Over the last couple of years, politicians and the mainstream media have demanded that people ‘follow the science’ in order to impose their political agenda.
However, a recent study of tree rings has many asking if we are talking about science or political science.
A study, published in Nature Communications, asked 15 different groups to study the same batch of tree rings to reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperatures.
It seemed rather straightforward. If everyone was studying the exact same tree rings, they should come up with the exact same results.
In fact, the 15 groups came up with 15 different results and according to the report, none were close to being similar.
What’s fascinating is that all groups, though using the same data network, came up with a different result. When it comes to deriving temperatures from tree-rings, it has much to do with individual approach and interpretation. Sure we can follow the science, but whose results?
The 15 groups (referred to as R1–R15) were challenged with the same task of developing the most reliable NH summer temperature reconstruction for the Common Era from nine high-elevation/high-latitude TRW datasets (Fig. 1):
In other words, the results were subjective, based on what the different groups wanted them to be.
Anyone who shouts we have to follow the science is simply telling us that we have to follow the science that suits their political agenda.
When a major study conducted in 2020 by a group of Oxford professors concluded that facemasks were all but useless in stopping the spread of COVID, they were immediately censored because their conclusion didn’t suit someone’s political agenda. READ: Two top Oxford academics accuse Facebook of censorship for branding their article on whether masks work ‘false information