[Rapperson]

@AJS

Maybe doesn't make it so.

Word.

[AJS]

No I don't see that as silly.

You don't need a degree in climatology to know that it's an incredibly complicated system, and that our record on understanding and accurately predicting complicated systems is not great.

I think it's sensible pragmatism to approach such claims with a massive degree of caution, especially when large sums of money change hands as a result.

[Pants-of-dog]

No I don't see that as silly.

You don't need a degree in climatology to know that it's an incredibly complicated system, and that our record on understanding and accurately predicting complicated systems is not great.

There is no record on understanding and accurately predicting complicated systems, according to you. You cannot simply contradict yourself now and say it is not good. Either the evidence shows that the our record is not good, or there is no record, but you cannot have both, as you seem to want.

I think it's sensible pragmatism to approach such claims with a massive degree of caution, especially when large sums of money change hands as a result.

What are these big monetary transactions that are supposedly happening?

[AJS]

Where did I say there's no record? Of course we have tried to predict complex systems.

James Delingolle has documented quite a lot of the spending on "green energy"

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/01 ... t-end-now/

[Drlee]

You don't need a degree in climatology to know that it's an incredibly complicated system, and that our record on understanding and accurately predicting complicated systems is not great.

Name three.

Again. This is not that complicated. That is why over 97% of the REAL experts agree with the findings. There has never been such unprecedented support for science like this before.

You are being stubborn and hardheaded. You do not wish the science to be true so you simply try to grasp at straws. You have not one shred of evidence that one but of the general conclusion is wrong.

If there was this much evidence for the existence of God, Marx would have been a priest.

[Pants-of-dog]

Where did I say there's no record? Of course we have tried to predict complex systems.

That is what you said when I asked you for evidence.

If you are now saying that such a record exists, please provide a link to this record. Thank you.

James Delingolle has documented quite a lot of the spending on "green energy"

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/01 ... t-end-now/

How much money is it?

[Drlee]

He actually quoted Breitbart "News".

[QatzelOk]

Actually, you just said you know how accurate these models are. You were just vague about the numbers.

This is actually a logical fallacy called argument from ignorance.

You are saying that you do not know how accurate the models are, therefore the models cannot be accurate to the point of making good predictions.

But if you do not know how accurate the models are, they could be just fine.

This logical fallacy is often used to shift the burden of proof. If I were to ask you to support your claim (i.e. that climate models cannot consistently make accurate predictions), you will say that it is somehow impossible to prove this and tell me to prove that they are accurate predictors.

So, do you have any evidence for your claim?

The fact is that climate models aren't an exact science and we - the human race - don't really know what we're doing to the planet.

The war against real science started a long time ago and was spearheaded by people who wanted to make lots of money really fast.

There's simply no time to test technology (or worry about the side effects) in an economy that needs to keep growing in order to pay off our interest-addicted banking cartels.

And don't criticize these banking cartels (which would be science) because they have suffered so much.

[AFAIK]

[O]ver 97% of the REAL experts agree with the findings. There has never been such unprecedented support for science like this before.

That's actually the same level of consensus that recognises that HIV causes aids and the link between smoking and lung cancer. The debate on those claims is over and the public recognises that they have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, to borrow a legal term.

[QatzelOk]

That's actually the same level of consensus that recognises that HIV causes aids and the link between smoking and lung cancer. The debate on those claims is over and the public recognises that they have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, to borrow a legal term.

I'm glad you mention the link between smoking and lung cancer.

The link was proven by science in the 50s, but interested commercial parties invested heavily in propaganda (Doctor's smoke Camels!) and bribes to politicians in order to keep people smoking their way to cancer for decades afterwards.

The planet is smoking three packs a day as we speak. Where is science? Trying to squeeze a word in edgewise between airstrikes on Syria and Yemen?

[youtube]gCMzjJjuxQI[/youtube]

[AJS]

@Drlee
Three what?

[Perkwunos]

I think it's sensible pragmatism to approach such claims with a massive degree of caution, especially when large sums of money change hands as a result.

There's probably a lot more money in being a denialist shill than in being a postdoc climate researcher.

[Godstud]

Yes, indeed. Ask the Koch brothers about that.

Work of prominent climate change denier was funded by energy industry
Willie Soon is researcher at Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Documents: Koch brothers foundation among groups that gave total of $1.25m

A prominent academic and climate change denier’s work was funded almost entirely by the energy industry, receiving more than $1.2m from companies, lobby groups and oil billionaires over more than a decade, newly released documents show.

Over the last 14 years Willie Soon, a researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, received a total of $1.25m from Exxon Mobil, Southern Company, the American Petroleum Institute (API) and a foundation run by the ultra-conservative Koch brothers, the documents obtained by Greenpeace through freedom of information filings show.

According to the documents, the biggest single funder was Southern Company, one of the country’s biggest electricity providers that relies heavily on coal.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... y-industry

"Dark Money" Funds Climate Change Denial Effort
A Drexel University study finds that a large slice of donations to organizations that deny global warming are funneled through third-party pass-through organizations that conceal the original funder

In all, 140 foundations funneled $558 million to almost 100 climate denial organizations from 2003 to 2010.
Meanwhile the traceable cash flow from more traditional sources, such as Koch Industries and ExxonMobil, has disappeared.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... al-effort/

[Perkwunos]

A broader point to be made here is that anyone who views all behavior and belief in terms of what extrinsic rewards or punishments are attached to it, particularly the gain or loss of money, is guaranteed to have a pleb-tier worldview and get things wrong all the time.

[AJS]

It's not only "deniers" who receive generous funding.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylo ... c6550c545f

[Pants-of-dog]

It's not only "deniers" who receive generous funding.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylo ... c6550c545f

Yes, Greenpeace and other environmental groups receive donations!

Now, the fossil fuel companies who pay denialists have a clear financial interest in doing so.

Can you say that the people who donate to Greenpeace have a similar financial interest?

[AJS]

I can say that there definitely are financial interests in man made climate change being accepted. The funding to the wind power industry alone is enormous.

[Pants-of-dog]

I can say that there definitely are financial interests in man made climate change being accepted. The funding to the wind power industry alone is enormous.

Of course there are. We would save billions if we start dealing with climate change earlier rather than later.

Now, what are these financial interests exactly?

For the oil companies, profit is the obvious financial interest. What is the benefit for the other side?

[AJS]

The subsidies involved in wind farms and other renewable energy projects.

[Pants-of-dog]

The subsidies involved in wind farms and other renewable energy projects.

How is that bad?