Here is a scientific study that was refused scrutiny that science is supposed to boast. Whether the theory is correct or not doesn’t lessen the need to find alternatives to fossil fuels and to quit using the planet as a dumping ground resulting in vast pollution or even to stop the questioning of what influences climate change. But why science is reluctant to follow its mandate in this instance is curious. This situation begs the question, does science have an agenda which by definition constipates the discovery of what science is supposed to reveal? This is just a theory based on evidence and really needs more scrutiny, but why is the main stream so reluctant to fully peer review?
Please follow and like us: