You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: Climate Change
I think you overestimate how informed 99% of people are. I had always assumed that everyone had a well read and thought out basis for their beliefs, and following them to their conclusion would show any logical inconsistency.
That's not the case and it took me 15 years to realize it. Most people treat politics like football and root for the same team their parents did. Asking them to explain why is like asking climate change advocates to explain what study sold them on the idea. You'll get some queer looks, hand waiving and maybe a link to an article they probably didn't read. But nothing you say or question is going to sway them.
I was completely with you right up to the point where you mentioned climate change. Of course there's no single study that sold anyone on the idea of climate change, the entire point of scientific research is to build consensus over time by continuously investigating and questioning emerging and even existing theories. The sheer volume of studies that all independently come to the same conclusions is what sells people on climate change; the comparatively almost non-existent amount of credible studies that deny man-made changes is what sells people on climate change. Anyone who reads one study and changes his/her mind because of that doesn't understand science.
Completely agree on the political hooliganism though, the whole "rah rah, my team's the best" mentality has gotten way out of hand. That's what you get for keeping people dumb and uninformed though.
Re: Climate Change
No, it's real because man-made climate change has been scientifically proven. Time and time again.
Come on now.
I'm all for a good conspiracy theory but not in this instance.
Of course you are free to believe what you want, though. Not trying to pick a fight here.
Re: Climate Change
There's a lot of money in global warming being a real thing. Therefore it's a real thing.
There's also a lot of money in maintaining the status quo and burning fossil fuels, therefore climate change is not real?
Let's just focus on the scientific arguments, shall we?
Re: Climate Change
buzzsaw wrote:There's a lot of money in global warming being a real thing. Therefore it's a real thing.
There's also a lot of money in maintaining the status quo and burning fossil fuels, therefore climate change is not real?
Let's just focus on the scientific arguments, shall we?
Oil companies don't have all that much power. Most of them are nationally owned and far outnumber the private ones in wealth. In my country the oil company is the biggest corporation we have, yet the state is completely behind the man made climate change narrative. Oil interests seem to have very little influence.
The real power players are the banking elite, and they'd like nothing better than to enforce a climate tax. It's about power, not money. They already have all the money. What they want are laws that regulate how much money others are allowed to make, people who can threaten their position.
Science? Scientists have to eat too, and currently there are more grants available for "proving man made climate change" than the other way around. Not to mention being labeled a "denier" and a questionable future career if you go against the flow.
The climate debate has been polarized and political from the start. Science, or rather scientists, are only brought in to prop up the message. There is no certainty in what can't be tested, I'm not even sure we should call it science.
Re: Climate Change
Oil companies don't have all that much power. Most of them are nationally owned and far outnumber the private ones in wealth. In my country the oil company is the biggest corporation we have, yet the state is completely behind the man made climate change narrative. Oil interests seem to have very little influence.
That's mostly true for Europe, but the fossil fuel lobby in the US is tremendously influential, with the Koch brothers being one of the largest campaign contributors around (and Koch Industries of course being a major fossil fuel corporation).
The real power players are the banking elite, and they'd like nothing better than to enforce a climate tax. It's about power, not money. They already have all the money. What they want are laws that regulate how much money others are allowed to make, people who can threaten their position.
I would've expected that to be true as well, and was ready to agree that financial institutions generally have the greatest influence over economic policy. But I looked it up, and it turns out, however, that electronics and telecommunication (again, talking about the US specifically) are actually the biggest lobbyists, followed by the pharmaceutical industry and only then do the banks and insurance companies come in.
Having said that, what are you basing that second part on? It comes across as total speculation on their motives, and I see absolutely nothing that would support that idea.
Science? Scientists have to eat too, and currently there are more grants available for "proving man made climate change" than the other way around. Not to mention being labeled a "denier" and a questionable future career if you go against the flow.
You could argue that there are more public grants for studies that confirm man made climate change, but it's undeniable that nearly all of the studies that deny climate change are funded by groups that stand to benefit from climate change denial. So I would say that it is likely easier to get (private) funding for a study that denies climate change than it would be to be one of the many, many studies fishing for a chunk of public or private funding.
The climate debate has been polarized and political from the start. Science, or rather scientists, are only brought in to prop up the message. There is no certainty in what can't be tested, I'm not even sure we should call it science.
The scientific method consists of a number of steps. Starting from the the definition of the question, over doing historical and background research to building a hypothesis in the first phase. In the second phase the hypothesis needs to be tested, which can be done in a number of ways. You could build an experimental setup that mimics the proces as outlined in the hypothesis, typically on a smaller scale; or alternative, you can test the predictive qualities of your hypothesis. Given that climate effects can't really be scaled down, climate change studies tend to focus on the latter.
Climate change is most definitely science.
What I don't understand is what would motivate the political class to push a climate change agenda. It almost certainly implies more subsidies and funding, negative economic impact and often a negative perception from a large section of voters. I don't think any government on earth is eager to spend more money on something that will empirically and noticeably have a negative impact on the immediate perceived quality of life.
How do you go from "because money" to something more defined?
Let's turn that discussion around though, and look at my home country for a minute. We have the second largest petrochemical cluster in the world (Port of Antwerp), second only to the entire state of Texas. The Port of Antwerp is in turn the largest economic center in Belgium. We have a center-right, liberal (as-in politically conservative) government, and overall the country is mostly right leaning and has been for the past three decades or so. In fact, the current government has been accused of following too closely in Tatcher's footsteps as far as economic policy is concerned. Don't you think if there was a reasonable case to be made against man-made climate change that our political class would have everything to gain from pushing that narrative? Yet, we have not a single political party that denies climate change.
I'll buy it if someone tells me that politicians are abusing scientific studies for their own agenda if that agenda would actually be to their own benefit. I don't buy it if you tell me that politicians somehow choose to push a narrative that effectively makes their jobs infinitely harder.
Re: Climate Change
That's mostly true for Europe, but the fossil fuel lobby in the US is tremendously influential, with the Koch brothers being one of the largest campaign contributors around (and Koch Industries of course being a major fossil fuel corporation).
The Koch brothers are not representative of the top elite as a whole. They have the power to influence elections yes, but political power is not the be all end of things. The global warming narrative doesn't need any lobbyists since it is taught at all levels of society, from the beginning. Kindergarden, schools, universities, media. Most of the politicians already submit to it because every "authority" out there is pushing it. Yes, America has exceptions due to its strong republican tradition, but GW is definitely being promoted in the USA by the elite, the powers to be, whatever you want to call them, just like it is in Europe. People like the Koch's are just the minority opposition. You hear none of these other elite families complain. On the contrary their own charity funded education institutions and corporate medias are championing it hard, every day.
I would've expected that to be true as well, and was ready to agree that financial institutions generally have the greatest influence over economic policy. But I looked it up, and it turns out, however, that electronics and telecommunication (again, talking about the US specifically) are actually the biggest lobbyists, followed by the pharmaceutical industry and only then do the banks and insurance companies come in.
Having said that, what are you basing that second part on? It comes across as total speculation on their motives, and I see absolutely nothing that would support that idea.
Do you feel those sectors have much influence on society? Beyond securing profitable contracts and regulations in their fields? Why isn't the banking elite, to name one of the big players, topping the lobby list? They certainly trump the newcomers in resources, connections and experience. Perhaps because they don't have to?
In the absence of concrete information I have to base it on logic. I can understand why a wealthy industrialist would support something like a feminist movement, because that creates more workers and more competition for wages. But at first glance I fail to see why they would support something like communism. Why they would care about environmentalism. But they did and do. Since both those things put limitations on capitalism it would put limitations on a competitors ability to catch up. Of course they want to keep their power, so it makes logical sense to me. What wouldn't make sense at all is that the elite, who in thousands of years of recorded history has generally acted like selfish pricks, would suddenly turn to altruism and support these causes out of the goodness of their hearts. And if altruism isn't behind it, something else is. Likely the same thing it has always been. The gaining and keeping of power.
You could argue that there are more public grants for studies that confirm man made climate change, but it's undeniable that nearly all of the studies that deny climate change are funded by groups that stand to benefit from climate change denial. So I would say that it is likely easier to get (private) funding for a study that denies climate change than it would be to be one of the many, many studies fishing for a chunk of public or private funding.
You could probably get funding, but like with tobacco scientists it will limit your future career. The smart ones will choose the other option. You can argue that the scientific community as a whole would be intelligent enough to not go with something that is completely wrong, but with so much money involved on both sides I'm not sure we can ascertain one way or the other. It's not like there aren't wealthy people on the other end offering the same money to get the results they want. They are, and more so.
The scientific method consists of a number of steps. Starting from the the definition of the question, over doing historical and background research to building a hypothesis in the first phase. In the second phase the hypothesis needs to be tested, which can be done in a number of ways. You could build an experimental setup that mimics the proces as outlined in the hypothesis, typically on a smaller scale; or alternative, you can test the predictive qualities of your hypothesis. Given that climate effects can't really be scaled down, climate change studies tend to focus on the latter.
Climate change is most definitely science.
It's very difficult to test the effects on climate since you don't know all the variables. We don't even fully understand most of them. Weather is notoriously hard to predict. Maybe one day we will have the necessary knowledge to scientifically test the GW theory, but certainly not at present. All we can do is measure the effects.
What I don't understand is what would motivate the political class to push a climate change agenda. It almost certainly implies more subsidies and funding, negative economic impact and often a negative perception from a large section of voters. I don't think any government on earth is eager to spend more money on something that will empirically and noticeably have a negative impact on the immediate perceived quality of life.
The political class is not like Rome when they actually had real power. Today a politician is not an elitist Senator, among the top men/families in the state. He is more like a cronie for the big players. And there's so many reasons why the big players would want this. They are not the government, they just control government and want it to foot the bill (ie. you and me). They want to utilize the power of military, police and state bureaucracy to their own ends. That's what the elite have always done, and that's what they will continue to do. The problem in America and Europe isn't actually a state that becomes too powerful, it's a state that is too impotent to resist the influence of the elite.
How do you go from "because money" to something more defined?
Let's turn that discussion around though, and look at my home country for a minute. We have the second largest petrochemical cluster in the world (Port of Antwerp), second only to the entire state of Texas. The Port of Antwerp is in turn the largest economic center in Belgium. We have a center-right, liberal (as-in politically conservative) government, and overall the country is mostly right leaning and has been for the past three decades or so. In fact, the current government has been accused of following too closely in Tatcher's footsteps as far as economic policy is concerned. Don't you think if there was a reasonable case to be made against man-made climate change that our political class would have everything to gain from pushing that narrative? Yet, we have not a single political party that denies climate change.
I'll buy it if someone tells me that politicians are abusing scientific studies for their own agenda if that agenda would actually be to their own benefit. I don't buy it if you tell me that politicians somehow choose to push a narrative that effectively makes their jobs infinitely harder.
The politicians don't have the power to push a different narrative. Being democratically elected their powers are very limited. They have to operate within what the people want. The way the elite influence the people is not through politicians, it is via the education system and the media. Who owns the media and who decides what is taught in the education system? Are these beyond the control of the rich and powerful?
Answer is they aren't going there because there is little to gain from it. Making more money for Belgium would do little to impact their own bank accounts, and a direct financial reward like a bribe is very unlikely to offset the long term stigma of being called a kook. Those who do will be second rate, or in the case I'm right, honest (which means not likely).
Re: Climate Change
There's a lot of money in global warming being a real thing. Therefore it's a real thing.
Really? For whom?
So it's a global conspiracy by scientists from all over the planet? They are all in on it?
Who stands to make more money? The oil giants (billions upon billions) who pollute this planet or.... the scientific community? Thank goodness we have the multinational oil conglomerates to catch these pesky climate change hoaxers, what would we do without them!?
You know who believes in climate change and thinks it's a national threat: The Pentagon.
NASA also seems to have been fooled by this as well.
Re: Climate Change
The earth's temperature has changed long before people came along. I suppose we came out of the ice age because people were burning fossil fuels? Climate change is real, sure. Not convinced that the reasons are what we've been told, and I certainly am not going to take the government's word for it.
