I did, some forms of denialism are not appropriate for scientific publication, thus a reason for some forms of denialism to not be printed in scientific publications. Please indicate which of your posts makes a statement regarding the OP, or is it you that needs to start another thread (or post in the multitude of existing threads).
Serious, you don’t think UCLA receives $15,000 for every grad student …
Watchwolf49, I am emphasizing the part that made me think you are relating the cash cow to the climatologists’ salaries. I do not normally think of $40,000/year as a “cash cow”. If you were under the impression that research grants are used directly to pay student loans then you’d be wrong about that.
Instead of arguing by making suggestive statements such as climatologists’ beliefs are motivated by research funding, why not spell out your ideas accurately and without sarcasm? Here’s some questions that you can answer that might avoid ambiguity:
You can actually go ahead and make a real argument supported by data that allows others to evaluate your ideas and be convinced your point-of-view is correct. Or you can post ambiguous comments, hyperbolic statistics and suggestive statements without any data whatsoever to back any of it up.
See, this is a wonderful argument. No amount of scientific data can be used to refute it because, well, there’s too much money involved and therefore it can’t be trusted. You’ve made up your mind and provided a great excuse for ignoring anything that counters it.
So there’s not too much money in the oil companies, right? I mean, if we’re saying the ones who have the most money have the most to lose and thus the most likely to skew the results, then who’s richer than the oil companies?
Please give examples of valid research that has been unfairly rejected from established publishing venues.
All of my posts have been clarifications about how research funding and academic publishing work in the real world, which is directly relevant to the topic, as it shows that the standard denialist response (“it’s a conspiracy!”) is just nonsense.
Of course it doesn’t. Where do you think the money comes from? Broadly speaking, Ph.D.s in the US are paid for by:
Independent external funding. This includes the incredible rare self-funded student, but more likely involves a grant or fellowship of some sort, either from government organizations like the NSF, private foundations like the Sloan Foundation, a foreign government (developing countries like Brazil will send students to the US to get their Ph.D.s), or a private company paying for an employee’s education.
Research funding, i.e., grants brought in by professors, who then hire students as research assistants and pay them a stipend and pay their tuition.
Working as a teaching assistant.
So in 1 & 2, there is new money entering the system. 1 is by far the smallest category. 2 is the best deal for the university since they take overhead out of all grants (around 50%), and then they get the tuition payments. 3 is just pushing money around. The TA is gets their stipend and tuition paid by the department, which in turn gets their money from their share of tuition payments of undergrad students enrolled in their classes, etc.
So getting research funding is the best deal for the university, and it’s the main thing a junior professor needs to do to get tenure. In answer to your question about what a young climatologist would do in that situation, the answer would be get as much funding as possible. So why would they fight over scraps instead of taking large grants from denialist sources, if there was legitimate science to be done?
The answer is that the denialists aren’t giving their billions large grants to universities because they can’t dictate the results of that research or prevent researchers from publishing the results if they weren’t what they were hoping for. Instead that money goes to things like lobbyists, campaign donations, anti-climate change PR, and funding bogus think tanks full of shill “scientists” that just say what their funders want.
It seems to me that if your objections to climate change rely upon the existence of a conspiracy, your position is already pretty weak.
I used to argue AGW/CC with someone on another board. Whenever I tried to bring scientific data into the discussion he would counter with “Piltdown man!” and ignore it.
That’s pretty much the long and short of it. Denialism is a faith-based belief; no amount of facts or reasoning is going to get through to someone who’s determined to believe that the facts are all lies.
I’m sorry … what leads you to believe it will be a “good thing overall”? Can you please cite reputable sources that see Climate Change as an overall beneficial phenomenon?
And, you see nothing in the science that would predict the end of life on Earth because it’s not predicted to “end of life on Earth” it’s not predicted to be “the end of the world”. But it is predicted to have a number of significant negative impacts around the globe.
I always wonder what the deniers think about ocean acidification.
I’m guessing he’s laid out plans for Watchwolfton (right next to Otisburg) somewhere inland of the current eastern shoreline.
I never said that there wasn’t money for labs and equipment - just that the investigators don’t get a fortune. Obviously grants lead to clout and tenure - everyone knows that - but not necessarily riches. Not like speaking gigs for Big Oil.
This reminds me of similar discussions about creationist publications - or the lack thereof. Have the denialists set up their own journals the way the creationists have?
I saw a study once showing that the reason very few creationist papers get published (and by very few I mean 1 snuck in) was that very few creationist papers get submitted. So they are not even trying.
I’ve had this call for citation before, I don’t know what “reputable source” I could give to back my statement of personal belief. Do you mean verification of what my own eyes have seen? Is there some document that needs to declare me an eternal optimist? What leads me to believe it will be a good thing is watching the twenty-somethings of our society … oh yeah baby … I see nothing but good ahead of us.
I’ve said before, I’m considered a denialist because I don’t think the world is going to end. I think average global temperatures are increasing, and I think man is most likely contributing to this global warming. I think it’s reprehensible to lump me in with the stupid and their insane crackpot theories, simply because I believe we’ve nothing to get overly worried about.
Just read through the grief … all because someone else inserted the word “rich” into one of my statements … instead of considering percentage of research papers published to total funding levels … and how that might be a possible reason for the observation made by the OP. (That’s right, not one single response, go figure.) Why would someone ask me questions about what they admit is misinterpreted?
“Only in Ravnica do the wolves watch the flock”
Big Oil buys Congressmen … best legislation money can buy !!! But convince women they’re not to blame, they’ll vote for you. I promise.
Any person who is adequately informed about Climate Change understands that hyperbolic statements like “the world is going to end” or “all life will be destroyed” are irrational.
If you believe that Climate Change is occurring and “man-made” then I don’t see how anyone could label you a denier.
People can be so mean sometimes.
I fail to see the difference. We are having debate on the subject of global warming/climate change exactly because it is expected to be a problem, possibly resulting in severe destabilization of society (our “world”, as it were). If it were thought to be of little consequence, the debate would be entirely academic, rather like arguing whether this set of tracking from the particle collision reveals or dies not reveal the existence if the B quark. If a person holds the position that global warming is effectively trivial, in practical terms, that is equivalent to saying that it is not happening.
Sometimes?
I see your point and agree with most of it.
But I’ve argued with enough people on this subject to appreciate when a person will go so far as to even admit the phenomenon is real or not some form of a natural cycle.
I’ll accept the small steps forward.
But as you suggest, denial of the consequences is no trivial matter and that’s why I asked for a source for his belief that the effects would be “overall beneficial” — something I haven’t ever seen put forth by a reputable source. I’d certainly like to know how he came up with that conclusion. Hopefully there’s more behind it than, “I like hot weather.”
Well, I do … but point taken. I offer three examples of the benefits to human-kind:
1] A portion of Arctic wastelands will thaw and become available to agriculture,
2] Due to increased rainfall, portions of desert wastelands will become available to agriculture, and
3] Higher levels of carbon dioxide, higher temperatures and increased rainfall all combine to promote plant growth, thus improving agricultural output.
Now, I ask for three examples of problems caused by global warming. Please, I ask for your indisputable personal beliefs in this matter.
Problem: most contrarians you look at disparage computer modeling, and that is one of the best tools to figure out where and when those lands will be available, the basic problem remains though, the availability of those lands does depend on a reliable point where the carbon dumping will be stable, and controlled. The waiting time to have a **reliable ** and stable new warming era remains a bottleneck.
Not likely to be enough due to the loss of the current cropland that is close to the now growing deserts. The increase in rainfall will be mostly happening in specific areas.
**citizenzen ** will likely answer later, but I have to comment that Ocean rice (and ocean acidification) lack of water in areas like the southwest. And population stress and displacement with related violence are the most likely problems.