Yeah, it was sweet. Tough to tell when you are posting drunk or sober, however, so no idea if you ever mean what you say. I have a brother who drinks like you, so can't tell you how many times he has poured his heart out then remembers none of it, or flat denies it. So yeah.
Just so you know:
Science is a community. The idea that scientific results can be swayed by the funder is ridiculous. Anyone who believes that has no clue. None whatsoever.
See, after a study, you want to get it published. It's the only way to get it out. But, publishers want to see your work. If it's obviously flawed, you don't get published. So maybe you are lucky and the flaws are subtle, or maybe you publish it yourself. First thing anybody does after publication is rerun your study to verify the validity. so then the flaws are exposed and you lose credibility. Worse when it gets out that the study is biased in favor of the funder. Then you lose ALL your credibility.
See, that's science. Things are tested, and retested, and retested. This is why Climate Change cannot be a religion. There is no belief. Anybody who says I don't accept these findings can retest them for accuracy.
And here's some reality for all of you. The discussion between us was about whether Climate Change is a religion. The fact that DG went on to 700 other topics doesn't change what the discussion was about. If you all want to call me out for sticking to the topic, well, you can take turns KMA.
