Billionaires secretly fund attacks on climate science

Quote from BigBananaMess : Under local average temperature increases of ~2 to ~5°F (1 to 3°C), regions such as Northern Europe, North America, New Zealand, and parts of Latin America could benefit from increased growing season length, more precipitation, and/or less frost, depending on the crop. [ucsusa.org]

Do you know how high sea levels will rise if all the ice in Antarctica melts?

Quote from Krazen1211 : Global warming taxes cost money. People don't want to pay that money.

They don't want to pay that but have no problem spending countless millions fighting it?

Quote from BigBananaMess : Let's call a spade a spade. The REAL reason Democrats fear global warming is that it is an existential threat to the Democrat party.

Surely you jest.

Quote from 124nic8 : Do you know how high sea levels will rise if all the ice in Antarctica melts?

When is that predicted to happen? A billion years from now? Never?

Quote from BigBananaMess : In that case, it seems that shaking up global agriculture production would reduce global inequality. Is that suddenly a bad thing? So, IPCC says that food production goes up in North America and Northern Europe until ~5 F degrees global warming. When is that due to occur? 200 years from now? 500 years? Thousands of years?

First, you have changed the "could" to a "would" when it comes to impact in North America. Furthermore, North America is a large area--you're assuming the US is on the positive side of that change. Second, don't cherry-pick the stats. They mention that areas will face increased flooding which could impact yield. Third, you've ignored the other potential impact/threats from warming--everything to more extreme weather, dangerous coastal areas, threats to human life (heat waves, floods, fires, disease, etc.) and water shortages in the west (which is already a problem).

Quote from Xygonn : IPCC projects the most likely scenario is global food supply increase for the first 3 degrees of warming with food supply decreasing after that.

I know that's your favorite thing to quote. I recently found my copy of an article that deals with the net pros and cons of GW. I'll send it to you (or at least give you the cite and a paraphrase) when I get home from work.

The gist is that, even within 3 degrees, it's bad. Worse than if we don't change anything.

Quote from Danman114 : So if 'whoever funds science' has a goal to promote climate science to accomplish other ends, is it a good or bad thing that others challenge it?

Scientists aren't out to prove global warming. They're out to research it. The scientists are the ones who should be "challenging" it, and they are. The "problem" is that the research keeps turning up the same info -- we're causing the earth to get warmer.

No scientist should be taking money from someone who's expecting a certain answer. That's called conflict of interest and introduces bias. Fortunately, despite what people who don't understand science at all sometimes believe without evidence, that rarely happens.

Except, in cases like this. And tobacco. Where select groups of "scientists" are invited to be a part of a marketing team.

Quote from BigBananaMess : In that case, it seems that shaking up global agriculture production would reduce global inequality.

Explain this absurd claim.

Quote from bonkman : Scientists aren't out to prove global warming. They're out to research it. The scientists are the ones who should be "challenging" it, and they are. The "problem" is that the research keeps turning up the same info -- we're causing the earth to get warmer.

So is a person researching climate science's reputation based on the funding?

Quote from bonkman : No scientist should be taking money from someone who's expecting a certain answer. That's called conflict of interest and introduces bias. Fortunately, despite what people who don't understand science at all sometimes believe without evidence, that rarely happens.

So if a politician gives money to scientists crying for further government intervention, the it should be a red flag?

(I would agree with this statement, if this is what your trying to say)

Quote from bonkman : Except, in cases like this. And tobacco. Where select groups of "scientists" are invited to be a part of a marketing team.

Is there a difference between being part of a marketing team for government organizations and private organizations?

I will say this, the facts came out about smoking because the theory posed by scientists proved to be accurate over time. I don't see the problem with taking what the climate scientists are saying, and then seeing if it plays out. But the idea that we need legislation that reduces our quality of life NOW seems to be overkill.

Quote from bonkman : Explain this absurd claim.

If the US is paying to import agricultural products, it is a safe bet that it will not be paying richer nations for those products. Qatar, Luxembourg, Singapore, Norway, Brunei and the UAE are not exactly agricultural giants. Thus the US would be buying from poorer nations thus reducing inequality.

Was that really so hard to figure out?

Quote from Danman114 : So is a person researching climate science's reputation based on the funding? So if a politician gives money to scientists crying for further government intervention, the it should be a red flag? (I would agree with this statement, if this is what your trying to say) Is there a difference between being part of a marketing team for government organizations and private organizations?

When you apply for a grant from the government, a politician doesn't hand it to you and say "go find this for me." You write a proposal, explain what experiments you're going to do with the money, and explain why. You also usually explain what results might be expected based on previous works but what other results are possible and how they could be interpreted. The hard part is proposing experiments that actually advance the knowledge of the field without being such a stretch or long shot that all but a few findings are worthless when it comes to interpretation.

On the other hand, in SOME cases, when private firms donate to scientists, they expect something back in return. When the firm has a strong interest in one particular side of the issue, this can often hugely bias the results.

Quote : I will say this, the facts came out about smoking because the theory posed by scientists proved to be accurate over time. I don't see the problem with taking what the climate scientists are saying, and then seeing if it plays out. But the idea that we need legislation that reduces our quality of life NOW seems to be overkill.

I've taken a bunch of anti-gw stances. Using less energy, recycling more stuff, purchasing a more fuel-efficient car when mine kicked the bucket, etc. They're simple things, but if done en masse, make a gigantic difference.

Hell, if everyone recycled all aluminum cans, didn't use plastic water bottles, and switched our incandescents to LEDs or CFLs, we'd be doing enough to slow down GW a great deal. Would that reduce your quality of life?

Quote from BigBananaMess : If the US is paying to import agricultural products, it is a safe bet that it will not be paying richer nations for those products. Qatar, Luxembourg, Singapore, Norway, Brunei and the UAE are not exactly agricultural giants. Thus the US would be buying from poorer nations thus reducing inequality. Was that really so hard to figure out?

The US is the only country that would need to import?

Yes, it's hard to figure out because you're wrong. We'd simply be shifting which countries have power, not allowing all of them to have power.

Are you willing to make the US less of a world leader?

Quote from 124nic8 : Billionaires secretly fund attacks on climate science [independent.co.uk] We've seen this so many times before; with auto safety, tobacco, etc. Why do conservatives keep falling for the FUD generated by the wealthy? I guess science is only valid when it makes the wealthy more money....they sure have no problem with profitting from new technology. Problems do arise when they own the old technology which is obsoleted, though.

Seriously? A secretely funded group of billionaires working in anonimity? I am guesssing an anonymous source told them about it? Soon we will here how Obamamonic professors have estimated that this work is ESTIMATED to have led to >$10,000 lives worldwide and $30 billion in damages. You liberals with your conspiracy theories and estimates that can neither be proved or disproved really entertain me!

Quote from bonkman : When you apply for a grant from the government, a politician doesn't hand it to you and say "go find this for me." You write a proposal, explain what experiments you're going to do with the money, and explain why. You also usually explain what results might be expected based on previous works but what other results are possible and how they could be interpreted. The hard part is proposing experiments that actually advance the knowledge of the field without being such a stretch or long shot that all but a few findings are worthless when it comes to interpretation. On the other hand, in SOME cases, when private firms donate to scientists, they expect something back in return. When the firm has a strong interest in one particular side of the issue, this can often hugely bias the results.

Go write a government funded grant, present your work showing inconclusive results, and then see if you can renew that grant down the road! Sorry but the government does expect something back in return or you lose funding and any chance of getting a grant later.

Quote from bonkman : When you apply for a grant from the government, a politician doesn't hand it to you and say "go find this for me." You write a proposal, explain what experiments you're going to do with the money, and explain why. You also usually explain what results might be expected based on previous works but what other results are possible and how they could be interpreted. The hard part is proposing experiments that actually advance the knowledge of the field without being such a stretch or long shot that all but a few findings are worthless when it comes to interpretation. On the other hand, in SOME cases, when private firms donate to scientists, they expect something back in return. When the firm has a strong interest in one particular side of the issue, this can often hugely bias the results.

Why on earth wouldn't a politician want something back in return?

One doesn't have to say, "Go find this for me" to say "Go find this for me".

Quote from bonkman : I've taken a bunch of anti-gw stances. Using less energy, recycling more stuff, purchasing a more fuel-efficient car when mine kicked the bucket, etc. They're simple things, but if done en masse, make a gigantic difference. Hell, if everyone recycled all aluminum cans, didn't use plastic water bottles, and switched our incandescents to LEDs or CFLs, we'd be doing enough to slow down GW a great deal. Would that reduce your quality of life?

The idea of recycling my cans irks me. It basically spits in the face of the economic concept of the division of labor. Why should EVERYONE separate their cans from their trash when you can have just a few people go through it later?

As far as incandescents, I like them in some lamps and CFL's in most of my overhead lighting.

Overall, I'd say I'm greener than most. I have a small apartment. I take public transit. I give a hoot and I don't pollute. But I'm not going to lower my standard of living with abstaining from bottled water or lighting my home with inferior (to me) goods.

Quote from Hurricane : Go write a government funded grant, present your work showing inconclusive results, and then see if you can renew that grant down the road! Sorry but the government does expect something back in return or you lose funding and any chance of getting a grant later.

You're being quite disingenuous.

Inconclusive results is not the opposite of "expecting a particular finding."

Science is about being able to reach any conclusion that is supported by the evidence rather than forcing the evidence to fit one particular viewpoint.