I have the same question.

[paulwermer@sfba.social]

@jaykuo
More seriously, Dr. #Hayhoe provided a just-in-time link with a more serious analysis:

https://fed.brid.gy/r/https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:u3qtwr3xni67et44ip5vov2z/post/3mtr7o3iqws2a

[isaackuo@spacey.space]

@jaykuo "Conservative-based research" is the "research" they tell you to do when they say, "Do your own research".

In other words, the "your own research" is watching conservative conspiracy theory YouTube videos and/or the e-mails your bigot (white) uncle keeps forwarding to you.

[c_merriweather@social.linux.pizza]

@jaykuo Ignoring the Laws of Thermodynamics.

This never ends well.

[deberupts@mastodon.social]

@jaykuo This is a good read on the topic => Why “Conservative Research” Is Confirmation Bias Disguised as Science
https://emeraldbook.org/news/aug-2226-4/

[boredomfestival@sfba.social]

@jaykuo "made up to suit our political agenda and increase our personal/donor.profits"

[drjay@mastodon.energy]

@jaykuo Conservative research is not doing research on topics for which you are afraid to know the answers. For example, why are there more murders per capita in the US than in any other developed nation, or why are we having "100-year floods" every five years?

[lightfighter@infosec.exchange]

@jaykuo Begin with the dogmatic answer you need, then work backwards. No matter how ridiculous or improbable the steps get, they must be right, because they came from your conclusion.

[ienvision@mastodon.social]

@cptbutton @jaykuo Yup! Just forgot cis. Everyone knows that white, cis men are smarter than everybody else

[huntingdon@mstdn.social]

@jaykuo

What is "conservative-based" research? It's a rebranding of Big Tobacco and Big Oil's "sound science." It's propaganda that supports profits and political programs. It has nothing to do with research or science.

Tearing down the factual and scientific worlds is as important as tearing down representative govt.

[ix9@social.vivaldi.net]

@jaykuo "conservative-based" is not really a thing, but "conservative biased" is a very real, very dangerous thing.
All research is inheritantly biased, since the humans conducting the research are biased by nature (they provide the original scientific curiosity, interpret the result, facilitate participant selection, etc.). GOOD scientific research attempts to minimize this bias, and is the reason that we use a peer-review process before publishing.
To intentionally ignore these efforts at impartiality will create "scientific evidence" for whatever the administration wants to find. Attention is selective, and people will see what they want to see.

[jayelbey@ioc.exchange]

@ienvision
And Christian!
@cptbutton @jaykuo

[cptbutton@dice.camp]

@JayElbey @ienvision @jaykuo

The *right sort* of Christian, of course.

[jayelbey@ioc.exchange]

@cptbutton
Of course!
@ienvision @jaykuo