from legal riots
Celebrities and media who offer any support or comfort to those manipulating young people into committing crimes based on flawed science are worse than those who encouraged whipping to cure the Black Death in the Middle Ages.
Posted by Leslie Eastman
Today, I’m adding a mother’s perspective on the “pseudoscience” of the “climate crisis” to address a question that I think is crucial: Who should we punish for pseudoscience that makes bad policy choices?
But beyond that, how do we combat scientific fraud that is poisoning our children’s futures?
Last October, we reported on two women in their early twenties who were arrested in London for throwing soup at Vincent van Gogh's Sunflowers painting during a protest against fossil fuels.
Both now face more than two years in prison.
Phoebe Plummer, 23, and Anna Holland, 22, of protest group Just Stop Oil, were jailed for two years and 20 months respectively, PA Media reported.
It is the latest in a series of jail terms handed down to British climate activists for taking part in disruptive protests against the use of fossil fuels. Two relatively new and controversial laws increase the power of police and courts to suppress disruptive protests, even if they are peaceful.
The sentences did not appear to have had the effect of stopping Stop Oil: hours after the verdict, three other Stop Oil activists presented two more paintings of Van Gogh's Sunflowers at the National Gallery's “Poets and Lovers” exhibition. Paintings pour soup.
Those years that girls will lose are crucial. This is the year when you complete your education or gain important work experience for your career. This is a time for making lifelong connections and possibly meeting your future spouse. This is also the age when many women start starting families.
Progressive educators have the power to push this dogma due to climate hysteria fueled by agenda-driven pseudoscience and a media that silences critics and ignores counter-evidence. Cult-like leaders emerge, encouraging young people to destroy their futures in order to protect the planet from the threat of carbon dioxide levels.
In his recent Substack, Glenn Reynolds asked a question that I think should be thought about and answered: Should we criminalize scientific fraud?
As Reynolds points out, the issue is complex. Identifying true scientific fraud versus typos and misinterpreted data can be difficult. However, as it relates to climatology, supporting the green energy agenda by modifying the data to produce temperature peaks and ignore the urban heat island effect should have consequences. And, as we’ve seen with the COVID-19 pandemic, the bad science used to push for disastrous rules and regulations isn’t limited to climate.
Reynolds examines a range of potential options for preventing scientific fraud. Based on his analysis, perhaps the best focus is on “modifying the incentive structure.”
I like to ask researchers to specify methods that ensure reproducibility of their applications, and to evaluate researchers based on long-term reproducibility.
…requiring data sharing and data “archiving” would also be helpful, since it is surprising how often data from important studies are lost in relocation or flooding when later requested.
And—and this was brought up by a commenter on a previous blog post—it’s not a bad idea to not rely on scientific research for public policy purposes until others have successfully replicated it. This would slow down the link between research and public policy, but is that really a bad thing?
This may be the best way forward. For now, the science that gets social media clicks, softball interview questions, academic awards, and generous funding seems like science that can happen. Research is not done for the sake of knowledge but for personal gain.
If punishing fake science is difficult, it is also unrealistic to completely eliminate the incentives for fake science to be published. Preventing it from taking root by showing that the data can be copied before creating a new rule would be the logical path forward.
Another option is to return to the Renaissance methods of science and have those who are passionate about real research funding bodies dedicated to this type of research, because we clearly can no longer trust our elite universities and colleges to do this. Like what SpaceX CEO Elon Musk plans, for example.
The charity, called the Foundation, plans to use Musk's $100 million donation to create and open an elementary and middle school in Austin focused on teaching science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Once fully operational, the school will focus on creating a university, the document said. The school intends to seek accreditation from the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools and the Commission on Colleges, a necessary first step in opening a school.
Finally, it would help to make pariahs of pseudoscientific cult leaders who brainwash young people into committing crimes, rather than making them celebrities. Of course, the elite media (in this case the BBC) tries to turn these villains into martyrs.
I bring you the latest report on Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion founder Roger Hallam.
When five activists who brought chaos to the M25 motorway were jailed last week, some thought the law had finally caught up with Stop Oil.
Celebrities expressed anger at the lengthy sentences, with a United Nations official calling their treatment “unacceptable in a democracy.”
Roger Hallam, the architect of the modern environmental protest movement, and his co-conspirators are now in jail, in what could be the “checkmate” in a five-year legal chess game between the state and an increasingly emboldened group of direct actors “Environmental groups.
But at least for some “Stop Oil” activists, that doesn't seem to be working.
Celebrities and media who offer any support or comfort to those manipulating young people into committing crimes based on flawed science are worse than those who encouraged whipping to cure the Black Death in the Middle Ages. At least the men and women of the Dark Ages had not yet learned germ theory and did not know how to apply the scientific method.
I must admit that I don’t have much sympathy for eco-activists who commit crimes and disrupt other people’s lives. But, as a mother, I hate seeing young lives sacrificed on the altar of pseudoscience, and I want to save others from a similar fate.
After all, “for the children” should be a reason that progressives respect.
Relevant
