What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Biggest science scandal ever? (1 Viewer)

Jim11

Jim11

Footballguy
Whoops.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically “adjusted” to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.

...the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming.

Homewood has now turned his attention to the weather stations across much of the Arctic, between Canada (51 degrees W) and the heart of Siberia (87 degrees E). Again, in nearly every case, the same one-way adjustments have been made, to show warming up to 1 degree C or more higher than was indicated by the data that was actually recorded.

 
Nah, Bill Maher said on his show that the science on climate change is a closed issue, and he's never wrong about anything.

 
I think the biggest scandal will be once its discovered that 'I can't believe it's not butter' is actually butter. :mindexplode:

 
Jim, or anyone, what incentive do the scientists who push global warming have to fabricate stuff? Is there a lot of money or tang involved or is the fed govt blackmailing them or something else?

 
Can we just right off the Telegraph? It seems like they run an anti global warming piece every 3 months, and they routinely are debunked.

I used to consider them a valid source, but then I realized they're not.

 
I've really been pushing for global warming these last few years.

The idea that we can completely eliminate winter and then see some of the West coast buried under water gives me hope for the future of humanity.

 
The biggest scandal will be that the government knew about Global Warming for years but kept it suppressed at the behest of big business.

 
chauncey said:
Jim, or anyone, what incentive do the scientists who push global warming have to fabricate stuff? Is there a lot of money or tang involved or is the fed govt blackmailing them or something else?
Click to expand...
Here's my take on it: Global warming scientists believe whole-heartedly in global warming. They have made global warming research their life's work. They have poured thousands of hours of time into scientific inquiry and developed incredibly complex models that support the existence of global warming. The science is sound and almost universally accepted... the only problem is that temperature's are not rising as expected.

This is why there appears to almost be a conspiracy to fudge the numbers and other research related scandals the past few years. It's not that global warming theory isn't scientifically sounds. It's that they the AGW community made dire predictions that aren't coming true. It may be that AGW is happening but it's happening so slowly that it's not an issue or perhaps the atmosphere is handling it in a way scientists have yet to discover.

Either way, if global warming is a clear and present danger to all of humanity, scientist may feel the ends justify the means regardless of the fact that we have not experienced the predicted warming. On the other hand, if global warming is not nearly the threat it has been made out to be, the scientific community still sees value in this research and realizes the funding dries up if it's no longer a huge concern. Not to mention all the other accolades, money, prestige etc... that happens in the non-profit world.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The incentive is actually pretty easy, there are billions of research dollars which goes towards the study of climate change. And there is a lot of stuff with our climate that has been changing, so there is a lot of stuff you can research on and be 100 percent truthful. And if you want a piece of the pie and you want your research published, you better be on the right side of the debate. But what really is meant by Climate Change?

1. The Climate has been getting warmer over the last 150 years? Everyone agrees.

2. There is more CO2 in the atmosphere, mostly from man-related activities? Everyone agrees.

3. CO2 is at least partly responsible for the increase in Temp? Most everyone agrees.

4. CO2 is mostly responsible for the increase in Temp? Most agree.

5. CO2 is responsible for the vast majority of increase in Temp? Now it is getting questionable, and even a lot of scientist do not think this is conclusively proven.

6. The climate effects will have a large impact on how we live? Most agree.

7. The climate effects will be catastrophic? Nobody knows.

The question of Climate Change is not a simple yes or no and the surveys which say 97% of climate change scientists agree are pretty dubious.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jon_mx said:
The incentive is actually pretty easy, there are billions of research dollars which goes towards the study of climate change. And there is a lot of stuff with our climate that has been changing, so there is a lot of stuff you can research on and be 100 percent truthful. And if you want a piece of the pie and you want your research published, you better be on the right side of the debate. But what really is meant by Climate Change?

1. The Climate has been getting warmer over the last 150 years? Everyone agrees.

2. There is more CO2 in the atmosphere, mostly from man-related activities? Everyone agrees.

3. CO2 is at least partly responsible for the increase in Temp? Most everyone agrees.

4. CO2 is mostly responsible for the increase in Temp? Most agree.

5. CO2 is responsible for the vast majority of increase in Temp? Now it is getting questionable, and even a lot of scientist do not think this is conclusively proven.

6. The climate effects will have a large impact on how we live? Most agree.

7. The climate effects will be catastrophic? Nobody knows.

The question of Climate Change is not a simple yes or no and the surveys which say 97% of climate change scientists agree are pretty dubious.
Click to expand...
Here's the issue. People like to point out the monetary incentive of those performing the science in support of climate change. But, generally, these same people want to ignore the monetary incentive of those who do not want the public/political consensus to accept climate change. There are billions in profits on the table from corporations who would be most impacted if any laws to limit carbon emissions came about.

Why does this aspect get conveniently ignored? And which group has a bigger monetary incentive? The horde of scientists getting filthy rich off of their science (oh wait) or the corporations/politicians who have a massive vested interest in keeping those billion dollar quarters rolling through?

 
I believe the correct term is 'Climate Change'

ETA: Paraguay matters?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
igbomb said:
jon_mx said:
The incentive is actually pretty easy, there are billions of research dollars which goes towards the study of climate change. And there is a lot of stuff with our climate that has been changing, so there is a lot of stuff you can research on and be 100 percent truthful. And if you want a piece of the pie and you want your research published, you better be on the right side of the debate. But what really is meant by Climate Change?

1. The Climate has been getting warmer over the last 150 years? Everyone agrees.

2. There is more CO2 in the atmosphere, mostly from man-related activities? Everyone agrees.

3. CO2 is at least partly responsible for the increase in Temp? Most everyone agrees.

4. CO2 is mostly responsible for the increase in Temp? Most agree.

5. CO2 is responsible for the vast majority of increase in Temp? Now it is getting questionable, and even a lot of scientist do not think this is conclusively proven.

6. The climate effects will have a large impact on how we live? Most agree.

7. The climate effects will be catastrophic? Nobody knows.

The question of Climate Change is not a simple yes or no and the surveys which say 97% of climate change scientists agree are pretty dubious.
Click to expand...
Here's the issue. People like to point out the monetary incentive of those performing the science in support of climate change. But, generally, these same people want to ignore the monetary incentive of those who do not want the public/political consensus to accept climate change. There are billions in profits on the table from corporations who would be most impacted if any laws to limit carbon emissions came about.

Why does this aspect get conveniently ignored? And which group has a bigger monetary incentive? The horde of scientists getting filthy rich off of their science (oh wait) or the corporations/politicians who have a massive vested interest in keeping those billion dollar quarters rolling through?
Click to expand...
Government money to research climate change is billions >>>>>> industry money to counter is millions.

 
jon_mx said:
igbomb said:
jon_mx said:
The incentive is actually pretty easy, there are billions of research dollars which goes towards the study of climate change. And there is a lot of stuff with our climate that has been changing, so there is a lot of stuff you can research on and be 100 percent truthful. And if you want a piece of the pie and you want your research published, you better be on the right side of the debate. But what really is meant by Climate Change?

1. The Climate has been getting warmer over the last 150 years? Everyone agrees.

2. There is more CO2 in the atmosphere, mostly from man-related activities? Everyone agrees.

3. CO2 is at least partly responsible for the increase in Temp? Most everyone agrees.

4. CO2 is mostly responsible for the increase in Temp? Most agree.

5. CO2 is responsible for the vast majority of increase in Temp? Now it is getting questionable, and even a lot of scientist do not think this is conclusively proven.

6. The climate effects will have a large impact on how we live? Most agree.

7. The climate effects will be catastrophic? Nobody knows.

The question of Climate Change is not a simple yes or no and the surveys which say 97% of climate change scientists agree are pretty dubious.
Click to expand...
Here's the issue. People like to point out the monetary incentive of those performing the science in support of climate change. But, generally, these same people want to ignore the monetary incentive of those who do not want the public/political consensus to accept climate change. There are billions in profits on the table from corporations who would be most impacted if any laws to limit carbon emissions came about.

Why does this aspect get conveniently ignored? And which group has a bigger monetary incentive? The horde of scientists getting filthy rich off of their science (oh wait) or the corporations/politicians who have a massive vested interest in keeping those billion dollar quarters rolling through?
Click to expand...
Government money to research climate change is billions >>>>>> industry money to counter is millions.
Click to expand...
:lmao:

 
Gr00vus said:
jon_mx said:
igbomb said:
jon_mx said:
The incentive is actually pretty easy, there are billions of research dollars which goes towards the study of climate change. And there is a lot of stuff with our climate that has been changing, so there is a lot of stuff you can research on and be 100 percent truthful. And if you want a piece of the pie and you want your research published, you better be on the right side of the debate. But what really is meant by Climate Change?

1. The Climate has been getting warmer over the last 150 years? Everyone agrees.

2. There is more CO2 in the atmosphere, mostly from man-related activities? Everyone agrees.

3. CO2 is at least partly responsible for the increase in Temp? Most everyone agrees.

4. CO2 is mostly responsible for the increase in Temp? Most agree.

5. CO2 is responsible for the vast majority of increase in Temp? Now it is getting questionable, and even a lot of scientist do not think this is conclusively proven.

6. The climate effects will have a large impact on how we live? Most agree.

7. The climate effects will be catastrophic? Nobody knows.

The question of Climate Change is not a simple yes or no and the surveys which say 97% of climate change scientists agree are pretty dubious.
Click to expand...
Here's the issue. People like to point out the monetary incentive of those performing the science in support of climate change. But, generally, these same people want to ignore the monetary incentive of those who do not want the public/political consensus to accept climate change. There are billions in profits on the table from corporations who would be most impacted if any laws to limit carbon emissions came about.

Why does this aspect get conveniently ignored? And which group has a bigger monetary incentive? The horde of scientists getting filthy rich off of their science (oh wait) or the corporations/politicians who have a massive vested interest in keeping those billion dollar quarters rolling through?
Click to expand...
Government money to research climate change is billions >>>>>> industry money to counter is millions.
Click to expand...
:lmao:
Click to expand...
And you find that funny because it is true? :confused:

Or of you living in a fantasy world which denies this?

 
I just walked a mile back to the office in downtown Cleveland. Based upon this experience, Global Warming is a wives tale.

 
Gr00vus said:
jon_mx said:
igbomb said:
jon_mx said:
The incentive is actually pretty easy, there are billions of research dollars which goes towards the study of climate change. And there is a lot of stuff with our climate that has been changing, so there is a lot of stuff you can research on and be 100 percent truthful. And if you want a piece of the pie and you want your research published, you better be on the right side of the debate. But what really is meant by Climate Change?

1. The Climate has been getting warmer over the last 150 years? Everyone agrees.

2. There is more CO2 in the atmosphere, mostly from man-related activities? Everyone agrees.

3. CO2 is at least partly responsible for the increase in Temp? Most everyone agrees.

4. CO2 is mostly responsible for the increase in Temp? Most agree.

5. CO2 is responsible for the vast majority of increase in Temp? Now it is getting questionable, and even a lot of scientist do not think this is conclusively proven.

6. The climate effects will have a large impact on how we live? Most agree.

7. The climate effects will be catastrophic? Nobody knows.

The question of Climate Change is not a simple yes or no and the surveys which say 97% of climate change scientists agree are pretty dubious.
Click to expand...
Here's the issue. People like to point out the monetary incentive of those performing the science in support of climate change. But, generally, these same people want to ignore the monetary incentive of those who do not want the public/political consensus to accept climate change. There are billions in profits on the table from corporations who would be most impacted if any laws to limit carbon emissions came about.

Why does this aspect get conveniently ignored? And which group has a bigger monetary incentive? The horde of scientists getting filthy rich off of their science (oh wait) or the corporations/politicians who have a massive vested interest in keeping those billion dollar quarters rolling through?
Click to expand...
Government money to research climate change is billions >>>>>> industry money to counter is millions.
Click to expand...
:lmao:
Click to expand...
:lmao:

:lmao:

:lmao:



 
urbanhack said:
Gr00vus said:
jon_mx said:
igbomb said:
jon_mx said:
The incentive is actually pretty easy, there are billions of research dollars which goes towards the study of climate change. And there is a lot of stuff with our climate that has been changing, so there is a lot of stuff you can research on and be 100 percent truthful. And if you want a piece of the pie and you want your research published, you better be on the right side of the debate. But what really is meant by Climate Change?

1. The Climate has been getting warmer over the last 150 years? Everyone agrees.

2. There is more CO2 in the atmosphere, mostly from man-related activities? Everyone agrees.

3. CO2 is at least partly responsible for the increase in Temp? Most everyone agrees.

4. CO2 is mostly responsible for the increase in Temp? Most agree.

5. CO2 is responsible for the vast majority of increase in Temp? Now it is getting questionable, and even a lot of scientist do not think this is conclusively proven.

6. The climate effects will have a large impact on how we live? Most agree.

7. The climate effects will be catastrophic? Nobody knows.

The question of Climate Change is not a simple yes or no and the surveys which say 97% of climate change scientists agree are pretty dubious.
Click to expand...
Here's the issue. People like to point out the monetary incentive of those performing the science in support of climate change. But, generally, these same people want to ignore the monetary incentive of those who do not want the public/political consensus to accept climate change. There are billions in profits on the table from corporations who would be most impacted if any laws to limit carbon emissions came about.

Why does this aspect get conveniently ignored? And which group has a bigger monetary incentive? The horde of scientists getting filthy rich off of their science (oh wait) or the corporations/politicians who have a massive vested interest in keeping those billion dollar quarters rolling through?
Click to expand...
Government money to research climate change is billions >>>>>> industry money to counter is millions.
Click to expand...
:lmao:
Click to expand...
:lmao:

:lmao:

:lmao:
Click to expand...
Care to support your laughter. The US alone spends over $2 billion on climate change. Koch Industries is the biggest investor in investing in skeptics and they are around $5 million a year and a lot of that goes towards think tanks which deal with other issues too. Exxon and other big oil companies usually put out a $2 million per year.

 
jon_mx said:
urbanhack said:
Gr00vus said:
jon_mx said:
igbomb said:
jon_mx said:
The incentive is actually pretty easy, there are billions of research dollars which goes towards the study of climate change. And there is a lot of stuff with our climate that has been changing, so there is a lot of stuff you can research on and be 100 percent truthful. And if you want a piece of the pie and you want your research published, you better be on the right side of the debate. But what really is meant by Climate Change?

1. The Climate has been getting warmer over the last 150 years? Everyone agrees.

2. There is more CO2 in the atmosphere, mostly from man-related activities? Everyone agrees.

3. CO2 is at least partly responsible for the increase in Temp? Most everyone agrees.

4. CO2 is mostly responsible for the increase in Temp? Most agree.

5. CO2 is responsible for the vast majority of increase in Temp? Now it is getting questionable, and even a lot of scientist do not think this is conclusively proven.

6. The climate effects will have a large impact on how we live? Most agree.

7. The climate effects will be catastrophic? Nobody knows.

The question of Climate Change is not a simple yes or no and the surveys which say 97% of climate change scientists agree are pretty dubious.
Click to expand...
Here's the issue. People like to point out the monetary incentive of those performing the science in support of climate change. But, generally, these same people want to ignore the monetary incentive of those who do not want the public/political consensus to accept climate change. There are billions in profits on the table from corporations who would be most impacted if any laws to limit carbon emissions came about.

Why does this aspect get conveniently ignored? And which group has a bigger monetary incentive? The horde of scientists getting filthy rich off of their science (oh wait) or the corporations/politicians who have a massive vested interest in keeping those billion dollar quarters rolling through?
Click to expand...
Government money to research climate change is billions >>>>>> industry money to counter is millions.
Click to expand...
:lmao:
Click to expand...
:lmao:

:lmao:

:lmao:
Click to expand...
Care to support your laughter. The US alone spends over $2 billion on climate change. Koch Industries is the biggest investor in investing in skeptics and they are around $5 million a year and a lot of that goes towards think tanks which deal with other issues too. Exxon and other big oil companies usually put out a $2 million per year.
Click to expand...
And how much are Exxon and the other big oil companies raking in by perpetuating the current status quo?

This isn't about who is spending more money per year explicitly on climate change (research or lobbying). It's about who stands to make more money (and is currently making obscene amounts of money) by claiming that "the science isn't settled".

 
jon_mx said:
urbanhack said:
Gr00vus said:
jon_mx said:
igbomb said:
jon_mx said:
The incentive is actually pretty easy, there are billions of research dollars which goes towards the study of climate change. And there is a lot of stuff with our climate that has been changing, so there is a lot of stuff you can research on and be 100 percent truthful. And if you want a piece of the pie and you want your research published, you better be on the right side of the debate. But what really is meant by Climate Change?

1. The Climate has been getting warmer over the last 150 years? Everyone agrees.

2. There is more CO2 in the atmosphere, mostly from man-related activities? Everyone agrees.

3. CO2 is at least partly responsible for the increase in Temp? Most everyone agrees.

4. CO2 is mostly responsible for the increase in Temp? Most agree.

5. CO2 is responsible for the vast majority of increase in Temp? Now it is getting questionable, and even a lot of scientist do not think this is conclusively proven.

6. The climate effects will have a large impact on how we live? Most agree.

7. The climate effects will be catastrophic? Nobody knows.

The question of Climate Change is not a simple yes or no and the surveys which say 97% of climate change scientists agree are pretty dubious.
Click to expand...
Here's the issue. People like to point out the monetary incentive of those performing the science in support of climate change. But, generally, these same people want to ignore the monetary incentive of those who do not want the public/political consensus to accept climate change. There are billions in profits on the table from corporations who would be most impacted if any laws to limit carbon emissions came about.

Why does this aspect get conveniently ignored? And which group has a bigger monetary incentive? The horde of scientists getting filthy rich off of their science (oh wait) or the corporations/politicians who have a massive vested interest in keeping those billion dollar quarters rolling through?
Click to expand...
Government money to research climate change is billions >>>>>> industry money to counter is millions.
Click to expand...
:lmao:
Click to expand...
:lmao:

:lmao:

:lmao:
Click to expand...
Care to support your laughter. The US alone spends over $2 billion on climate change. Koch Industries is the biggest investor in investing in skeptics and they are around $5 million a year and a lot of that goes towards think tanks which deal with other issues too. Exxon and other big oil companies usually put out a $2 million per year.
Click to expand...
You seem to be seeing half the picture again.

What are the stakes for them when carbon emissions and the like are regulated?

 
No doubt industry has not been kind to the planet, but not hard to believe the majority portion of climate change is just cyclical.

 
Hard to pick out a specific one but safe to say in involved the Catholic Church.

Earth center of the universe, earth is flat, etc, etc...

Pretty sure the government hasn't thrown anyone to lions for speaking out about global warming.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
tangfoot said:
jon_mx said:
urbanhack said:
Gr00vus said:
jon_mx said:
igbomb said:
jon_mx said:
The incentive is actually pretty easy, there are billions of research dollars which goes towards the study of climate change. And there is a lot of stuff with our climate that has been changing, so there is a lot of stuff you can research on and be 100 percent truthful. And if you want a piece of the pie and you want your research published, you better be on the right side of the debate. But what really is meant by Climate Change?

1. The Climate has been getting warmer over the last 150 years? Everyone agrees.

2. There is more CO2 in the atmosphere, mostly from man-related activities? Everyone agrees.

3. CO2 is at least partly responsible for the increase in Temp? Most everyone agrees.

4. CO2 is mostly responsible for the increase in Temp? Most agree.

5. CO2 is responsible for the vast majority of increase in Temp? Now it is getting questionable, and even a lot of scientist do not think this is conclusively proven.

6. The climate effects will have a large impact on how we live? Most agree.

7. The climate effects will be catastrophic? Nobody knows.

The question of Climate Change is not a simple yes or no and the surveys which say 97% of climate change scientists agree are pretty dubious.
Click to expand...
Here's the issue. People like to point out the monetary incentive of those performing the science in support of climate change. But, generally, these same people want to ignore the monetary incentive of those who do not want the public/political consensus to accept climate change. There are billions in profits on the table from corporations who would be most impacted if any laws to limit carbon emissions came about.

Why does this aspect get conveniently ignored? And which group has a bigger monetary incentive? The horde of scientists getting filthy rich off of their science (oh wait) or the corporations/politicians who have a massive vested interest in keeping those billion dollar quarters rolling through?
Click to expand...
Government money to research climate change is billions >>>>>> industry money to counter is millions.
Click to expand...
:lmao:
Click to expand...
:lmao:

:lmao:

:lmao:
Click to expand...
Care to support your laughter. The US alone spends over $2 billion on climate change. Koch Industries is the biggest investor in investing in skeptics and they are around $5 million a year and a lot of that goes towards think tanks which deal with other issues too. Exxon and other big oil companies usually put out a $2 million per year.
Click to expand...
And how much are Exxon and the other big oil companies raking in by perpetuating the current status quo?

This isn't about who is spending more money per year explicitly on climate change (research or lobbying). It's about who stands to make more money (and is currently making obscene amounts of money) by claiming that "the science isn't settled".
Click to expand...
We are talking about incentives for scientists. The amount of money oil companies make is of no incentive to them unless that money is going to them. Over 95% of the money going into climate change research is government money. That is all that matters for what we are talking about. If we are concerned with comparing revenues of oil companies vs. governments, then we are talking billions vs. trillions.

 
jon_mx said:
tangfoot said:
jon_mx said:
urbanhack said:
Gr00vus said:
jon_mx said:
igbomb said:
jon_mx said:
The incentive is actually pretty easy, there are billions of research dollars which goes towards the study of climate change. And there is a lot of stuff with our climate that has been changing, so there is a lot of stuff you can research on and be 100 percent truthful. And if you want a piece of the pie and you want your research published, you better be on the right side of the debate. But what really is meant by Climate Change?

1. The Climate has been getting warmer over the last 150 years? Everyone agrees.

2. There is more CO2 in the atmosphere, mostly from man-related activities? Everyone agrees.

3. CO2 is at least partly responsible for the increase in Temp? Most everyone agrees.

4. CO2 is mostly responsible for the increase in Temp? Most agree.

5. CO2 is responsible for the vast majority of increase in Temp? Now it is getting questionable, and even a lot of scientist do not think this is conclusively proven.

6. The climate effects will have a large impact on how we live? Most agree.

7. The climate effects will be catastrophic? Nobody knows.

The question of Climate Change is not a simple yes or no and the surveys which say 97% of climate change scientists agree are pretty dubious.
Click to expand...
Here's the issue. People like to point out the monetary incentive of those performing the science in support of climate change. But, generally, these same people want to ignore the monetary incentive of those who do not want the public/political consensus to accept climate change. There are billions in profits on the table from corporations who would be most impacted if any laws to limit carbon emissions came about.

Why does this aspect get conveniently ignored? And which group has a bigger monetary incentive? The horde of scientists getting filthy rich off of their science (oh wait) or the corporations/politicians who have a massive vested interest in keeping those billion dollar quarters rolling through?
Click to expand...
Government money to research climate change is billions >>>>>> industry money to counter is millions.
Click to expand...
:lmao:
Click to expand...
:lmao:

:lmao:

:lmao:
Click to expand...
Care to support your laughter. The US alone spends over $2 billion on climate change. Koch Industries is the biggest investor in investing in skeptics and they are around $5 million a year and a lot of that goes towards think tanks which deal with other issues too. Exxon and other big oil companies usually put out a $2 million per year.
Click to expand...
And how much are Exxon and the other big oil companies raking in by perpetuating the current status quo?

This isn't about who is spending more money per year explicitly on climate change (research or lobbying). It's about who stands to make more money (and is currently making obscene amounts of money) by claiming that "the science isn't settled".
Click to expand...
We are talking about incentives for scientists. The amount of money oil companies make is of no incentive to them unless that money is going to them. Over 95% of the money going into climate change research is government money. That is all that matters for what we are talking about. If we are concerned with comparing revenues of oil companies vs. governments, then we are talking billions vs. trillions.
Click to expand...
I loathe intellectual dishonesty.

 
jon_mx said:
tangfoot said:
jon_mx said:
urbanhack said:
Gr00vus said:
jon_mx said:
igbomb said:
jon_mx said:
The incentive is actually pretty easy, there are billions of research dollars which goes towards the study of climate change. And there is a lot of stuff with our climate that has been changing, so there is a lot of stuff you can research on and be 100 percent truthful. And if you want a piece of the pie and you want your research published, you better be on the right side of the debate. But what really is meant by Climate Change?

1. The Climate has been getting warmer over the last 150 years? Everyone agrees.

2. There is more CO2 in the atmosphere, mostly from man-related activities? Everyone agrees.

3. CO2 is at least partly responsible for the increase in Temp? Most everyone agrees.

4. CO2 is mostly responsible for the increase in Temp? Most agree.

5. CO2 is responsible for the vast majority of increase in Temp? Now it is getting questionable, and even a lot of scientist do not think this is conclusively proven.

6. The climate effects will have a large impact on how we live? Most agree.

7. The climate effects will be catastrophic? Nobody knows.

The question of Climate Change is not a simple yes or no and the surveys which say 97% of climate change scientists agree are pretty dubious.
Click to expand...
Here's the issue. People like to point out the monetary incentive of those performing the science in support of climate change. But, generally, these same people want to ignore the monetary incentive of those who do not want the public/political consensus to accept climate change. There are billions in profits on the table from corporations who would be most impacted if any laws to limit carbon emissions came about.

Why does this aspect get conveniently ignored? And which group has a bigger monetary incentive? The horde of scientists getting filthy rich off of their science (oh wait) or the corporations/politicians who have a massive vested interest in keeping those billion dollar quarters rolling through?
Click to expand...
Government money to research climate change is billions >>>>>> industry money to counter is millions.
Click to expand...
:lmao:
Click to expand...
:lmao:

:lmao:

:lmao:
Click to expand...
Care to support your laughter. The US alone spends over $2 billion on climate change. Koch Industries is the biggest investor in investing in skeptics and they are around $5 million a year and a lot of that goes towards think tanks which deal with other issues too. Exxon and other big oil companies usually put out a $2 million per year.
Click to expand...
And how much are Exxon and the other big oil companies raking in by perpetuating the current status quo?

This isn't about who is spending more money per year explicitly on climate change (research or lobbying). It's about who stands to make more money (and is currently making obscene amounts of money) by claiming that "the science isn't settled".
Click to expand...
We are talking about incentives for scientists. The amount of money oil companies make is of no incentive to them unless that money is going to them. Over 95% of the money going into climate change research is government money. That is all that matters for what we are talking about. If we are concerned with comparing revenues of oil companies vs. governments, then we are talking billions vs. trillions.
Click to expand...
Good Lord you are such a shill.

 
Business is going to fight regardless of the truth.

Scientists are more likely to be honest, however, their incentive is to exaggerate a problem.

What I've found is that scientists are telling the truth and global warming is real but most prefer to promote the worst case scenario - that's what gets them grant money to keep researching. If they came out with results that said the earth would heat up only 1 degree Celsius in the next 100 years it wouldn't get much attention.

 
jon_mx said:
igbomb said:
jon_mx said:
The incentive is actually pretty easy, there are billions of research dollars which goes towards the study of climate change. And there is a lot of stuff with our climate that has been changing, so there is a lot of stuff you can research on and be 100 percent truthful. And if you want a piece of the pie and you want your research published, you better be on the right side of the debate. But what really is meant by Climate Change?

1. The Climate has been getting warmer over the last 150 years? Everyone agrees.

2. There is more CO2 in the atmosphere, mostly from man-related activities? Everyone agrees.

3. CO2 is at least partly responsible for the increase in Temp? Most everyone agrees.

4. CO2 is mostly responsible for the increase in Temp? Most agree.

5. CO2 is responsible for the vast majority of increase in Temp? Now it is getting questionable, and even a lot of scientist do not think this is conclusively proven.

6. The climate effects will have a large impact on how we live? Most agree.

7. The climate effects will be catastrophic? Nobody knows.

The question of Climate Change is not a simple yes or no and the surveys which say 97% of climate change scientists agree are pretty dubious.
Click to expand...
Here's the issue. People like to point out the monetary incentive of those performing the science in support of climate change. But, generally, these same people want to ignore the monetary incentive of those who do not want the public/political consensus to accept climate change. There are billions in profits on the table from corporations who would be most impacted if any laws to limit carbon emissions came about.

Why does this aspect get conveniently ignored? And which group has a bigger monetary incentive? The horde of scientists getting filthy rich off of their science (oh wait) or the corporations/politicians who have a massive vested interest in keeping those billion dollar quarters rolling through?
Click to expand...
Government money to research climate change is billions >>>>>> industry money to counter is millions.
Click to expand...
sweet fancy moses tell me you're kidding

 
igbomb said:
jon_mx said:
tangfoot said:
jon_mx said:
urbanhack said:
Gr00vus said:
jon_mx said:
igbomb said:
jon_mx said:
The incentive is actually pretty easy, there are billions of research dollars which goes towards the study of climate change. And there is a lot of stuff with our climate that has been changing, so there is a lot of stuff you can research on and be 100 percent truthful. And if you want a piece of the pie and you want your research published, you better be on the right side of the debate. But what really is meant by Climate Change?

1. The Climate has been getting warmer over the last 150 years? Everyone agrees.

2. There is more CO2 in the atmosphere, mostly from man-related activities? Everyone agrees.

3. CO2 is at least partly responsible for the increase in Temp? Most everyone agrees.

4. CO2 is mostly responsible for the increase in Temp? Most agree.

5. CO2 is responsible for the vast majority of increase in Temp? Now it is getting questionable, and even a lot of scientist do not think this is conclusively proven.

6. The climate effects will have a large impact on how we live? Most agree.

7. The climate effects will be catastrophic? Nobody knows.

The question of Climate Change is not a simple yes or no and the surveys which say 97% of climate change scientists agree are pretty dubious.
Click to expand...
Here's the issue. People like to point out the monetary incentive of those performing the science in support of climate change. But, generally, these same people want to ignore the monetary incentive of those who do not want the public/political consensus to accept climate change. There are billions in profits on the table from corporations who would be most impacted if any laws to limit carbon emissions came about.

Why does this aspect get conveniently ignored? And which group has a bigger monetary incentive? The horde of scientists getting filthy rich off of their science (oh wait) or the corporations/politicians who have a massive vested interest in keeping those billion dollar quarters rolling through?
Click to expand...
Government money to research climate change is billions >>>>>> industry money to counter is millions.
Click to expand...
:lmao:
Click to expand...
:lmao: :lmao:

:lmao:
Click to expand...
Care to support your laughter. The US alone spends over $2 billion on climate change. Koch Industries is the biggest investor in investing in skeptics and they are around $5 million a year and a lot of that goes towards think tanks which deal with other issues too. Exxon and other big oil companies usually put out a $2 million per year.
Click to expand...
And how much are Exxon and the other big oil companies raking in by perpetuating the current status quo?

This isn't about who is spending more money per year explicitly on climate change (research or lobbying). It's about who stands to make more money (and is currently making obscene amounts of money) by claiming that "the science isn't settled".
Click to expand...
We are talking about incentives for scientists. The amount of money oil companies make is of no incentive to them unless that money is going to them. Over 95% of the money going into climate change research is government money. That is all that matters for what we are talking about. If we are concerned with comparing revenues of oil companies vs. governments, then we are talking billions vs. trillions.
Click to expand...
Good Lord you are such a shill.
Click to expand...
In the science community the best way to make a name for yourself is to debunk a widely held view. Bush tried to incentivize that very thing with the USGCRP, got the results, and tried to bury them.

The whole notion that the "science and climatologist complex" is somehow bullying the fossil fuel splinter group with its vast resources is pretty comical.

I guess "The Simpsons" movie was more documentary than farce?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
igbomb said:
jon_mx said:
We are talking about incentives for scientists. The amount of money oil companies make is of no incentive to them unless that money is going to them. Over 95% of the money going into climate change research is government money. That is all that matters for what we are talking about. If we are concerned with comparing revenues of oil companies vs. governments, then we are talking billions vs. trillions.
Click to expand...
Good Lord you are such a shill.
Click to expand...
Whatever. I am the only one presenting any kind of facts. If you want to argue that Koch money is obviously more tainted than government money, fine. But there are a lot of politics/agendas behind government grants which taint their money too.

 
Tennessee_ATO said:
In the science community the best way to make a name for yourself is to debunk a widely held view. Bush tried to incentivize that very thing with the USGCRP, got the results, and tried to bury them.

The whole notion that the "science and climatologist complex" is somehow bullying the fossil fuel splinter group with its vast resources is pretty comical.

I guess "The Simpsons" movie was more documentary than farce?
Click to expand...
There's little for a scientist to gain by saying "The world is getting warmer but slow enough that it's not a big concern".

Scientists (like the one I linked to earlier) have done this and nobody cares.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Jim11
NOAA Fabricating Temperature Data
Replies
24
Views
815
drunken slob
drunken slob
GregR
Greg's Useless Trivia #50 - 100 questions (75 greatest hits, 25 new)
Replies
19
Views
2K
GregR
GregR
(HULK)
Dave Berry's Year in Review
Replies
2
Views
781
Joe Summer
J

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top