well ya the thing is, with controversial topics you wont believe how much of the scientific research that does not match the narrative is unpublished and thrown away

no scientist or institute is required to publish the research and results they find. they have the full right to perform 10 studies, burn 9 which did not deliver the desired results and publish the 1 which did

well studies that are wrong are often published and then disproven

it depends

it is not that simple

every properly conducted study requires a massive amounts of fundings

yes, that's science

which you can only find from big industries or governments

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand you had to ruin it

ruin it?

what does that mean

proof that you can only get a large amount of evidence from big industries or governments, please?

go read studies

and look at who funded them

which ones

eeinstien wasn't funded

in USA alone for example almost 50 percent of the studies are government funded

then think about all the others

einstien wasn't funded

im talking about today

even today

nah today majority of studies require large fundings

23% of studies aren't funded

and thats not a small minority

yes that is a minority and those studies without much fundings are using poor methodology

usually analyzing and interpeting data

not conducting anything really

so what are you trying to say

what are you trying to prove, ultimately.

nevermind

i forgot what i tried to point out

exactly

i believe i meant that main stream research should be taken with high skepticism

and it is

thats why the scientific method exists

well you guys were talking about climate science i doubt any scientific method was used there

it was

fine show me

what scientific method they used to prove humans cause global warming

guess what, they cant

in order for them to properly use the scientific method there, they would need to replicate a copy of the earth without humans and see if global warming happens