Climate Lukewarmers and Pragmatism

actually many (most?) are motivated by addiction to a consumer lifestyle, and are terrified of the possibility it's all true. apparently the thought of giving up giant tvs and air-conditioning is beyond the pale.

 

I know what you said.

Your idea is that professors and graduate students have more influence over federal energy and environmental policy than do oil, coal and gas corporations, because some of our higher education institutions are public.

I'm just saying that's hilarious.

 

Allow me to clear up the misunderstanding.

He is talking about research dollars on each side. You are talking about influence in the form of lobbying. He is correct in that the overwhelming number of research dollars goes to the pro global warming crowd. You are correct that the energy industry has much more lobbying influence.

I believe he started the conversation with the research dollar issue, and you have been arguing the lobbying angle ever since, which was never what he was talking about.

 

While all this squares with my beliefs, you don't need to go this deep.

They cannot model it. They cannot construct a rudimentary cost/benefit analysis.

Q.E.D. they are acting or demanding action without any economic or pragmatic basis. It's pure agenda.

 

That's completely wrong. The earth would be cooling down if man were not here.

Your post is a good illustration of the various logical fallacies and conspiracy theories that the denier cultists depend on. Let's keep going.

That was impressive in its religious fervor, if nothing else.

It was essentially the "climate varied naturally in the past, therefore humans can't cause warming!" denier mega-fallacy. It's awful logic, exactly like claiming that since forest fires happened naturally, humans can't cause forest fires. Even though an average third grader could instantly see how bad the argument is, almost every denier thinks it's brilliant.

The "I can't understand it, so it can't be true!" fallacy, another staple of the deniers.

First, the models are very good. Only the paid professional denier liar leaders try to pretend otherwise, by fudging and fabricating the data. Those deniers leaders keep getting caught red-handed, but the true believers don't care. Like an abused spouse, the denier rank and file will always run back to their abusers for more.

Second, the models are not necessary at all for global warming theory. The directly measured data proves the theory quite nicely. If no models existed, the theory would still be rock solid. Models are just icing on the cake. Global warming science has been very accurate about everything for decades running, hence it has credibility.

Good question. What will it take for you to accept reality, and to stop making all those unsupported alarmist claims that the economy will be destroyed and poor people will die? So far, your cult reality-exclusion bubble has been to powerful to penetrate. Rationality is our only weapon, but you're immune to rationality. Hence, we just have to sort of build a wall around you and walk away.

 

That isn't the misunderstanding. That person was at best trying to toss up a smoke screen, trying to suggest that science is lobbying for a public policy direction.

But, research dollars go into fact finding, not into public policy decision making. Those are two very different areas. Research money is not going into public policy decision making. In fact, scientists have been quite careful in avoiding the public policy debate, concerned as they are that opinion from science could cause people to think the science was weighted by that opinion.

Lobbying makes stuff happen, NOT research dollars. Look at this very example - tons of research is making very little difference, while lobbying is keeping us paralyzed. And, there are ZERO research dollars going into lobbying.


Big oil/coal/gas is free to invest in "research" in the same way tobacco companies did as they fought for the only rational objective of a capitalist corporation - largest return for stockholders - an objective that is totally foreign to scientific research.

 

That is all well and good, but he has been talking about research dollars, and you have been replying with lobbying influence. You have been talking apples and oranges.

Sure the Energy Lobby COULD put more money into research, but they don't, presumably because they do not feel they have to.

 

You need a civics class if you think it is the research arms of universities that make public policy.

And, a little time spend reading the news will inform you of how little our congressmen care about ANYTHING going on at universities.

 

True. His red herring is floating belly up.

Research dollars is totally irrelevant to the subject of public policy decision making.

 

With all due respect it isn't the congressmen issuing the grants. There isn't a federal government department that doesn't issue grants for one sort of study or the other.

 

Im not going to spend my time debating what you and another poster were discussing. I saw that you and he were talking apples and oranges and tried to help you focus the discussion. Its not worth much more than that.

Im not sure that Id say that research dollars are irrelevant to the discussion of public policy decision making, because their finding are used to formulate both arguments, but they certainly are far from the totality of the equation.

Research dollars are however at the heart of any claimed "settled science" debate, which was the subject put forth by the OP in this thread.

 

You are not really that naive are you? When research dollars come from government with an agenda, those research dollars better turn up what government is looking for or no more research dollars.