Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Money and Greentards?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Money and Greentards?

    Apologies using the language I complained about which got me banned.

    THIS WAS INTERESTING imho.

    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

    One problem with that is, even if the agreement is that high among climate scientists, you have to follow the money. If the majority of funding is for climate research that agrees that CO2 and anthropogenic causes are the reason, then these guys are going to be inclined to make their research match that outcome.
    After all, the first rule of consulting is "You need more consulting." The second rule is "You don't upset your source(s) of funding."

    So, if you were an academic that lives by getting funding for climate research and that funding was dependent on finding CO2 and anthropogenic causes, I'd think you'd try damn hard to find those are the reasons for climate change.
    How does the money compare between the vast majority of relevant scientists that state global warming is manmade, and the fossile fuel industries that state otherwise?

    How does the money compare between the scientists that state deforestation is bad news, and the burger chains that need more cattle in destroyed rain forests, with its resultant methane.

    There is a tad more money in fossil fuels than the science that states CO2 and methane is bad. Venus shows a worst case scenario.
    How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
    Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

  • #2
    Where did I use that language? Just curious. I might have, but not in the above post, that's for sure.

    I'm not sure, but I can safely bet that a good portion of climate scientists are being paid by grant money that was attached to proposals that called for specific research.

    For example, your second sentence requires a very specific answer:

    How does the money compare between the scientists that state deforestation is bad news, and the burger chains that need more cattle in destroyed rain forests, with its resultant methane.
    Now, if I were a scientist and I were to get paid to answer that question and came back with the answer Deforestation is due primarily to poverty and poor people, that are growing exponentially in number, in underdeveloped nations clearing forests for subsistence agriculture and firewood for heat and cooking would you want to keep funding me as opposed to a scientist that confirms your hypothesis?

    Or, on your third, I came back with Venus's runaway temperatures can be demonstrated to be mostly due to lack of a magnetic field and the low rate of rotation of the planet rather than the composition of the atmosphere. Would that get me more funding after I just found your entire hypothesis is wrong and invalid?

    It doesn't matter for sake of this discussion if either or the above are valid or not. That's irrelevant. The point I'm making is, assuming the points given are as provable as the "consensus" and to roughly the same degree, would those funding that research continue to pay for it? I think not. I think those paying for the conclusion that Gorebal Warming is man-made and due to CO2 and little else have an agenda to prove exactly that. So, they get the results they pay for.

    Not exactly the first time in history that science went the Pygmalion route on something. There are plenty of past precedents where the consensus was with the money and the politics of the time but not with the actual science. And, that same consensus of scientists claimed both their models and method were sound. Ptolemy's model of the solar system is a great example of that. For centuries it was the foundation of planetary motion and considered absolutely correct. Yet, it was totally wrong.


    Comment


    • #3
      The First Rule of Anything is to always follow the money. Take a look at medicine. Far more profitable to come with several different versions of a male boner pill and females uses for same, that to put serious money into curing diseases not afflicting millions and thus not as profitable.
      Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
        The First Rule of Anything is to always follow the money. Take a look at medicine. Far more profitable to come with several different versions of a male boner pill and females uses for same, that to put serious money into curing diseases not afflicting millions and thus not as profitable.
        Good one.

        If the general public only knew/realized/understood just how morally and ethically corrupt the pharmaceutical business is, they would revolt.

        Comment

        Latest Topics

        Collapse

        Working...
        X