| | | Wharfie, He was studying intensity of fires. It doesn't matter whether the fire was started by arson, a car, a bullet, a falling wire, a dragging chain, a cigarette butt, or lightning, it will be more intense. It does matter because his research is being used by the media to blame climate change for starting those fires.
It also matters because he is not allowed to even bring up that point, no matter how irrelevant it may be.
Finally it matters because the focus in research these days is getting published, not necessarily being accurate or being useful when it comes to discovering the truth. There is a vested interest in skewing reports, hiding "inconvenient facts," and omitting details not because they may or may not be irrelevant, but simply because they counter the narrative.
The peer review process is supposed to filter this stuff out, but it's all too clear to me that the peer review process is in on the shenanigans.
Tenchusatsu |
|
