bones as well as amputations and decapitations were common.
If they survived they probably suffered from byssinosis later in life due to breathing in cotton fibres for years.
It's coming back. Check out the news on meat processing plants and legislation to relax child labor laws.
Those kind of terrible conditions still exist today.
Like the child labour in the cobalt mining industry.
@@Breakofdawn-ws9yx What world are you living in? That is the tip of the iceberg and nothing changes!
aye, terrible. just as well modern day slavery is quite simply ‘nOt a tHiNg’, & kids in Africa aren’t being made to dig up lithium for western corporate interests, as we speak.
This was really interesting to listen to. Really enjoyed it, thanks.
Yes, and thanks for all your also excellent videos. ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
@@lindaward Thanks!
Space Comma! Love your work CC
But John Campbell runner-up "Mug of the Month"? Not your fault I know.
😂
Thank you Dr Wilson. This is definitely not the sort of video we'd find on an anti-vax grifter's channel.
I noticed a strong association with ashtrays in a house and lung cancer. Get rid of those ashtrays!
That's ridiculous! The obvious cause is flint from lighters ;)
strong correlation between ice cream sales and drowining too!
Very important topic!! Thank you ! I have several people I’m going to have listen to this!
Really liked this one. Probably my favorite one of all your videos.
I've been working on a video that covers some of the complications of science communication for a while now. You touched base on some of the things I've been looking into. This sort of stuff is so important to let people know. It's so easy to look at the past and see what they got wrong, but we tend not to look at all the work that went into getting something right and why that's important to know.
Are you aware that half of the scientific literature out there is false?
@@RabJ756That’s a hell of a statement from someone who couldn’t pass a GCSE science exam, even if he had the textbook open in front of him 😂
@@steveoxocube, ohh ha ha ha. Did you copy and paste that from somewhere? Lol
@@RabJ756 and yet you have no proof Flat Earther.
@@RabJ756
Thanks for standing up for us, scientists. I really appreciate it. Cheers!
May you consider this is tribalism not science. The attempt to find truth needs no help but it’s difficult most times.
@@nancyt61 maybe I don't get it but do you mean that scientists are a tribe? And if so, how does that fit the "scientists are not for sale" discussion? Tnx in advance. Cheers
@@peterz2352 Scientists may act tribal which is potentially not ideal. The political needs of the tribe will take place over evidence based ideas. "Standing up for scientist" implies many things.
Of course some scientist are for sale and some have no choice but to make a living. Economic structure of Universities & labs not ideal for evidence based ideas. Journals for journals sake and data fakery abounds.
Disenchanted scientist are on youtube discussing these issues.
Have not watch much of this channel videos but does he look for contradictory evidence of what he think is happening?
A bit like the 'global warming 'debate' ' - papers pretty much unanimous, popular media 'Let's invite a denier on....'
Yup, lots of 💲to be made using that marketing technique.
Opinion poll among the general population: "What percentage of climatologist do you think support AGW"
Result: 50%
Opinion poll among climatologists: "Do you support AGW"
Result: 97%
What is said here about the tobacco industry applies to the meat, dairy, and egg industries today-if you feel like you've heard a lot of conflicting information about nutrition, you can thank Cargill and Co.
I wonder why the WEF, WHO, etc are pushing for vegan artificially made foods, insect protein......
Also and industry behind it I guess.
Thank you for this. From a biomedical research scientist
@@paolorossi8470
great comment, from someone who doesn't appear to have mastered basic grammar, never mind any of the sciences - "A scientists ......."
"......who cannot do his own research" - Pot - Kettle - Black ???
@@fifthoarsmanoftheacropolis4173 given the response, I think it's a kid. I know it's hard not to feed the trolls.
@@paolorossi8470
You don’t even know him, let alone what he does.
Maybe he is thanking him for the effort and time he spent on to make the video.
@@yippieskippy2971Not a kid, an apparently mentally-ill adult troll (best not to feed).
@@yippieskippy2971
Physically:- I don't know or care, but both mentally & emotionally:- absolutely just a juvenile.
So you are at least half right 😂
Science literacy is not high enough in certain professions (nurse educators for example) to qualify them to interpret scientific or medical literature.
Well, anyone who is degree competent, or even just has "stats 101" or equivalent, should be able to follow a scientific paper. If they have *the motivation* to read, analyze and fill any knowledge gaps.
But some "nurse educators" deliberately misunderstand and selectively report information, to keep profitable audiences.
A particular nurse educator has neither the ability nor desire to correctly interpret the literature, they are only interested in following the 💰
The silly thing is still appearing in my side bar happily being outraged!
@@Muritaipet in my experience people need considerably more than stats 101 to have science literacy. Most need regular professional development to be confident they can read and interpret and understand
@@Dietconsulting I disagree. As I said "if they have the motivation to read, analyze and fill any knowledge gaps". Part of my point was that it takes effort. But I think you only really need high school level chemistry or biology, and a willingness to find out what terms mean, to get a basic understanding of most papers.
Statistics are trickier, pre knowledge of that is almost essential. But it could be learned. All the knowledge of the world is available to you, on the device you are looking at. I could get a reasonable understanding of any paper you quote me, no matter what field it is in. *But it would require effort on my part*
I accept some deniers are not capable. But I think the real problem is if it takes effort, so most people will just find a video by someone who looks good.
I think an element of "bought science" was that the tobacco industry being forced to fund research into the effects of smoking and chose to pay for a repeat of previous research, endlessly collecting broadly similar data from the same vivisection studies. It satisfied the legal requirement and provided employment for science graduates but contributed nothing to the body of knowledge. I believe key studies that showed the extent of damage from asbestos exposure were wholly owned by the manufacturers (who had funded them) and the case bought by the US labour unions was wholly settled to avoid them being made public. It was not until decades later that the existence of the report became known because Jimmy Carter brought in freedom of information laws. Decades had gone by and thousands of workers died a horrible death while the report that would have changed practices in the industry sat in a top secret file in the boardroom. I don't think all "science" can be "bought" but it can be locally corrupted.
You are a great science communicator and defender of the scientific process. Thank you.
Fascinating! You are really worthy! I'm 85+ & well remember 1964 when I finally quit my 7 year nicotine habit. Also helped that my wife demanded that it was either quit smoking or lose her. No question.
As a dietitian I play "which particular crazy thing will we hear today" with my colleagues.
My high point was getting told i was in the pay of "big food, big pharma AND big vax" all in one week.
I'm still waiting for the back pay.
Especially funny as the biggest vax in the world is Serum Institute of India, putting out about 1.5 billion doses per year.
By way of comparison, in 2019 the two biggest US companies Merck & Pfizer did about 350 million between them.
Thank you so much for this very enlightening video
Percival Potts and his Lawbreaking Tots sounds like it should be a beloved children's book.
Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England medical journal, wrote a book about 20 year's ago on how big pharma lies.
I just read in the book "At home" by Bill Bryson the history of little boys working as chimney sweepers as early as three and half year old that who lived barely until 11 -13 yo.
Great Video!
The Merchants Of Doubt is a great read on a related subject.
Dr Wilson - this is exactly how I think history and philosophy of science can come together to help explain current scientific discourse! Keep it up - your work is fantastic. Also - best music in any science video
One of the current best examples of this is the “work” of Willie Soon he keeps publishing rubbish papers and going on talking tours denying anthropogenic climate change. And his rubbish keeps getting debunked by people who are actually in the appropriate fields instead of being a Ph.D. in Aerospace Engineering
Who are the people that you say debunk this Soon character?
What fields are these people in?
Why, specifically, are his papers "rubbish*?
@dianax266 Mann, van Storch, Svensson, Fu, Osborn & Briffa, the UN ICP, US National Academy of Sciences, to name but a few. Soon (along with Baliunas) were in the pockets of the petrochemical and energy industries to spread a false narrative!
@@dianax266 You can find plenty of information online. A good brief piece is "My Depressing Day With A Famous Climate Skeptic" on the npr web site. (I can't post the link on UA-cam.)
Soon's critics include climate scientists and people who are not climate scientists but know about the current state of the science. Soon himself does not have a degree in climate science but in aerospace engineering, although that's not why his papers are so bad. The main reason is that he keeps grasping at straws to justify his claim that the sun is the main driver of climate change, even though we measure solar output directly and can show that insolation has changed very little over recent decades and indeed has decreased slightly.
@@dianax266 Did you really ask such a stupid question? Willie Soon was caught hiding money from fossil fuel companies, he failed to identify his conflicts of interest and his research was childish.
"The Soon and Baliunas controversy involved the publication in 2003 of a review study written by the aerospace engineer Willie Soon and astronomer Sallie Baliunas in the journal Climate Research.[1] In the review, the authors expressed disagreement with the hockey stick graph and argued that historical temperature changes were related to solar variation rather than greenhouse gas emissions as was the position of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and other researchers. The publication was quickly taken up by the George W. Bush administration as a basis for amending the first Environmental Protection Agency's Report on the Environment.
The paper was strongly criticized by numerous scientists for its methodology and for its misuse of data from previously published studies, which prompted concerns about the peer review process of the paper. The controversy resulted in the resignation of half of the editors of the journal and in the admission by its publisher, Otto Kinne, that the paper should not have been published as it was. The article and responses to it featured in further global warming controversy, including questions about funding of the paper."
Well put and well said. Still, the tobacco example does illustrate that, while the scientific community can't be bought, public opinion can definitely be swayed by moneyed interests at least for some time. And specific studies, designed to yield particular, flawed, results, can be funded by moneyed interests to cloud the waters, again as has been done by the tobacco industry. "Doubt is our product," as they said.
EXCELLENT STRAWMAN!!! Aaaaand FALSE DICHOTOMY!!!!!!
WELL DONE!!!!!!!!!
You have no idea what either of those are.
@@joeylafrond2472 don’t be aahhhhh putz
And this is precisely why i always refer people to the current scientific consensus, because even when scientific exploration gets things wrong, that same consensus tends to be one of the first places that is addressing that they were wrong. Trusting the consensus isnt always perfect, but its by far the best option we have, by leaps and bounds. Thank you for the work you do!
Great channel
Thanks!
0:55
As a young scientist you want to disprove existing theories. We must get that through to the public. People think that scientist want to prove existing theories. No, you question things, you question everything. If you can disprove Newton's mechanic, you get the Nobel Prize. We've seen that.
"As a young scientist you want to disprove existing theories."
Wut? No one sought to disprove Newton, they found that through experimentation with large bodies Newtonian physics broke down. They didn't originally seek to overturn it.
Same thing with particle physics, standard physics started to break down at smaller and smaller masses, requiring them to reevaluate.
Thank you
This is great! What a resource.
Thanks for this video. Countering the "scientists are bought" trope counters a lot of misinformation and misinformers in one fell swoop. A broad look at issues like this with an overview of the history of an example is a good approach. Also liked the book recommendations at the end of the video. Thanks - you did a great job with this one.
I agree. Great job! I've come to the conclusion that I've been wrong over the past few years and now follow Dan and Susan's content believe it or not. We'll, I hold my hands up mate but atleast I can admit when I'm wrong.
I'm a sheep now baaaa baaaa 🐑😆👍
🐑🐑 are waaay smarter than you.
I think Dr Wilson is becoming more awesome over time!
A general comment re Dr Wilson's excellent videos - I can't believe how he manages to remain so calm when dealing with such 🤪🤪
"Nerds!" ~ Frederick Aloysius Palowaski a.k.a. Ogre
Anything can be bought.
Thank you very much .That was brilliant
"I don't care what science says... I go with my gut!" - Conspiracy Theorists
Until they cherry pick or quote mine the articles or phrases that confirm their biases!
@@alistaircorbishley5881Right. If anything science doesnt require trust or consesus but openess to new ideas. Most real world phenomena arent even directly measurable or predictable and can only be modeled. The mechanistic world view I smell on here in my opinion converges to religion. Which ironically is something they oppose so intensly.
@Kaassap Science is nothing like religion! Religion by its very nature depends on belief and faith in a concept that can't be identified or proven, it relies on centuries old passages passed down from 2nd, 3rd and 4th literature. Science however depends on knowledge, proven hypothesis to form theories and laws. Unlike religion, science doesn't depend on dogma and is always looking for evidence to strengthen the scientific theory.
@@alistaircorbishley5881 Well said.
@@Kaassap "Most real world phenomena arent even directly measurable or predictable and can only be modeled."
6:20
Rabbits have rabbit skin. Not bear skin. Checkmate, Dr. Wilson.
He said: ”Rabbits bare skin”
Not bear skin! 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️😂
They removed the rabbits fur before applying it.🙄
@@jnmc2498I tried really hard to make the sarcasm obvious 😂
if you are ever in Hawaii, hit me up. I want to take you fishing. Thank you for your insights.
Yes conflict of interest exists in science
To the extent that science can be bought, it's definitely not the wholesale "pretty much every scientist in the world except for those handful new Galileos who blog on this subject" kind of scenario, which is usually what's being claimed or suggested. Rather than a much more complex and nuanced scenario, on which Western mainstream science would be largely near the best ballpark, with some degree of deviation from things like fraud that goes on uncaught for a while, perhaps in-betweens like poor science and predatory journals, and different financial incentives to invest in some areas than others, even investment only on legitimate science, rather than highly-convincing pseudoscientific misinformation, of the kind used by the oil and tobacco industries, surprisingly enough sometimes hiring the same "researchers" for such disparate fields.
The forces acting against what would be a truly scientific/impartial consensus seem to be primarily aligned with the political right-wing, although there can be some left-wing instances, like biology in the USSR (if that can be truly considered "left," rather than only nominally/propaganda-wise left), and some contemporary socially controversial subjects (not that the right-wing is necessarily correct when there's some unscientific LW bias, though, more often arguably they'll even have something even worse as the competing "truth").
One of the most interesting TED talks was from Ben Goldacre, along the lines of "what doctors don't know about the medications they prescribe." While addressing serious problems, it's definitely not the kind of scenario generally imagined by someone who's promoting some idea that goes against the mainstream, although it does have some common element on financial interests of the industry.
That's going back a while, way back to a time when even journalists were interesting in objective truth. Has anything changed since then that would make it easier now to do what tobacco attempted? Is science as secure a career as then? Do scientists have more debt? Are there more of you competing for grants? Does society still afford higher status to intellectual achievement than to financial success? Are the stakes higher for all of us financially? Do we perchance operate under a different economic paradigm? Do academic institutions still have the same goals and the same style of management? Do scientific publishers have the same funding models? Is the perceived relative value of pure science to applied science the same?
In what direction is this trending?
You are a gem Debunk
Steven Johnson in general is a great author.
NERDS! Thank you! 🙏👏👏👏
One of your most important videos - understanding the scientific method and the consensus of the scientific community is a very powerful pushback on all the disinformation out there
🙏
Love this channel. Thank you for this!
You rock, yet again
I thought this was gonna be about electric cars powered by hamster wheels
6:52 WOW! BLACK LUNG!
For a better test of one's ability to read evidence or non-corruptibility, try a subject that a significant amount of people still believe. For example, ideas about hydration, that (outside unusual circumstances) people should drink even when they are not thirsty (though at this point it's just laymen who believe it).
Import information. Unfortunately, the people who need to hear it won’t spend the few minutes to listen.
Nor do they have the capacity to understand even if they did spend those minutes.
@@terjeoseberg990Some have no desire to understand
@@lindaward, No desire, nor the capacity.
😂
Yes.
Thank you! You've given me some points to bring up against conspiracy theorists.
Hmm 🤠💜
People can be bought. Products can be bought. To say "science" can be bought is to make a rather obvious categorical error.
If it’s bought it’s no longer science.
@@Theactivepsychos Or rather... willfully dishonest science reporting/education, and purposeful dishonesty on the part of people and corporations.
Science has to be financed, material costs money, and scientists also need to put food on their table.
Is that science being bought…
@@Theactivepsychosso "science" is not a factor then...since you can't really distinguish it from the fake.
Science done properly is true but you can't verify that... that's the whole point of the argument.
You're being silly, because obviously when they say that they don't mean it literally. They mean that an accumulation of poor scientific work can be bought which will lead people to take the specific interpretation of the data that the buyer wants them to take.
All scientific studies should have an explicit section written with the media and or general public as their target separate to the normal conclusion sections etc.
I agree there should be far better communication to the public - not just on big issues like pandemics & vaccines, but on all new developments. Maybe the MSM should get together & fund a journal (like Nature) but aimed at a level the masses can easily navigate.......a sort of "Science for Dummies"
I was happy to see a study published recently with a separate panel with the conclusions in plain language. Hopefully more will pick up on this.
One problem is that the general public doesn't differentiate between a sciency-looking facebook post or Joe Rogan guest and something that is actually peer-reviewed.
Having said that, I'd be happy to include the section you speak of.
It's estimated that half of the "scientific" literature is false. What half do you believe? Lol
I was not taking a side on global warming, it was just one of 2 example topics only mentioned.
But science literacy is why I watch this cannel.?.?.?
While I agree with what you say as long as you are talking about major issues. One of the few scientific papers I have read is a little niche, comparing a product made out of steel v plastic. It was paid for by a multinational steel company and it was almost as if some of tests were designed to show that steel was better. In fact one of the tests was done on a 15* year old plastic product that failed, but that test was not repeated on a 15 year old steel product, all the steel products were new. So nothing they said was wrong as such, but the result of "steel good, plastic bad" is perhaps questionable. Now sure if there was enough money in the issue for multinational plastics company to want to pay for another round of research maybe the results would be a little different, but there isn't so those results will stand.
Still it's not like I have a better idea, and surely being right or self correcting 99.9999% of the time has to count for something.
You should have more views
Engli Shurshon
8:29
No.
@@joeylafrond2472OP has spoken highly of disgraced former doctor Mark Geier 🤪
👀 Wait, did he just sort of try to generalize based on one sample?
Just saying the quiet part out loud.
Hey, Dr. Wilson, great video. I was wondering if you’d do a review of the study “Increased Age-Adjusted Cancer Mortality After the Third mRNA-Lipid Nanoparticle Vaccine Dose During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Japan?” Everyone on the AV side is citing the hell out of it.
As another commenter mentioned:
"The authors find a population-level correlation (and even then only for some cancer types), then pretend those cancer types are a unique group, then dismiss the alternative, and far, far more plausible, explanation of reduced screening out of hand, and then top it all off with anecdotes and thoroughly debunked sources written, among others, by a naturopath, computer scientist, and discredited doctors."
Published in a predatory journal. It's clickbait, nothing more
In another post from a fellow UA-camr "Gibo et al. note that
"excess deaths from causes other than COVID-19 have been reported in various countries, including deaths from cancer".
The reference cited re the excess cancer deaths is a modelling study by Maringe et al., entitled "The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer deaths due to delays in diagnosis in England, UK: a national, population-based, modelling study".
Maringe et al. noted that during the 2020 UK lockdown:
"cancer screening [was] suspended, routine diagnostic work deferred, and only urgent symptomatic cases prioritised for diagnostic intervention".
And that the purpose of the modelling was to
"estimate the impact of diagnostic delays"
Yet Gibo - who is a pediatrician with no expertise in cancer, and whose paper notes that cancer is largely a disease of the elderly - says nothing about the above.
Instead, Gibo et al. cite articles by individuals such as Seneff, McCullough and Makis, and papers published in an obscure (Lithuanian) MDPI journal - which "covers all problems related to medicine" - to attribute increased cancer deaths to the mRNA vax.
Gibo et al. note that further analysis including vax status is required.
The fact that they neglected to take this key confounder into account completely invalidates their statistical analyses."
@@richvid9814 Thank you
Gee, do you think sheltering at home, not having regular access to your PCP for cancer screening, and late diagnosis of rapidly growing cancers could have something to do with it? All the more reason why suppressing infection through massive vaccination campaigns is so crucial. Stay boosted!
When Seneff is involved, the disinformation is sure to follow!
Fake paper in a fake journal. No decent journal would have ever published it.
Great vid...w/ your jokes, you really TRIED to make it as cringe as "Scott's Tots" though!
Thank you for all your great videos!!! Please look at the video from British Parliament and covered by your favourite nurse educator!!! Wall to wall previously debunked Gish gallop of nonsense!!!
Ah yes, Bridgen - whom a High Court judge described as a liar (and a number of other uncomplimentary things).
How's it going for AstraZeneca now ? Another admittance of harm for the safe and effective..😊
You forgot to mention self censorship.
By way of findings that never get published for fear of losing pharma funding.
Self censorship also extends to GPs and individuals that don't publically, on social media etc don't say what they truly believe.
Another recent point is patient advocacy groups that are funded by pharma.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA
@@jaykanta4326thanks. I'm not sure what you mean. I guess you are in agreement with my comment?
@@markytickers It's hilarious and pathetic, it's an attempt to claim there's no evidence because....there's no evidence. It's an excuse.
One only has to look at the joke that has become McCullough or Pierre Kory to see that they're not worried about losing "funding", they have plenty, but they won't publish any credible research.
Hi, Marky, I see you're still ticking. Is this "proof of life"?
@@williamverhoef4349 thanks for your comment. I must apologise I have no idea what you mean. Again I must assume you have nothing to say to the contrary, and are another person who agrees. Or just a helper for Dan to increase comment activity and thereby revenue from this channel.
Who do you work for?😂
Appreciate your work but between P hacking and lack of standards for verifying study goals before studies begin, science is definitely corruptable. Add to that the publication bias incentivizing positive and sensational results and there’s big things to be concerned about.
The answer to bad science is better science
The points you raise are concerns. But it's worth noting a false study will eventually show, when the results are used in the real world.
Reality always wins.
What about the science about climate change? Big oil seems to be doing a pretty good job buying that science.
Their agents are easy to find and their funded research gets identified, retracted and blacklisted pretty quickly. They have a couple of known journals but overall the consensus research is in the high 90% range.
As an example of what happens when you take fossil fuel dollars and don't disclose it, Willie Soon published a paper that was so ridiculous on it's face that it prompted an audit which turned up hidden funding.
For some reason the Smithsonian has kept Willie Soon as an employee, despite his willful fraud and deception. He still publishes in a small number of low-tier journals but most journals won't accept his name on a research paper after what he did.
John Christy has lost all credibility when it was found he refused to correct the UAH satellite dataset for diurnal temperature shifts that were causing a bias in the data. Due to that, UAH datasets are no longer used by very many scientists and most use the RSS dataset instead. John Christy is heavily funded by fossil fuel money.
Then you have all the influencers and bloggers that receive hidden funds from fossil fuels. People like Tony Heller, Anthony Watts and a few others.
While you're driving around in your lithium powered vehicle or cycling around in your bike to pick up avocado's at your local store........remember Greta and co are flying around from state to state in their fuel powered private jets and eating steak dinners mate. Lol
@@RabJ208, Greta doesn’t have a private jet and you’re obviously a fool.
@@RabJ208, Greta doesn’t have a private jet, and you’re a fool.
yes is the answer
Next on TLC: Real Biologists of Orange County
It's all designed to sow confusion. Michael Mann discusses the exact same strategy employed by big oil re anthropocentric climate change in his book The Climate Wars. Of course, there's the vaccine wars, though that stems from a loose collection of conspiracy theorists on the interwebs.
You should do a vid on conspiracy theory per se, as a mode of thought (positing usually vast and sometimes global conspiracies, the lack of evidence for the conspiracy is itself evidence of the efficacy of the conspiracy, not to mention cherry picking info etc)
He did sort of address that, in his video "I was a conspiracy theorist, until I became a scientist"
@@Muritaipet Thanks! I'll look it up
Bernays, worse than Hitler.
While science can’t necessarily be bought, scientists can. Tobacco propaganda, pesticides, global warming, etc.
You cover this. It’s just important for laypeople to understand science communication and individual scientists do not speak for the scientific community necessarily.
Good video. I wish science communication was better.
Prove it
@@coimbralaw Prove what? That science can’t necessarily be bought? It spans the globe in every nation, even ideologically opposed nations with no real incentives to cooperate in a grand conspiracy; millions upon millions of humans are employed in the endeavor across the globe, and it produces real fruit.
Are you the iconic fool who types on their smartphone while believing science is a sham?
@@coimbralaw Prove what, exactly? That your mother was right to carry her pregnancy to term?
Global warming? What a stupid comment.
Individual scientists can but nowhere near enough to produce a scientific consensus. Sowing doubt in the general public is relatively easy though.
I've heard people say , "When environmental issues come up in congress or in court (IE: climate change or industrial pollution), both sides have a team of scientists backing them." What do we all think of that angle?
On a slight tangent..... The science of climate change is quite settled. So I'm irritated by those who deny, just because of their dishonesty. If someone is pro global warming, or don't want anything to change for economic reasons, they should just say so.
I've always been vaguely pro global warming, I don't like cold winters. And New Zealand was identified in the initial IPCC report, as a likely beneficiary of global warming.
Now we have the experience of climate change based extreme weather events, I'm not sure those last two points are valid.
None of the scientists arguing against climate change seem to have any qualifications relevant to climate change.
None of the "experts" arguing against the vax have any relevant expertise.
What are some examples of the scientists on each side of the argument re industrial pollution?
@@MuritaipetYes, the more severe, more frequent weather events have been wreaking carnage for some years now.
Edit:
I relocated from Sydney to Darwin 30y ago because I hate the cold.
And recently relocated to Brisbane because Darwin has become unlivable - unless wishes to, and can afford to - live in a/c 24/7.
@@lindaward Yes, we seem to be having major, multi region floods every second year. Which of course was part of warning on increased average temperatures. "Increased frequency of extreme weather events."
Once a shill always a shill
I mean this 100% genuinely- Break of dawn is the worst anti-vaxxer I’ve ever come across. Anti-vaxxers, your movement would be stronger if you politely encouraged Break of Dawn not to post anymore self owns 😂
I know you and NFD love your troII baiting, I can't be bothered. But you know breakofdawn and paultaylor are the same troII?
@@MuritaipetYeah I saw NFD. Some of the syntax is giving me Skidmark vibes as well 😂
@@steveoxocube I wondered the same. But I looked at PT's & Skidmarks channels, and the evidence would suggest otherwise. It's more likely the troII version of convergent evolution
@Hans_Anders To continue with pun-ishing prose.......
I suspect breakofdawn has already seen the light, & received his medicine. But despite all that, he just wants to hide under a troII-bridge
I'd consider Jasper far worse, but at least he doesn't have conversations between his own accounts.
Teenagers arent little kids lets not infantalize. Not ok
Of course it can be bought 😅
THE WHO & COVID IS AIRBORNE
Gov capitulation & hybrid immunity fallacy
Excellent - glad you posted that ........at least everyone now knows how clueless & deluded you are.
"THE WHO" are airborne?
@@Muritaipet not so much these days, but in their heyday in the 70s? they probably took lots of tour jets
@@MadDgtl Yeah. But the original post says "is", meaning it's happening right now. Which surprised me. I assumed that as well as disbanding, they'd be well past touring by now.
Maybe the OP meant the World Health Organisation have levitated in some fashion?
@@Muritaipet
Hmmmm.....maybe.......just a thought.........bear with me on this one .......If the WHO are no longer touring, perhaps the WHO are using the WHO's old tour jet?
Mind you, the guys are pretty ancient - maybe not so much a tour jet as a tour DC3?
This was much to do about nothing. You need to look at science today. This was somewhat cherry picking.
I tell thee what my lady. A college of witcrackers could not flout me from my good humour this day.
And what do you do in science? Anything?
Much *ado* about nothing
@@Muritaipet🤭
What are some non-cherries that Dr Wilson should have looked at?
This guy lives in academic fantasy world. He needs some real work corporate experience
And what scientific education do you have?
@@paolorossi8470 Unfortunately you have no evidence to support your claim.
@@paolorossi8470 Rickettsia akari, bucko.
Describing Wilson as someone living in fantasy is a polite way of putting it.
@@paolorossi8470 The burden of evidence is on you. You made the claim so you have to back it up but you can't.
They bought you didn't they dr.
FFS - if you're going to throw in petty insults, can't you at least try to think of something novel? ......or at least something that hasn't been said in the comments of every other video he's uploaded in the last 3 years.
Are you bought.
@@Barry-tl3ru a long time ago ........its called " being married"
@@Barry-tl3ru What a child.
@@Barry-tl3ru You can't back your claim with evidence because it's simply not true.
Now do one on the sugar companies paying scientists to blame heart disease on saturated fats/ animal products. Do better
I think you copletely missed the point here.This was never about smoking=cancer - the question Dan answered was:- Can science be bought? He only used smoking/cancer as an example of centuries of scientists observations, experiments & evidence directly linking smoking to specific cancers, while a decade's attempts by special interest groups to discredit the science failed.
He does touch on the fat vs sugar argument briefly about 40 seconds in - I suspect he chose not to use that as an example because its a far more complicated & nuanced discussion & therefore not suitable as an example here.
Of course, since you appear to feel so strongly about this you could always bring all you research & sources together and create your own youtube video on the subject - I'm sure all of us would be interested to see that.
"Saturated fats are found in animal-based foods like beef, pork, poultry, full-fat dairy products and eggs and tropical oils like coconut, and palm. Because they are typically solid at room temperature, they are sometimes called “solid fats.” Saturated fats can cause problems with your cholesterol levels, which can increase your risk of heart disease. Replacing foods that are high in saturated fat with healthier options can lower risk of heart disease." - American Heart Association.
"The American Heart Association recommends limiting added sugars to no more than 6 percent of calories each day. For most American women, that’s no more than 100 calories per day, or about 6 teaspoons of sugar. For men, it’s 150 calories per day, or about 9 teaspoons. The AHA recommendations focus on all added sugars, without singling out any particular types such as high-fructose corn syrup." - Also the American Heart Association.
@@fifthoarsmanoftheacropolis4173 We don't quite have "centuries" scientists' observations, experiments & evidence linking saturated fat/animal products to heart disease, but we do have decades. Ancel Keys was one of the first scientists to report this observation back in the 50s, of course, he has been much maligned for it by interested parties ever since.
Plant Chompers has made some excellent videos debunking a lot of the "funk" around nutrition science. Highly recommend you check them out.
@@Tofu_va_BienThanks for that heads-up re Plant Chompers, shall check them out.
This is so ....... dumb..research is funded
Not a single mention of covid science……
He was talking about the field. Covid science falls into the field.
don’t be asking those pesky discomfiting questions, just embrace the consensus ! 😂
This channel is for those who believe claims like "safe & effective" and "stay at home to protect your granny". Lol
I'm sorry it's too complicated for you. It's easier for you to be scared of everything you can't understand and then make fun of it. Bless your heart.
@@Twonicus80, you bought into the fear porn. Lol
@@Twonicus80Evidence doesn't exist in a vacuum. Information has been manipulated since the dawn of time. Just because you call something "science" this doesn't mean it's the standard for truth.
@youtubehatesfreespeech2555 I recommend you lift up your shirt, and talk directly to your navel. It would save us all time.
@@RabJ756 so, you're going with the "I'm rubber, you're glue" strategy? That's fitting.
The effect I think needs studied is how once there is a perception of two sides, the two sides tend to get equal time and that creates a perception of false parity between two opinions. If one percent of scientists believe one thing and 99 percent another, and you give them equal time on TV, you're overplatforming the minority
Well-said 👍
It was the reason that, at one point, the public was divided 50/50 about the beliefs of climatologist with respect to whether AGW is true, while the beliefs of the climatologists themselves was split 97/3.
97% of people will tell you what you want to hear if it is required to survive...