7 ms·

It's fascinating to see how supposedly objective institutions are invested in selling environmentalist panic. The greens have certainly won the PR battle.

by anewguy 14y ago

Steko 14y ago
Alternatively one might conclude that websites from across the spectrum use linkbaity headlines to drive traffic. Even my daily newspaper screams it's headline at me in all caps, the horror!
justsee 14y ago
Your sentiment seems to echo this: http://whowhatwhy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/395940_842169154111_1010664_37712606_1688554057_n1.jpg http://whowhatwhy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/395940_8421...
- guylhem 14y ago
  Considering was called Greenland by the Vikings who also named Nova Scotia "Vinland" because grape vines grew there, would it be more likely to you that some alarmist scientists would defends their jobs and salaries by giving overperssimistic claims, and that the rest would have to follow the game or become irrelevant in the publish-or-perish world? Just like a lemon market, except driven by fear? I remember reading somewhere (Richard Feymann maybe?) about the initial mass or charge of some particle, an electron maybe, being far away from the truth and leading to a suppression of the publication of any "dissident" results - including a much better estimate that followed. The scientific process took care of that by publishing revised estimates, just slightly lower and lower, until the number reached the initially conflicting estimation, but this took some time. I do not claim to have any opinion on climate change - except to notice that a side is giving alarmist claims, which can not be disproved, or when they can and are, which are adjusted by an ad-hoc theory. From global freezing in the 70s to global warming, and now "climate change". And that the other side is giving different results and seems to be more cautious in its process, because it is facing an uphill battle like anyone who would have published a significantly lower mass. That does not win merit points with what I know about epistemology.
  - fl3tch 14y ago
    Unlike oil company executives, zero climate scientist salaries depend on global warming being true. That's just not how or why academic researchers get paid. They push the "agenda" because that's the model the data supports.
    - kruipen 14y ago
      "Who's being naive, Kay?"
    - anamax 14y ago
      > zero climate scientist salaries depend on global warming being true. That's just not how or why academic researchers get paid. They push the "agenda" because that's the model the data supports. The ClimateGate e-mails show otherwise. They show the warmist mafia conspiring to spike publication of contrary research. If you can't get published, you don't get very far in academia. And then there's the whole "I won't share my data because they'll use it to try to prove me wrong" thing.
      - lusr 14y ago
        I skimmed through the rather extensive write-up at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_co... and could find zero evidence to support your claims of a "warmist mafia" conspiring to "spike publication of contrary research". The only conspiracy I do see in that write-up consists of sensationalist self-proclaimed experts, scientifically illiterate pundits and talking heads providing an illusion of controversy where none exists so that people like you tune in to their message and generate ad revenues and fat bonus pay-checks. Honestly which do you believe is more likely - a vast global conspiracy of climatologists are swindling the public, people who have to publish models and/or data to support their claims, with all it taking is one honest scientist to expose them as frauds (withholding data as you point out does happen, but this affects the support their claims receive)... or a bunch of charismatic talking heads with zero science education or interest are hyping things up because they know, as an absolute and incontrovertible fact, that doing so generates revenue, votes, etc. from the conspiracy crowd? I doubt all scientists are honest, but the proportion of scientists that are honest vs. the proportion of talking heads that are honest makes it pretty obvious where to look for a real conspiracy. It takes one scientist to expose a fraud definitively, but no amount of evidence seems to persuade a talking head to shut up as long as there's enough conspiracy theorists paying their salary and their master's profits.
- anewguy 14y ago
  That nicely fits leftist preconceptions, but it's 100% bullshit. The biggest anti-climate change organization I know of (and the worst quality), Heartland, gets about $4 million/year from corporations. On the other hand, climate change research funding from the US governmeny alone runs about $2 billion/year, which is partially dependent on keeping up the panic and alarm. The most influential Climate Change skeptic, Steve McIntyre, lives on savings, a pension, an blog tips. Your worldview is so factually wrong, it could hardly be worse.
  - kaonashi 14y ago
    Unsourced anecdotes to not make for a compelling argument.
  - justsee 14y ago
    "That nicely fits leftist preconceptions" This is not about politics, this is about science, and the science is clearly telling us we are having a significant impact on the earth's climate, and we must act with increasing urgency. The assertion that this is a leftist preconception is nonsense. People across the political spectrum understand the science - there are climate scientists who are part of the 95% scientific consensus who are also to the right politically. The scientific consensus on global warming is beyond dispute, but like the Tobacco wars of yesteryear, industry will not go down without a well-funded fight (which is exactly what that illustration captures). You imply in your rebuttal that climate change scientists are engaged in a conspiracy to increase funding. As I said further up the thread, it's as absurd as the '9/11 was an inside job' conspiracy favoured by what you would call 'leftists'. Lets call the 'global warming conspiracy' what it is: a half-baked fringe conspiracy theory favoured by people who believe the 'skeptic' points endlessly promoted by industry (and continually debunked by actual scientists).
    - lotharbot 14y ago
      > "science is clearly telling us ... we must act with increasing urgency" Forgive me for this meta-detour, but: Science tells us that the climate is changing in ways that most of humanity would consider harmful. Science tells us that carbon emissions are one of the major drivers of those changes. Science tells us what we can expect to happen if we take certain courses of action. But science doesn't tell us what we "must" do or what course of action we "must" take; science only tells us "is". "Must" is necessarily a matter of ethics, philosophy, politics, or religion. Science doesn't tell us what course of action is better or worse, only what the expected outcomes are. Things-other-than-science are how we determine what we mean by "better" or "worse" (for an extreme example, consider that some people want humanity to go extinct; their idea of "better" and my idea of "better" do not remotely resemble each other.)
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]

It's fascinating to see how supposedly objective institutions are invested in selling environmentalist panic. The greens have certainly won the PR battle.

by anewguy 14y ago

It's fascinating to see how supposedly objective institutions are invested in selling environmentalist panic. The greens have certainly won the PR battle.

Steko 14y ago

Alternatively one might conclude that websites from across the spectrum use linkbaity headlines to drive traffic. Even my daily newspaper screams it's headline at me in all caps, the horror!

justsee 14y ago

Your sentiment seems to echo this: http://whowhatwhy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/395940_842169154111_1010664_37712606_1688554057_n1.jpg http://whowhatwhy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/395940_8421...

guylhem 14y ago
Considering was called Greenland by the Vikings who also named Nova Scotia "Vinland" because grape vines grew there, would it be more likely to you that some alarmist scientists would defends their jobs and salaries by giving overperssimistic claims, and that the rest would have to follow the game or become irrelevant in the publish-or-perish world? Just like a lemon market, except driven by fear? I remember reading somewhere (Richard Feymann maybe?) about the initial mass or charge of some particle, an electron maybe, being far away from the truth and leading to a suppression of the publication of any "dissident" results - including a much better estimate that followed. The scientific process took care of that by publishing revised estimates, just slightly lower and lower, until the number reached the initially conflicting estimation, but this took some time. I do not claim to have any opinion on climate change - except to notice that a side is giving alarmist claims, which can not be disproved, or when they can and are, which are adjusted by an ad-hoc theory. From global freezing in the 70s to global warming, and now "climate change". And that the other side is giving different results and seems to be more cautious in its process, because it is facing an uphill battle like anyone who would have published a significantly lower mass. That does not win merit points with what I know about epistemology.
- fl3tch 14y ago
  Unlike oil company executives, zero climate scientist salaries depend on global warming being true. That's just not how or why academic researchers get paid. They push the "agenda" because that's the model the data supports.
  - kruipen 14y ago
    "Who's being naive, Kay?"
  - anamax 14y ago
    > zero climate scientist salaries depend on global warming being true. That's just not how or why academic researchers get paid. They push the "agenda" because that's the model the data supports. The ClimateGate e-mails show otherwise. They show the warmist mafia conspiring to spike publication of contrary research. If you can't get published, you don't get very far in academia. And then there's the whole "I won't share my data because they'll use it to try to prove me wrong" thing.
    - lusr 14y ago
      I skimmed through the rather extensive write-up at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_co... and could find zero evidence to support your claims of a "warmist mafia" conspiring to "spike publication of contrary research". The only conspiracy I do see in that write-up consists of sensationalist self-proclaimed experts, scientifically illiterate pundits and talking heads providing an illusion of controversy where none exists so that people like you tune in to their message and generate ad revenues and fat bonus pay-checks. Honestly which do you believe is more likely - a vast global conspiracy of climatologists are swindling the public, people who have to publish models and/or data to support their claims, with all it taking is one honest scientist to expose them as frauds (withholding data as you point out does happen, but this affects the support their claims receive)... or a bunch of charismatic talking heads with zero science education or interest are hyping things up because they know, as an absolute and incontrovertible fact, that doing so generates revenue, votes, etc. from the conspiracy crowd? I doubt all scientists are honest, but the proportion of scientists that are honest vs. the proportion of talking heads that are honest makes it pretty obvious where to look for a real conspiracy. It takes one scientist to expose a fraud definitively, but no amount of evidence seems to persuade a talking head to shut up as long as there's enough conspiracy theorists paying their salary and their master's profits.
anewguy 14y ago
That nicely fits leftist preconceptions, but it's 100% bullshit. The biggest anti-climate change organization I know of (and the worst quality), Heartland, gets about $4 million/year from corporations. On the other hand, climate change research funding from the US governmeny alone runs about $2 billion/year, which is partially dependent on keeping up the panic and alarm. The most influential Climate Change skeptic, Steve McIntyre, lives on savings, a pension, an blog tips. Your worldview is so factually wrong, it could hardly be worse.
- kaonashi 14y ago
  Unsourced anecdotes to not make for a compelling argument.
- justsee 14y ago
  "That nicely fits leftist preconceptions" This is not about politics, this is about science, and the science is clearly telling us we are having a significant impact on the earth's climate, and we must act with increasing urgency. The assertion that this is a leftist preconception is nonsense. People across the political spectrum understand the science - there are climate scientists who are part of the 95% scientific consensus who are also to the right politically. The scientific consensus on global warming is beyond dispute, but like the Tobacco wars of yesteryear, industry will not go down without a well-funded fight (which is exactly what that illustration captures). You imply in your rebuttal that climate change scientists are engaged in a conspiracy to increase funding. As I said further up the thread, it's as absurd as the '9/11 was an inside job' conspiracy favoured by what you would call 'leftists'. Lets call the 'global warming conspiracy' what it is: a half-baked fringe conspiracy theory favoured by people who believe the 'skeptic' points endlessly promoted by industry (and continually debunked by actual scientists).
  - lotharbot 14y ago
    > "science is clearly telling us ... we must act with increasing urgency" Forgive me for this meta-detour, but: Science tells us that the climate is changing in ways that most of humanity would consider harmful. Science tells us that carbon emissions are one of the major drivers of those changes. Science tells us what we can expect to happen if we take certain courses of action. But science doesn't tell us what we "must" do or what course of action we "must" take; science only tells us "is". "Must" is necessarily a matter of ethics, philosophy, politics, or religion. Science doesn't tell us what course of action is better or worse, only what the expected outcomes are. Things-other-than-science are how we determine what we mean by "better" or "worse" (for an extreme example, consider that some people want humanity to go extinct; their idea of "better" and my idea of "better" do not remotely resemble each other.)
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]