Sounds like Hulme is reneging his statement. I don’t see how you can interpret the statement any other way. In order to pad their numbers they included names of politicians in there list as well.
I’m not just talking about technology, though, i’m talking about all climate change research. If the criteria for assuming who’s backing what with their money is an interest, really, we should be looking at big oil too. In which case, we can’t say whether or not it’s safe to assume independency; certain research might be funded by either side, neither side, or even both, potentially. Speaking about potentials is fair and reasonable, but it’s not reasonable to state an actual conclusion based upon the potential for something.
Aside from “Pollution is bad”, I think i’d disagree with you that those things are the mantra of a typical environmentalist, no more than the mantra of a typical skeptic is “Pollution is good, oil companies are saints and the world is a-ok and absolutely perfect”. Generally, the views of the majority of both groups tend to lack that level of hyperbole. Really, I think the “mass hysteria” itself is the illusion - after all, if a majority of environmentalists (not an insignificant group) honestly believed the world was going to end, we’d be seeing riots, murders, and all that goes along with what would be, in essence, a witch hunt. There are, certainly, hysterical individuals, even groups, but to make a claim of “mass” hysteria is considerably shorter a jump than i’d be prepared to make.
Well, so far, anyway. As you say, even oil companies are looking into greener fuels and technologies. Some day, such natural resources will be running out, even if they don’t cause considerable harm in and of themselves.
But, surely, if we look at this from an outside viewpoint, couldn’t the same be said of you? You too are attempting to make broad claims, based on the “disaster” of scientific collusion or deception. To a neutral observer, it might be considered that you too are attempting to force your agenda on others, by making people fear that scientific research is in essence bought and paid for.
Now, i’d say that would be unfair. I don’t consider your words to be the result of a deliberate attempt to pull the wool over eyes, or the undertaking of a cynical method like using fear to promote your position. I’d say you’re simply arguing in good faith - but that doesn’t mean that, to someone else, it could not be seen as unreasonability. I agree with you that, in many cases, there are decisions behind the scenes of “Right, how can we best persuade people we’re right?”, which are taken in unpleasant ways. But I don’t think it’s reasonable to assume it so widely, as you appear to do.
You’re right. That is not the problem. The problem lies elsewhere.
First consider what Exxon is spending on algae research. A few million sounds great but it is a drop in the bucket for them. They do it mostly for PR value. Indeed there was some company (sorry no cite…been awhile) who put in something like $3 million into some research (say cancer in children). Great huh? Well, they spent $30 million in a PR campaign touting how cool they were for funding the research. (I am sure I have the particulars wrong but the idea is there.) BP recently spent $50 million on a PR campaign. Can you think of a better use for that money? I can.
Second, they will keep their hand in “green tech” in case anything does come of it. It costs them relatively little and should something really new and profitable come along they can be positioned to exploit it. That or they can be positioned to sue for various patent infringements (since they might have been working on something similar) to keep the new stuff off the market for years (such things happen a lot). If they are lucky they invent the new thing and sit on it till the oil runs out (whenever that is).
Third, you are missing where the money is. Exxon alone made $45 billion in 2009 (profit). BP made $25 billion in 2008 (profit). Now, there might be money in green tech someday. Exxon and so on are making solid fortunes right now. They are not hoping for some future profits. They are profiting and they want to protect those profits out of pure self interest. Self interest may be fine but that can clearly run counter to the public welfare (see BP in the Gulf).
Nope, by this time it is clear that it is the sources that you are relying for information should die.
Well, the means that the denier press is using to mislead people like you are reaching scandalous levels, why not demand them to set the record straight or dismiss them forever?
So wait – Are you saying that concensus does not mean that 100% of scientists agree with each other 100% of the time? That they only agree, like, 97% of the time?!? This whole climate change thing is obviously a sham!!!
He can blame the commentators all he wants. The point is he, IPCC scientists and the other IPCC officials stood by while these ‘commentators’ made such claims.
No, that is why I call disinformation. The fact is that denier media always distorts what was said, and if you are denying now that the ones that were misinterpreted are setting the record straight then…
I will leave others to judge then who is being disingenuous.
I think you were misinformed even there by the denier media, consensus was demonstrated by the preponderance of papers that supported and support AGW, it is also demonstrated by the scientific organizations that support the science behind global warming. What it was disputed was the number of scientists, IIRC that number is actually small in the current “misinformation” meme of the denier media.
“Give up their millions of dollars in grant money”? Do you seriously imagine that having a mainstream scientific hypothesis disproved or significantly modified would require scientists to “give up grant money”?
This viewpoint shows a stunning naivete on your part about how science research funding actually works. You seem to imagine it as being something like being hired by a company (i.e., a funding agency) to develop a particular product (i.e., theory). And so if you come to the conclusion that that particular product isn’t actually any good and you don’t want to work on it, then they kick you out and don’t give you any more money.
This is really not the way the funding process works in general. Scientists get research money for coming up with good explanations of observed data, or thinking of good ways to test existing explanations more rigorously, or collecting additional data that will provide more information about interesting phenomena to test our explanations on.
The money isn’t earmarked for any particular explanation in and of itself. In fact, whole scientific disciplines have gone through periods where major mainstream hypotheses have been substantially changed or even largely reversed, while they continued right along with funding for research on the new hypotheses. An example is the classical cosmological theory that black holes have such powerful gravitational attraction that not even radiation can escape from them, now superseded by the theory that black holes do in fact emit Hawking radiation.
Nobody had to “give up their grant money” in order to change their minds about this. They argued about it, decided that the new explanation was plausible, and eventually adopted it.
Similarly, there would be no major financial sacrifice required for climate researchers to adopt a new hypothesis about the causes of global warming. They’d argue about it at first, and then as they become persuaded it was plausible, they’d just write more grant proposals for research to test features of the new hypothesis rather than the old one.
No part of this process requires scientists to be unusually “good” or altruistic in any way. As a group, they’re not sabotaging their own self-interest when they adopt a new scientific theory.
A more plausible argument is that you’re just not very well informed either about the details of climate science or about the logistics of scientific research in general, even if you do have a “friend who studies astronomy”.
I am sure you have a cite for this. I want to know how much benefit these so called “scientists” have been receiving for misleading the world and lying about global warming? Fuckers. I am sure that it is all collusion between the fucking ivory tower elites and the damn muslims we have controlling our government right now. Fucking Obama, giving money to the liberal media with their damn scare tactics and the scientists they have on payroll. I remember when science meant something in this country and our scientists weren’t controlled by the islamofascist establishment.
I don’t know about the weather where you live, but it was the coldest winter in memory here. Fuckers, screw firing them, we should lock them up! Fucking ivory tower elites. :mad:
:rolleyes:
Sorry folks, I can’t bring myself to do more than this. For the record, my stance is summed up here.
And then it goes on to give, yup, a list of the 620 authors. (In the interests of full disclosure and scientific accuracy, I must acknowledge that I did not actually count all the listed authors to ensure that there were in fact 620 of them.)
Er, why exactly is this what you are talking about?
Again, I’m glad these kind of environmentalists are being represented.
How could the IPCC not benefit from misleading comments by Gore and others when they tell the public that we’re all going to die if we don’t change energy policies? They haven’t been very vocal about these misleading statements their supporters spew.
This paper that Hulme wrote shows they are at least aware, but don’t want to say any more than that.
Your link: