system
A chat on subreddit /r/PoliticalCompassMemes
human
I remember an article from probably 15 years ago, it was an opinion piece in the NYT. There was a guy who was an expert specifically in big weather phenomenon- typhoons, hurricanes etc.

He was fully on board with man made climate change and decided to do a study to show the increase in the frequency of storms.

His study found no statistical difference correlated with CO2, even with lag.

He published the results and was immediately shunned by the scientific community. I don’t remember the exact details but he lost positions, had a contract pulled, even had colleagues stop returning his calls and emails. 

**It didn’t stop him from believing in the negative effects of climate change**-but it really worried him that the scientific community was shunning someone that did actual science because they didn’t like his conclusions.

Now consider that there’s actually a handful of people in governments that control nearly all gov funding for climate change- which is a very useful narrative to raise taxes, preserve, give raises and create new government jobs and increase government control- and logically the only conclusion you can come to is that the science is not neutral.

How much is it off? Is it enough to matter? I don’t know- but the science isn’t neutral and we know it.
gpt
That sounds weird. It is highly accepted in the scientific community, and a lot of studies have shown that an increase in co2 and its effects on climate, will lead to a decrease in the amount of hurricane type storms. But the evidence also show that the storms that will form, will likely be more powerful. Of course it's not the co2 itself that causes it. It is the temperature and weather pattern changes that causes it.

Im not gonna assume anything, but often when "experts and" scientists" talk about being shunned or having their papers pulled because it disagreed with the current "consensus", it is actually because their paper was flawed, not because it "æthe conclusion disagreed with the" consensus". This can be stuff as blatant mathematical errors, assumtions not based on actual evidence, or weak evidence included in your conclusion, questionable mothodolegy, and stuff like that.

And you know. Sometimes people lie about their credentials. See for example Tim Ball, or christopher monckton. Or they lie about their relation to the scientific community. 


So in the vast majority of cases where people get shunned, or get their papers pulled, are because they wrote bad papers, not controversial papers. That could be the reason here. Again, because the scientific consensus is not that climate change will lead to more hurricanes, but fewer but stronger hurricanes.