Global Warming Debunked?

[Ssenkahdavic]

Aielyn said:

Ssenkahdavic said:

Science follows money.  This is the ugly truth that many gloss over.  It is extremely difficult to get funding for unpopular and/or "non economic" science (I know, I tried).  There is basically nothing worse in Science than "Cherry Picking your data" and I feel funding is doing almost the same thing.

Im actually very surprised Energy Companies are not going gangbusters over trying to fund "Counter Global Climate Change" research.  Well, not really that surprised, they are more inclined to spend their money to make money/diversify their energy than try to save their images through Science...that is what Marketecture/PR is for.

As for those 2 questions, there is an answer I am just unsure that Funding will be given to find it.

I can tell you right now that science mostly doesn't follow money. Science certainly seeks money for funding, but research typically continues as much as it can in isolation. And given that I've been searching for a postdoc in fields related to climate change, I can tell you right now, there's not a lot of funding out there for it to begin with. There's no scientific or political conspiracy to prioritise climate change research in favour of anything - there's barely enough support for any sort of investigation. And no funding request that goes "I'd like money for further research supporting the idea that climate change is man-made" - such a request would be rejected on the spot. No, requests go like this: "The issue of climate change is a controversial one, and continued research as to its causes and effects is needed."

As as you mention, energy companies would easily be able to fund research challenging climate change. So why aren't they doing it? Because even they recognise good science, and understand that the preponderance of evidence supports the idea that climate change is real and primarily man-made in this situation. Hence why companies that could easily spend their money on research challenging the evidence instead spend it on research into ways to reduce emissions, etc.

We are saying the same thing, just in a different way.  Science Follows Money.  There is nothing sinister about this, but funding has to be found and it typically found in area's that can generate profit or advancement in technologies.    I would not ever say it is a comspiracy but a means of necessity. 

For Private Funding you want an agenda do you not?  There has to be an answer that you need to solve, with the backing to want that answer.  Your "Id like money for futher research supporting the idea that climate change is mad-made" would have to be privately funded, though that it is unlikely. 

As for public funding, you are correct that should never fly.  I will need to find the article, but Public funding has definitely gravitated more towards studying "Climate Change" for the fields of Geology, Earth Sciences and Climitology.   This is what I have learned first hand, trying to go back and get my PHD in Geology (You either go Petro or something having to do with the Environment for your grant, neither of which I have much interest in)

For the Energy Companies:  I have no doubt they know a good bit more than we will ever know they do.  But why publicly spend money to damn yourself?  it is both more "profitable" to invest in "Renewable" Energy (dont like that term either) for both economic and PR means.