Censoring of scientific research that is "unpopular"

[alhoon]

Recently, an article about the onset of gender dysphoria was retracted on bogus reasons, practically because Springer didn't want to deal with the controversy.
So, Springer made up a reason to retract the article, falsely claiming that the people involved in the study haven't given permission for the results to be published, when the questionnaire had that information.

https://www.thefp.com/p/trans-activi...SZii1aFK07P--U

I agree with the author that this is a case of censoring because a lot of people didn't like the results.
In short, the article tries to explain "Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria", i.e. the recent trend in the past 5 years for otherwise feminine girls to suddenly proclaim they are trans - and groups of them coming out together.
Progressive activists did not like the results, so they pressured the journal to retract it.

This is a very very bad practice in my opinion. And sadly, it is neither new nor limited to progressives. Conservatives have been targeting articles, journals and scientists for a long time. Just see what happened with CoVID and how Fauci was treated. But unlike the case with CoVID, this case of censorship blocks one of the very few articles published on the issue. And shows that one of the main reasons there are few articles that explain why gender dysphoria increases nowdays - censorship is a major reason.

I would like to know whether people think the journal was right to stay away from the controversy, or whether they believe that indeed not all the necessary steps were taken.

PS. 52% of parents of that study (1600+ cases) who had received a referral to a specialist, claim they felt pressured by the gender specialist to facilitate some sort of transition for their child. Which is not a surprise considering those specialists make a living from those diagnoses and treatments. This is asking a group of fishermen whether you should consume more fish.

[conon394]

II have to disagree. There look have been serious methodological failures is how the sample was gathered and from where and its seems the like questiare and consent form amount almost coaching in some cases. Paper likely should not have seen the light day to begin with.

https://link.springer.com/article/10...508-019-1453-2

You might consider Phycology has a pretty track record for reproducibility in many for exactly the kind of methody issues cited in my first link. The reality is a lot papers should likely being pulled.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.18248

[alhoon]

II have to disagree. There look have been serious methodological failures is how the sample was gathered and from where and its seems the like questiare and consent form amount almost coaching in some cases. Paper likely should not have seen the light day to begin with.

https://link.springer.com/article/10...508-019-1453-2

You might consider Phycology has a pretty track record for reproducibility in many for exactly the kind of methody issues cited in my first link. The reality is a lot papers should likely being pulled.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.18248

Ehmmm... You are talking about a DIFFERENT article. Then one you refer to has been published in 2018 and reducted in 2019. The one I am talking about has been posted in March 2023.

[conon394]

Ehmmm... You are talking about a DIFFERENT article. Then one you refer to has been published in 2018 and reducted in 2019. The one I am talking about has been posted in March 2023.

Yes I was little unclear but basically Bailey has repeated the Littman study with expended sample size and not really responded to the core problems of methodology. The same problems remain. In some way when he describes his co author 'otherwise unnamed mother and a website' and how they derived the data they practically doubled down.

I should have been clear why I cited the criticism of Littman it is core the point.

This was the source of the parent sample:

https://www.parentsofrogdkids.com/

Really think you are dealing with a random sample that has any statistical power?

[alhoon]

Yes I was little unclear but basically Bailey has repeated the Littman study with expended sample size and not really responded to the core problems of methodology. The same problems remain. In some way when he describes his co author 'otherwise unnamed mother and a website' and how they derived the data they practically doubled down.

I should have been clear why I cited the criticism of Littman it is core the point.

This was the source of the parent sample:

https://www.parentsofrogdkids.com/

Really thing you are dealing with a random sample that has any statistical power?

It was published in a very good magazine. I believe that thus, it was extensively peer reviewed. They don't publish everything there, it is not easy for a paper to be accepted in a high-tier journal. The median for the first decision is 87 days unlike most journals that have such decisions within 40 days or so.

Furthermore, from what I read, the article was reducted because Springer was pressured that the editor is a naughty guy and not because of flaws found. Even Springer admits they took it down because the questionaire supposedly didn't ask for permission to publish the results although the author of the article said it did.
Even if Springer is right, there is no question about the scientific background or the statistical sample in the reduction.

[Genava]

It was published in a very good magazine. I believe that thus, it was extensively peer reviewed.

Not necessarily.




Paper that claimed the Sun caused global warming gets retracted
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020...ets-retracted/

Paper that found ‘climate crisis’ to be ‘not evident yet’ retracted after re-review
https://retractionwatch.com/2023/08/...ter-re-review/

[alhoon]

Those were re-reviewed and hard scientific counter-evidence was discussed. Also, it is very rare that a good paper in a good journal gets retracted

[Genava]

Those were re-reviewed and hard scientific counter-evidence was discussed. Also, it is very rare that a good paper in a good journal gets retracted

In this case, the main argument for the retraction is an ethical one about the data: https://retractionwatch.com/2023/05/...ays-co-author/

That's probably opportunistic but indeed there was an issue with the journal guidelines.

[NorthernXY]

As a biochemist, I'll give my two cents.

This has been going on since forever. I remember my first year in college "An Inconvenient Truth" was released and the issue of Global Warming was off limits to discuss. Professors who openly opposed it were fired or blacklisted. Most scientists aren't educated enough to understand the actual science behind GW. One of my best friends became an ecowarrior while still in our undergrad, protesting oil and nuclear energy because someone told her to. Despite being capable of understanding GW, she never did any research as to why CO2 was causing GW, just parroted what she was told. Another friend of mine was also an extreme progressive, incapable of understanding other people's positions and life. Good guy, but smug as . We were shopping in a Winco (grocery store) for a department party, we walked by the meat section and he saw a 10 lb. ground meat item and laughed at it as he couldn't understand why anyone would buy that much meat. Needless to say, both of them were sickly looking vegans.

In the 50s the American grain lobby effectively bought the American Heart Association. Unsurprisingly, grains were suddenly the healthiest food and meat was bad for you and made grains the "most important food group" forming the base of the food pyramid. This was forced down our throats despite no other ape having grain as a staple of their diets. We've been pushing back in the last couple of decades, with a new food pyramid demonstrating our success.

[alhoon]

As a biochemist, I'll give my two cents.

This has been going on since forever.

Indeed. Also, keep in mind that while that specific article was what pushed me to make this thread, I am as interested in what you said about the ecowarriors censoring discourse on climate change and... what was news to me, the grain-is-good-meat-is-bad mantra. I find this very interesting, especially since you mention something that now makes absolute sense: no other apes eat as many grains as we do.
On the other hand, they can't make bread, but I see the point here.
In my country, grains don't receive that much preferential treatment and we're told eating too much pasta, bread and grains in general contributes to weight gain, blood sugar and it is not good for the heart. It's not the past 2 decades either; Since the 90s that I was in middleschool and I remember such things, we were told by ailing grandparents etc that they can't eat too many grains.

[NorthernXY]

Pertaining to diet. The Atkins and Keto diets have shown to actually decrease low-density lipoproteins (bad cholesterol) and increase high-density lipoproteins (good cholesterol). Also I've read the Keto diet can help some individuals with autism. As a person with high-functioning autism, formerly known as Asperger syndrome, I found this quite interesting and formed my independent hypothesis that pregnant women who ingest a lot of grains cause brain inflammation in developing fetuses that are sensitive to grains. As for why autism is more prevalent in men than women, women develop anti-bodies to "males" after having a male child, essentially treating the fetus like a parasite.

Pertaining to GW, it's been getting warmer since the mid 1600s, known as the Little Ice Age. Most data used in GW is extremely unscientific because they only record temperature since we've developed thermometers in the 1800s. So they were able to look back and see a rise in temperatures, but they don't establish a baseline of temperatures before the Industrial Revolution. You have to have a baseline, I'd get laughed at in a conference if a showed them my enzyme kinetics without a baseline. Looking at ice samples from Greenland are pretty interesting. Showing the rise of CO2 typically happens after a warming period. They also show the Roman economy activity measured by how much lead is in each layer of ice.

One thing I need to look up is the natural recycling of oil and natural gases. It's possible they act like carbon traps, reducing the carbon and hydrogen in the life cycle. Studies have shown increased levels of CO2 increase plant growth rate. Plants in turn let out small molecules that make it more likely to rain. Essentially the Earth "knows" how to rebound from natural disasters and some pollution. All that said, we need to care more about us polluting the environment.

[Genava]

Pertaining to GW, it's been getting warmer since the mid 1600s, known as the Little Ice Age.

The Little Ice Age is a period going from 1300 to 1860. There are particularly strong cold events occurring after 1600, notably 1683/1684, 1708/1709 and 1816.

The longest temperature record, in Central England, shows no continuous warming period of several decades before the end of the 19th century.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Most data used in GW is extremely unscientific because they only record temperature since we've developed thermometers in the 1800s. So they were able to look back and see a rise in temperatures, but they don't establish a baseline of temperatures before the Industrial Revolution.

Thermometers didn't have been developed in the 1800s, they are much older. The issue is that the coverage of reliable temperature measurements is not widespread enough before 1850.

But we have at least enough to build a reference before the 20th century, when the use of fossil fuels began to skyrocket.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

To look further in the past, the only way is to use methods developed in paleoclimatology, notably with the study of isotopic ratios. The analysis of multiple ice cores in Greenland shows that the current warming looks unusual in regards to the last millennium. The figure below goes from 1000 to 1960, using the data from Vinther et al. (2009) :

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

There are also some evidences in the finding of archaeological material in the Alps which seems to have been covered in ice continuously until recently:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Recently, a study has shown that the current Siberian heating is unprecedented during the past seven millennia:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Furthermore, I would really like to point out that the role of CO2 on climate was studied long before we could measure significant global warming. It started a long time ago with Tyndall:
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.co...0.1002/wea.386

Then it was Svante Arrhenius in 1896: http://www.rsc.org/images/arrhenius1...m18-173546.pdf

Thomas Chrowder Chamberlin, 1899: https://www.jstor.org/stable/30055497

Guy Stewart Callendar, 1938: http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~ed/callendar_1938.pdf

Gilbert Norman Plass, 1956: https://www.americanscientist.org/ar...nd-the-climate

Gilbert Norman Plass brilliantly summarized the primary role of CO2 on the climate in 1956:

In a similar manner the temperature at the surface of the Earth is controlled by the transparency of the atmosphere in the visible and infrared portions of the spectrum. The incoming radiation from the sun in the visible portion of the spectrum reaches the surface of the Earth on a clear day with relatively little attenuation since the atmosphere is transparent to most frequencies in the visible. However, in order to have a warm climate, this heat energy must be held near the surface of the Earth and cannot be reradiated to space immediately. The atmosphere is opaque or partially opaque to a large range of frequencies in the infrared because of the absorption properties of the three relatively rare gases described above. Thus radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface cannot escape freely to space and the temperature at the surface is higher than it would be otherwise. The atmosphere has just the same properties as the glass in the greenhouse. The carbon dioxide theory states that, as the amount of carbon dioxide increases, the atmosphere becomes opaque over a larger frequency interval; the outgoing radiation is trapped more effectively near the Earth’s surface and the temperature rises. The latest calculations show that if the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere should double, the surface temperature would rise 3.6 degrees Celsius and if the amount should be cut in half, the surface temperature would fall 3.8 degrees.

The carbon dioxide theory was first proposed in 1861 by Tyndall. The first extensive calculations were necessarily done by very approximate methods. There are thousands of spectral lines due to carbon dioxide which are responsible for the absorption and each of these lines occurs in a complicated pattern with variations in intensity and the width of the spectral lines. Further the pattern is not even the same at all heights in the atmosphere, since the width and intensity of the spectral lines varies with the temperature and pressure. Only recently has a reasonably accurate solution to the problem of the influence of carbon dioxide on surface temperature been possible, because of accurate infrared measurements, theoretical developments, and the availability of a high-speed electronic computer.

The fact that water vapor absorbs to some extent in the same spectral interval as carbon dioxide is the basis for the usual objection to the carbon dioxide theory. According to this argument the water vapor absorption is so large that there would be virtually no change in the outgoing radiation if the carbon dioxide concentration should change. However, this conclusion was based on early, very approximate treatments of the very complex problem of the calculation of the infrared flux in the atmosphere. Recent and more accurate calculations that take into account the detailed structure of the spectra of these two gases show that they are relatively independent of one another in their influence on the infrared absorption. There are two main reasons for this result: (1) there is no correlation between the frequencies of the spectral lines for carbon dioxide and water vapor and so the lines do not often overlap because of nearly coincident positions for the spectral lines; (2) the fractional concentration of water vapor falls off very rapidly with height whereas carbon dioxide is nearly uniformly distributed. Because of this last fact, even if the water vapor absorption were larger than that of carbon dioxide in a certain spectral interval at the surface of the Earth, at only a short distance above the ground the carbon dioxide absorption would be considerably larger than that of the water vapor. Careful estimates show that the temperature changes given above for carbon dioxide would not be reduced by more than 20 per cent because of water vapor absorption.

Those were the pioneers on the topic. This was the physical background that built the current view of the scientific community, emerging the following years among scientists. It was not the IPCC, created in 1988, that made the consensus on the matter.

It was from the 1950s that the subject began to attract the interest of the public and major scientific institutions. Notably it has been mentioned in a documentary broadcast on tv:


Then a report from the President’s Science Advisory Committee in 1965 (under Lyndon B. Johnson):http://www.climatefiles.com/climate-...arbon-dioxide/
And another report in 1979 by the National Research Council: https://www.bnl.gov/envsci/schwartz/...report1979.pdf

An excerpt from the 1965 report is particularly interesting in regards to the stratosphere. It made a prediction we can verify today:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

This stratospheric cooling simultaneous to a tropospheric warming is a really a strong signature of an enhanced greenhouse effect.

Finally, we have been able to observe the enhanced greenhouse effect, from a spectral point of view. Both from ground and from space. Especially with this study by Feldman et al. (2015) called "Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010". They were able to see the fluctuation of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere in their measurements. The seasonality of CO2 was in the infrared radiation measured! And they carefully took in account the wavelengths to rule out any perturbation by water vapor or change in temperature. It was a flawless demonstration and the measurements confirmed the calculations made by previous physicists for climate modelling:
https://phys.org/news/2015-02-carbon...se-effect.html

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

And there are other studies supporting the evidences...

Radiative forcing ‐ measured at Earth's surface ‐ corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....9/2003GL018765

Global atmospheric downward longwave radiation over land surface under all-sky conditions from 1973 to 2008
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....9/2009JD011800

Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997
https://www.researchgate.net/publica..._1970_and_1997

Observational Evidence of Increasing Global Radiative Forcing:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....9/2020GL091585
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3072/d...t-off-balance/

Looking at ice samples from Greenland are pretty interesting. Showing the rise of CO2 typically happens after a warming period.

This is a strawman argument. The view from the scientific literature is that CO2 played a role in the feedback cycles, amplifying the changes in temperature.

Here a mainstream source of scientific vulgarization on the topic: https://www.carbonbrief.org/explaine...-the-ice-ages/

And it says:

Changes in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations – and, in particular, CO2 – play a large role in the development of cold conditions during ice ages and warm conditions during interglacial periods. In this case, CO2 is not the immediate cause of ice ages; rather, it serves as a feedback to amplify changes initiated by orbital variations.
[...]
Changes in orbital cycles do not immediately cause rises or falls in atmospheric CO2. Rather, initial increases in ice cover in high-latitude areas trigger feedbacks that cause atmospheric CO2 to fall at the start of ice ages.

This happens in a multitude of ways. As ice sheets grow, sea levels change dramatically, falling around 120 meters compared to today’s levels and exposing large areas of land currently underwater and allowing growing vegetation to take up more CO2.

Colder ocean water dissolves more CO2, absorbing more from the atmosphere, though this is somewhat offset by the effect of higher salinity on ocean CO2 absorption – as fresh water from snow freezes into ice sheets.
[...]
The effect of the orbital features on the total sunlight reaching the Earth is almost zero; the sunshine is just moved between areas and seasons. But, the whole world cools into an ice age, and the whole world warms coming out of an ice age, despite half the world getting less sun when the other half gets more. And, so far, all the explanations of this require the effects of the CO2, which beautifully explain it.

It is very important to understand that the ice ages were triggered or terminated by changes in the incoming sunlight around the Northern Pole. That's the theory of Milankovitch, not all the orbital variations are affecting the global climate, but the orbital variations that causes changes in the Northern Hemisphere, especially during Summer Solstice in the Arctic circle. For those changes around the Arctic circle to have a global effect, they must have triggered other processes, what we call feedback cycles or feedback loops. CO2 and CH4 were a part of those feedback.

If you don't believe me, you can listen to Richard Alley, a famous geologist who made a presentation for a National Academy of Sciences Annual Meeting.

[NorthernXY]

This is a strawman argument. The view from the scientific literature is that CO2 played a role in the feedback cycles, amplifying the changes in temperature.

No it isn't, when we look into ice cores with CO2, it comes after an increase in temperature. Which would cause a positive feedback loop, and we don't see that.


What they don't teach you in school is H20 is THE major green house gas.

Water vapor is Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas. It’s responsible for about half of Earth’s greenhouse effect

https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask...nhouse-effect/

...said Eric Fetzer, an atmospheric scientist who works with AIRS data at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. "Water vapor is the big player in the atmosphere as far as climate is concerned."

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fe...r_warming.html

The Little Ice Age is a period going from 1300 to 1860. There are particularly strong cold events occurring after 1600, notably 1683/1684, 1708/1709 and 1816.

The longest temperature record, in Central England, shows no continuous warming period of several decades before the end of the 19th century.

Um, yes it does, the change in temperature graph shows the Industrial Revolution pollution had little to no affect on the rising temperatures from the middle 1600's. The Medieval Warming period and the Roman warming period are just marked up to randomness, yet our predicament isn't. There's money to be made confirming GW, no money to prove otherwise. The graph only shows extreme changes starting in 1990ish when Al Gore and his friends from Goldman Sachs started heavily investing in carbon footprint neutral companies, probably with all the money Gore received from selling California oil reserves to a company he just so happened to own a lot of stock in. Then once they get their CO2 footprint hustle, er... I mean business in order, Gore made the movie (definitely not a documentary) "An Inconvenient Truth" on how CO2 is bad and we need to pay for our carbon-footprint sins by giving Gore money. He sat on his knowledge of CO2 warming the Earth for 10 years while he and his business partners cornered the market so when "An Inconvenient Truth" was released Gore frightened idiots to buy carbon offsets from him. How very, very, convenient. Everything Gore said didn't happen besides the temperature going up. If he and climate scientists gave a damn, they would have produced the movie before he started his climate simony.

Why did the Industrial Revolution have no impact on climate in England when they didn't give a F about nature? Then when we do [1990], the temperature starts going up faster than ever despite the programs designed to try and stop it.

[Muizer]

There's money to be made confirming GW, no money to prove otherwise.

Every time I hear someone make this argument I'm struck by the massive irony. There's plenty of money to be made by discrediting Global Warming. And if that had not been done so successfully by the sprawling network of people with interests in fossil fuel related industries we'd have quit fossil fuels by now.

Also, your article about water vapor: it states itself that it amplifies the effect of global warming by rising CO2. Really there is no case whatsoever to deny the role of CO2 in earth's climate. The only thing that is unclear is exactly how it is going to unfold, because no geological record will give us a precedent for a sudden increase like has been happening for the past 150 years (which on geologically timescales is instant).

Denying that climate change happens as result of rising CO2 is actually what requires proof. Some process would have to be going on to counterbalance its impact. Unless someone produces that mechanism, denial is just an expression of an inability to believe mankind can change the global climate. Which is also absurd. You only need to spend a day on google maps and survey the planet to see human activity is anything but marginal. So why expect natural systems, including climate, to remain miraculously unchanged?

In the context of this thread, it is actually the reverse that is the problem. For instance, that one geologist who, without evidence, claimed in a book that underwater volcanoes, not people, are responsible for the rise in atmospheric CO2. If there is any branch of science where sceptics do not have to fear being suppressed it's climate science. Whole tribes are eagerly searching for you and will hoist you on their shoulders and parade you through the streets as their champion if you do, for delivering them from their guilty conscience.

[alhoon]

In the context of this thread, it is actually the reverse that is the problem. For instance, that one geologist who, without evidence, claimed in a book that underwater volcanoes, not people, are responsible for the rise in atmospheric CO2. If there is any branch of science where sceptics do not have to fear being suppressed it's climate science. Whole tribes are eagerly searching for you and will hoist you on their shoulders and parade you through the streets as their champion if you do, for delivering them from their guilty conscience.

That is only partially correct. Yes, a lot of oil-interests will applaud you. But a ton of your peers would want to do nothing with you and even if you have credible research you will get a "Sorry, we don't want that article" from many major journals.

[Muizer]

But a ton of your peers would want to do nothing with you and even if you have credible research you will get a "Sorry, we don't want that article" from many major journals.

I wonder how much of this perspective is due to exactly what I just mentioned though: that skeptics get disproportionate attention. I mean there's the famous phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". That alone could account for a high bar for acceptance (and this high rate of rejection) for 'climate skeptic' studies.

[Genava]

That is only partially correct. Yes, a lot of oil-interests will applaud you. But a ton of your peers would want to do nothing with you and even if you have credible research you will get a "Sorry, we don't want that article" from many major journals.

If the research is not crazy stuff that you can debunk in 5 min, it is not that hard to pass the peer-reviewing process. For example, this research:
https://retractionwatch.com/2020/03/...-is-retracted/

It has been retracted one year after because astrophysicists pointed out errors in the calculation of the Earth orbits. And the authors had several chances to answer the comments, they were simply not convincing.

And it was published in Nature Scientific Reports which has a very high impact factor.

[alhoon]

If the research is not crazy stuff that you can debunk in 5 min, it is not that hard to pass the peer-reviewing process.

It's not that easy either. I send back with Major Reviews 2 out of three articles that I do peer-review for, and they are nowhere as prestigious as Nature. And I reject the rest out-right. I very rarely have sent "minor review" back. And from those I sent as Major reviews, half are rejected.

As an author we put a lot of effort in our articles and still about half of them get major revisions with the occasional rejection. Speaking of rejection, in 2014 we got a "Reject" from a journal that was either geology/mining or similar of an article about coal before it went to peer review with the editor rejecting it outright because "We wouldn't want articles about coal at this time." They didn't even read the article.

[NorthernXY]

Every time I hear someone make this argument I'm struck by the massive irony. There's plenty of money to be made by discrediting Global Warming. And if that had not been done so successfully by the sprawling network of people with interests in fossil fuel related industries we'd have quit fossil fuels by now.

Also, your article about water vapor: it states itself that it amplifies the effect of global warming by rising CO2. Really there is no case whatsoever to deny the role of CO2 in earth's climate. The only thing that is unclear is exactly how it is going to unfold, because no geological record will give us a precedent for a sudden increase like has been happening for the past 150 years (which on geologically timescales is instant).

Denying that climate change happens as result of rising CO2 is actually what requires proof. Some process would have to be going on to counterbalance its impact. Unless someone produces that mechanism, denial is just an expression of an inability to believe mankind can change the global climate. Which is also absurd. You only need to spend a day on google maps and survey the planet to see human activity is anything but marginal. So why expect natural systems, including climate, to remain miraculously unchanged?

In the context of this thread, it is actually the reverse that is the problem. For instance, that one geologist who, without evidence, claimed in a book that underwater volcanoes, not people, are responsible for the rise in atmospheric CO2. If there is any branch of science where sceptics do not have to fear being suppressed it's climate science. Whole tribes are eagerly searching for you and will hoist you on their shoulders and parade you through the streets as their champion if you do, for delivering them from their guilty conscience.

What is your scientific specialty? Most scientist agree with GW, but cannot explain why. They just keep their heads down and not draw any attention to themselves for fear of the non-scientific backlash. I did a pole in my undergrad and I think 1 of 15 professors could properly explain why.

@alhoon posted the the example. Being transgender used to be considered a brain disorder. Now we have 12 year old children taking hormones and mutilating their genitals, yet still aren't allowed to smoke, drive cars, or partake in any kind of drug use. There are multiple papers published by social scientists that observe there is a skyrocketing rate of transgenderism among young women. If a girl who has a transgender friend is 25% (around there) more likely to be transgender. Those papers were rescinded because of the backlash they got. Not because they were peered unproved, but because is the called anti-transgender. There is no money to prove transgender is a mental disorder like limb dysphoria obviously is. We don't entertain their idea that their left arm isn't actually their left arm, but aliens or the government attached to them.

I've already stated Peter Boghossian et al, in Portland, Oregon replaced "Jews" with "straight white men" in Mein Kampf and a journal published it. Of the 20 papers written to show how straight white man bad, seven were accepted, seven were in peer-review, and six weren't published. Since they were published and praised, does that make it true? Social sciences are a joke and they making their way into real science.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Boghossian

In December 2018, Portland State University ruled that Boghossian had "violated ethical guidelines on human-subjects research". Consequently, he was banned from doing research until he had "completed training and could demonstrate that he understood how to protect the rights of human subjects"

Pure far-left extreme propaganda. For every drug study they have a real drug testing group and a placebo group. The placebo group isn't told their taking a placebo as it would negate whether the drug is affective or not.

Tom Whipple of The Times wrote that academic reviewers had praised the studies prior to the revelation of the hoax as "a rich and exciting contribution to the study of ... the intersection between masculinity and anality", "excellent and very timely", and "important dialogue for social workers and feminist scholars"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ltural_studies

The US had a patent on cannabinoids from 1999 till 2019; "Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants", yet classifies cannabis as a section I drug (no medical benefit). So are you going to believe, the government or the government? Where all those, mostly black people, arrested because they broke patent laws?

https://patents.google.com/patent/US6630507B1/en

I wrote a paper in 2007 stating homo sapiens interbred with Neanderthals and Denisovans (an eastern cousin of the Neanderthals) by people who weren't sub-Saharan Africans. I got crushed because there was no "scientific evidence" for my hypothesis. Three years later a paper was published that stated non-sub Saharan peoples have Neanderthal or Denisovian genetics.

Where did you find the references that state their is tons of grants to prove CO₂ isn't the major cause of global warming? There is 100% proof CO₂ emission cause climate change. However, there is no published paper stating X amount of CO₂ will cause temperatures to rise by Y. That even though we've become more carbon conscious in the last 30 years, global warming rates aren't going down.

[Genava]

Where did you find the references that state their is tons of grants to prove CO2 isn't the major cause of global warming? There is 100% proof CO2 emission cause climate change. However, there is no published paper stating X amount of CO2 will cause temperatures to rise by Y. That even though we've become more carbon conscious in the last 30 years, global warming rates aren't going down.

This is really bad faith and a very dishonest comment. In all IPCC reports there is this information as well as the bibliographical references of the articles giving an estimate of the relationship between CO2 and temperature.