I used to believe in climate change, then I studied feminism in depth. I don’t believe in climate change anymore.

I’ve learnt 3 things:

- It is possible to fake studies and blatantly ignore one side of the problem. I don’t count anymore how many studies claim that mostly women are victims of violence, and when you dive into the paper, you notice the study has been done by studying a panel of... girls mostly, and the scientist didn’t even care enough to weigh the results. This kind of extremely major problem is in all papers that conclude violence is one-sided, and those that include both genders (with seriousness, not males from prison vs women from workplace, as I have also seen) find equal violence from both genders.

- It is possible to get these papers peer reviewed, and to scale these peer reviews enough that an entire scientific field is dedicated in find proof that a hypothesis is right while never studying the opposite. In fact, a chapter of Mein Kampf passed a journal’s gatekeeping, of course after replacing « Jew » with « male ». I have been pointed to decent papers that studied genders, but they are quite rare in the domain, if you just sample from the general pool, all have incredible flaws for scientists.

- No-one applies the scientific method. It is possible to do such bad journalism as to persuade an entire country that the wage gap is 25 to 30% and that it is the effect of a conspiration against women, even though everyone can notice around them that most men would defend women even if they were wrong. The real % is generally written at the bottom of the article, in the paragraph before conclusion, so nobody reads it and the masses rest persuaded of a wrong figure. It is possible to fake an entire domain of science and have real scientists, public-domain people, governments, doctors, journalists and masses to say the same, false, verifiably false, thing, and literally beat any dissenting opinion until they shut up. The funny thing is everyone can notice around them how many fighters are ready to help protect women, so that would at least tip off that figures don’t match reality.

As a result, I had to reassess « science for the masses ». Things I’m being told by journalists that « are certain » (« It is proven: Women are more clever than men ») can be verifiably false and would still be published nationally (the source of the article about women being more clever was a scientific paper finding an upside in one category, weighing it against error distribution, and signing off with « Therefore, it is not possible to determine whether one gender is better at task type X than the other »).

If anyone wants to try this experience, try becoming expert in a domain that is in the news, and check whether scientists account for basic facts when they find « results ».

I’m sorry, it may be possible that climate change is real, it is just that we have no proof of it, except by people who also claim the feminist science is true. As such, people ask me to « believe in » climate change, and blindly trust data coming from government-paid studies that also find blatantly erroneous data about genders. And this, people, is what it costs to push false narratives.