Science! Science? Science...

[dok]

Originally Posted by Aldin

I guess if you all don't see how the discussion just shifted from "all the money is on the side of denial"

I never said that. Neither did Rich.

Originally Posted by Aldin

to "sure the money is supporting change

It's not, and the link you gave fails to remotely demonstrate that by any reasonable assessment.

Originally Posted by Aldin

there's not much else I can say.

If you're going to twist the arguments we present to that extent, then you're right, there's not much of a point in discussing things. It's just debate club at that point.

--

What I have said, and what it seems nobody has any desire to even dispute, is that the economic incentives for those who fund denial efforts (either lobbying, or denial research) are drastically stronger than the incentives of those who fund mainline climate science research. If you care to argue otherwise that would, at least, be addressing my point.

[wriggz]

Originally Posted by aldin

I guess if you all don't see how the discussion just shifted from "all the money is on the side of denial" to "sure the money is supporting change, but that's okay because change is a fact" there's not much else I can say.

I acknowledge that your point of the money spent was valid and demands explaining, hence my response. I know it seems like a side step, however if equal amounts of money was spent by Governments and University on competing research (although research should be impartial before being conducted), I would be more likely to call the jury out.

I gather research that supports climate change is using that as a premise in the same way biologist use evolution as a premise in their research.

Originally Posted by Dysole

For me the question(s) that comes to the forefront for me as I see what wriggz and dok have posted is this.

"Since adopting the principles proposed by climate change would greatly endanger the financial bottom line of corporations that rely on fossil fuels, if we accept that climate change is indeed not as disastrous a thing as scientists think, then why would these corporations not put a ton of money into combating this research? If the facts are on their side why would they stop pushing this? Is it because they can count on private donors to do the heavy lifting?"

It seems antithetical to what a corporation would want to do if the facts were on their side to drop off funding for research that shows things aren't so bad.

~Dysole, looking for explanations

My theory is not that Big Oil stopped, is that the money they spend is eclipsed by Government and Universities.


Now unlike government and universities that do research that does not have direct profits, Corporations have to be mindful of the bottom line. Once a climate of uncertainty is present, then it is likely cheaper to lobby than research.


Truly, going back to my evolutionary example, it is cheaper to rely on one publication (the Bible) and lobby people who agree with you than it is to conduct exhaustive research.

[Aldin]

*shrug*

Here's the thing. I'm not tied to an energy company. I'm not tied to a political party. I'm pro-recycling, pro-conservation and I hate it when they club baby seals.

But I'm also used to being able to understand the things that I agree with. I read contracts. I look at how studies were conducted and consider whether or not I see any flaws in methodology or conclusion. I push and prod at stuff until I feel comfortable it isn't going to change on me.

There are a lot of things I don't understand, but I don't really take any positions on most of those things. Some have practical, demonstrable uses and so I accept them as a given because I have seen them in action (the current form of cellular data transmission, for example). Some I simply don't need to know anything about - how dangerous are various treatments for depression? Don't know. I acknowledge the answer is important, but it isn't important to me.

And then you come to something like climate change. I have to decide how to behave in reference to it, and yet to the extent I follow it I find myself unconvinced by either side. So I take the skeptic's stance. Prove it. That's where I feel everything to date has come up short. When I do look into stuff, I find rabbit holes and failed projections. I see questions about data collection and questionable motivations. So I remain skeptical. Climate change doesn't have a magic bullet. So I remain a skeptic until it does.

~Aldin, wondering how evolution made its way into the conversation

[Dad_Scaper]

"Either side" of what, Aldin? On the one hand, you have climate scientists, virtually all saying the same thing. On the other side, who are you listening to? Are you similarly conflicted about the virtues of vaccination? Is it enough for you that there are people, not the experts, but other people, who disagree? Because there are people who believe that eating the paws of apes will make you strong. Are you skeptical that nutritionists who disagree with them are correct?

Show me the climate scientists, the actual experts, who are your other side. Then I'll understand your "either side" presentation better.

[wriggz]

I empathize with Aldin,


It is like smoking back in the day. Some smokers did not get lung cancer, and some non smokers did. You would think we would realize inhaling ash in our lungs was bad, but hindsight is 20/20. Unlike many theorize there is no magic bullet here, no apple to fall on your head to prove gravity. We cannot point to an ozone hole and say - "look there, we did that". There are models and historic evidence and current observations. This research covers eons, and an entire planet!


I can see how it would be hard to force people to pay more for power because we can't burn coal and need to build windmills, when they can barely pay their bills, Although I suspect that may not be very accurate anyway.

Originally Posted by Aldin

*shrug*
~Aldin, wondering how evolution made its way into the conversation

It is any easy topic to draw analogy with.

Currently evolution has scientific condense with a minority of people claiming it is incorrect for scientific reasons (if you are creationist based on faith, and simply claim the evidence is the work of evil, then there is no basis for scientific discussion and may you go with God's Grace). Those arguing for Science based Creation are very vocal and have lots of political power, despite the fact there is no debate among scientific community.

Also we are discussing Science in general, as opposed to Climate in specific. I could have just as easily went with Medical Science (as opposed to New Age Healing) or Quantum Theory (as opposed to Plato's theory of Forms).

[Aldin]

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

"Either side" of what, Aldin? On the one hand, you have climate scientists, virtually all saying the same thing. On the other side, who are you listening to? Are you similarly conflicted about the virtues of vaccination? Is it enough for you that there are people, not the experts, but other people, who disagree? Because there are people who believe that eating the paws of apes will make you strong. Are you skeptical that nutritionists who disagree with them are correct?

Show me the climate scientists, the actual experts, who are your other side. Then I'll understand your "either side" presentation better.

D_S,

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I was just explaining how I find myself here having this discussion.

I understand how vaccines work, I've at least taken "reality check" looks at the effectiveness studies. I'm 100% pro-vaccines.

I can't find a similar case for understanding climate change. Whenever I go to "kick the tires", I always come back unsure as to whether or not I buy what they're selling. The predictive models to date have been poor, our understanding of how the global system works has been changing, and all the "other side" needs to be is the idea that climate change as a result of human industry is not a clear and present danger. Since I cannot find a clear case that it is, but am also convinced that human industry does have a real and measurable impact, I stand by my statement that I am not convinced by either side.

~Aldin, straightforwardly

[Rich10]

Originally Posted by Aldin

I guess if you all don't see how the discussion just shifted from "all the money is on the side of denial" to "sure the money is supporting change, but that's okay because change is a fact" there's not much else I can say.

~Aldin, not believing anything he reads on the internet

I think that you have misconstrued the link I sent:
"From 2003 to 2007, Koch Affiliated Foundations and the ExxonMobil Foundation were "heavily involved" in funding climate change denial efforts. But Exxon hasn't made a publically traceable contribution since 2008, and Koch's efforts dramatically declined, Brulle said.
Coinciding with a decline in traceable funding, Brulle found a dramatic rise in the cash flowing to denial organizations from DonorsTrust, a donor-directed foundation whose funders cannot be traced. This one foundation, the assessment found, now accounts for 25 percent of all traceable foundation funding used by organizations promoting the systematic denial of climate change."
The implication isn't that the Koch brothers and coal/oil industries haven't stopped promoting research which disputes climate change, they are just hiding it now. Why would they want to hide their funding?

[Dad_Scaper]

Well, just as you are not trying to persuade me, I am not trying to persuade you. You say you are not satisfied by decades of peer-reviewed studies about the subject of climate science, and I accept that.

[Rich10]

Originally Posted by Aldin

I understand how vaccines work, I've at least taken "reality check" looks at the effectiveness studies. I'm 100% pro-vaccines.

I can't find a similar case for understanding climate change. Whenever I go to "kick the tires", I always come back unsure as to whether or not I buy what they're selling. The predictive models to date have been poor, our understanding of how the global system works has been changing, and all the "other side" needs to be is the idea that climate change as a result of human industry is not a clear and present danger. Since I cannot find a clear case that it is, but am also convinced that human industry does have a real and measurable impact, I stand by my statement that I am not convinced by either side.

~Aldin, straightforwardly

I like straightforward.

Almost all of the heat on the surface of the earth comes from the sun. CO2 absorbs more heat than N2 and O2 (the primary gases in the earth's atmosphere). (CO2 is the primary greenhouse gas on Venus.) The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased since the start of the industrial revolution. A higher percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere should absorb more heat from the sun. The chemistry is very simple. It would be a great surprise if the additional CO2 in the atmosphere didn't raise temperatures.

The great majority of scientific papers on this subject propose that global warming is caused by man and that it will be a negative event. I haven't personally done any testing on climate change any more than I have done testing on vaccines (but I did just recently get a flu shot). I agree that on a day to day basis, the climate is variable and even the experts agree that we are dealing with long time frames. Still, without a personal expertise in this matter, I defer to those who study this.

The best argument that I have seen for not acting on the emissions of greenhouse gases is that the rest of the world seems unwilling to act. I actually find this somewhat compelling. If the United States acts alone, it will not solve the problem. China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, .... are burning more and more fossil fuels which puts more CO2 in the air. Outside of a technological change (such as an invention which makes burning fossil fuels uneconomical or a shield such as SO2), I do not see a reasonable possibility of a world wide change whereby countries will be willing to produce energy in a less economical way.

[wriggz]

Originally Posted by Rich10

The best argument that I have seen for not acting on the emissions of greenhouse gases is that the rest of the world seems unwilling to act. I actually find this somewhat compelling. If the United States acts alone, it will not solve the problem. China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, .... are burning more and more fossil fuels which puts more CO2 in the air. Outside of a technological change (such as an invention which makes burning fossil fuels uneconomical or a shield such as SO2), I do not see a reasonable possibility of a world wide change whereby countries will be willing to produce energy in a less economical way.

So a game of Chicken then? Not very good Science. Having traded in a climate denier (Harper) for a champion (Trudeau) as Canada's Prime Minster, I'm proud to say we have Minsters of Science and Minister of Climate change and the Enviroment.

Maybe Canada will swerve first.

[Dysole]

Tesla.

Tesla is the future. And once it becomes affordable to the average person (~2 years) I think we'll see something in the car industry similar to what Apple did to the phone market.

~Dysole, who believes Elon Musk can do it

[Rich10]

Originally Posted by wriggz

So a game of Chicken then? Not very good Science. Having traded in a climate denier (Harper) for a champion (Trudeau) as Canada's Prime Minster, I'm proud to say we have Minsters of Science and Minister of Climate change and the Enviroment.

Maybe Canada will swerve first.

Not a fan of a game of chicken because there's always someone who's crazier than me. My concern is simple math. The US produces 17.5 tons of carbon per person (Canada is 14.7). The problem is that the per person production of carbon for China, India, Indonesia and Brazil is 6.2, 1.6, 1.8 and 2.2. These countries are increasing their carbon output. I just don't like the math.