Because I am a contrarian by nature, I often find myself searching the Internet for data to corroborate (or refute) my impressions. It is amazing how often my search for "unpopular" data leads to a cornucopia of obfuscation, disinformation, and "never-mindedness."
Many years ago, I read the results of a study in one of the Scandinavian countries about "second-hand smoke." The study looked at the non-smoking spouses of heavy smokers, and looked for higher-than-average incidences of asthma, lung disease, heart disease, and so forth. The theory was that this group would be most likely to be affected by second-hand smoke. Surprisingly, although the study was very broad and conducted over decades, it found no increase in these diseases among the studied population.
It seemed pretty logical to me. I was raised in a household where both of my parents smoked and all four of my older siblings smoked, all at least a pack a day. I lived my childhood in a figurative and literal fog, but suffered no ill effects other than tearing up frequently at in-home gatherings.
Subsequent to my reading the study mentioned above, I read hundreds of "news" stories about the harms of second-hand smoke. When I would drill down to see the actual data I was always frustrated by a shitstorm of "studies" referencing other studies, but none of them, apparently, showing any original data. Now the evils of second-hand smoke are part of the common folklore of the world, and nobody questions it anymore.
Today, try looking for the ACTUAL projections showing (a) the likely effects on TEMPERATURE a hundred years out, (b) based on ACTUAL, FEASIBLE measures that might be taken in the U.S. to reduce CO2 emissions. This very basic and vital information is hidden by mountains of bullshit, because NOBODY wants us to see the actual conclusion: That anything we do in the U.S. have no measurable impact on global temperatures a hundred years out. None. They will be dwarfed by the INCREASED CO2 emissions from the developing world, mainly China and India.
Look for data spelling out IQ differences between the races. These data do exist because honest researchers compile them. They are important, because of the huge amount of effort and money that is spent to try to eliminate the gap between "white," Black, and Hispanic performance levels in public schools. But if those populations have significant, measurable differences in IQ, the gap will never be eliminated and our money might be better spent focusing on optimizing education for everyone and ignoring race as a factor. But the data is lost in a tidal wave of outraged non-scientists who believe very fervently that even looking at the IQ question is "racist." If that's the case, then why do all of the state-sponsored studies on student achievement include race as a major factor?
Again, the unpopular but meaningful data is lost in a mountain of self-serving bullshit.
Yes, it is a thing. Truthful, accurate information is suppressed because it is unpopular. Just like a generation ago we were sold on the myth of heterosexual AIDS, so that people wouldn't blame gay people for the crisis, we are now sold on a whole host of bullshit "science" because the actual data does not support the favored narrative. It sucks.
Many years ago, I read the results of a study in one of the Scandinavian countries about "second-hand smoke." The study looked at the non-smoking spouses of heavy smokers, and looked for higher-than-average incidences of asthma, lung disease, heart disease, and so forth. The theory was that this group would be most likely to be affected by second-hand smoke. Surprisingly, although the study was very broad and conducted over decades, it found no increase in these diseases among the studied population.
It seemed pretty logical to me. I was raised in a household where both of my parents smoked and all four of my older siblings smoked, all at least a pack a day. I lived my childhood in a figurative and literal fog, but suffered no ill effects other than tearing up frequently at in-home gatherings.
Subsequent to my reading the study mentioned above, I read hundreds of "news" stories about the harms of second-hand smoke. When I would drill down to see the actual data I was always frustrated by a shitstorm of "studies" referencing other studies, but none of them, apparently, showing any original data. Now the evils of second-hand smoke are part of the common folklore of the world, and nobody questions it anymore.
Today, try looking for the ACTUAL projections showing (a) the likely effects on TEMPERATURE a hundred years out, (b) based on ACTUAL, FEASIBLE measures that might be taken in the U.S. to reduce CO2 emissions. This very basic and vital information is hidden by mountains of bullshit, because NOBODY wants us to see the actual conclusion: That anything we do in the U.S. have no measurable impact on global temperatures a hundred years out. None. They will be dwarfed by the INCREASED CO2 emissions from the developing world, mainly China and India.
Look for data spelling out IQ differences between the races. These data do exist because honest researchers compile them. They are important, because of the huge amount of effort and money that is spent to try to eliminate the gap between "white," Black, and Hispanic performance levels in public schools. But if those populations have significant, measurable differences in IQ, the gap will never be eliminated and our money might be better spent focusing on optimizing education for everyone and ignoring race as a factor. But the data is lost in a tidal wave of outraged non-scientists who believe very fervently that even looking at the IQ question is "racist." If that's the case, then why do all of the state-sponsored studies on student achievement include race as a major factor?
Again, the unpopular but meaningful data is lost in a mountain of self-serving bullshit.
Yes, it is a thing. Truthful, accurate information is suppressed because it is unpopular. Just like a generation ago we were sold on the myth of heterosexual AIDS, so that people wouldn't blame gay people for the crisis, we are now sold on a whole host of bullshit "science" because the actual data does not support the favored narrative. It sucks.
