SuperNova said:
theprof00 said:
They make money by simply taking readings and writing reports. The outcome of the reports makes no difference to their income.
I work in Cancer Research for the state.
I can tell you that most old people who die from cancer, die from prostate, lung, and breast cancer. We believe that cancer is mainly caused by persistent infections and over-taxing the immune system and repair functions. So, things like smoking, pollution, sedentary lifestyle, skin exposure to irritants (the sun, chemicals, etc), poor diet, low blood circulation, etc, are at the root.
I don't get paid to say that. I get paid to get death notices from hospitals and enter them into a database, and manage the office where the number crunchers do their work.
Looking at the trend, cancers caused by poor diet and lack of exercise are on the rise, and will surpass lung cancers soon enough. This is not opinion. This is the data that is presenting in the form of lung cancers staying relative stable, and prostate cancers rising.
If I were to tell you that more reports or less reports came in regarding lung cancers, or prostate, or anything. We all still get paid. We stop getting paid when the information is deemed irrelevant.
My point is, scientists are in the business of selling data. The data is valuable as long as there is a buyer. There are scientists for dinosaurs. There are scientists for bugs, planets, metals, conductivity, the ocean, storms. Because information is always relevant and valuable. Climate scientists do not get paid because climate change is a thing. Climate scientists get paid because people want to know the data.
BETTER EXAMPLE
Brett (ioi) gets paid regardless of which company is selling the most units. He gets paid the most when they are all equal. Brett isn't fucking with anyone to "perpetuate" Sonydomination. Brett went into this because he looked at the data and thought, "hey, people would probably be interested in this information"
|
theprof00 said:
With political questions like these, you always have to ask "who benefits in the end". It works for campaigns and politics, it works for political debates. I will ask the 4 possible questions.
Q1: Who benefits if climate change is fake, but accepted:
A: The people who have put money into regulating, new technologies, alternative energy companies
Q2: Who benefits if climate change is fake, and denied:
A: Nobody. Maybe some research firms who went into business to discover the actual info.
Q3: Who benefits if climate change is real, and accepted:
A: Same as Q1, and additionally the Earth's population.
Q4: Who benefits if climate change is real, and denied:
A: Anyone who contributes to climate change, polluters, unregulated corporations
Now for the final question:
Out of these questions, which group stands to benefit the most?
The answer is clearly Q4.
Q1: Most of these companies don't even make money, and get shuttered. Most are losing money. Maybe some people who wrote a book will make money. But for the most part, energy efficient anything has lower margins, lower sales, and just don't make much money.
Q2: Peanutes
Q3: Same as Q1.
Q4: The companies and polluters who stand to gain here, count their profits in the billions, and flourish with no restrictions. It's like with China. China is growing financially faster than anyone (or they were), but the pollution is extremely bad. When I was in Thailand, at a certain time of day, you shouldn't be outside without a mask. It's the same.
This form of asking questions is very useful in politics, and can help you trace where something is coming from.
For example, say I put up a sign at school debasing my school president rival. Say it's a sign saying he wets the bed, or whatever.
Q1: if the sign is fake, and accepted. A: I could see a boost, but I could also see a backlash for being a bully.
Q2: if the sign is fake, and denied. A: I could see a backlash from people claiming I'm being a bully
Q3: if the sign is real, and accepted. A: I could see a boost, but I could also see a backlash for being a bully.
Q4: If the sign is real, and denied. A: I could see a backlash from people claiming I'm being a bully.
Result: The person who has the most to gain out of the 4 possible outcomes is my rival. Therefore, it actually makes more sense for me to put up a poster debasing myself, and saying my rival is a bully. This has the most potential to earn me support, based on the accusation, and the basis.
|
Thanks!
Those were two very proficient and to the point posts about how research and political diversion tactics work.
To all of those who feel like it's arrogant to presume a single species could have such a profound impact on the planet: This happened before. Not only in the history of human beings, wich it did with the agriculturalization of the planet, but with other species as well.
None of us would be alive without plants. In fact no oxygen dependant life form would be. (Aside from maybe fish, that ones debatable.) Because plantlife on land terraformed our planet. Prior to plants settling on the surface (as opposed to the oceans) there was very little oxygen in the athmosphere and what little there was, was being produced by oceanic plantlife. Most of that was bein reabsorbed into the ocean though. It was only when plants began to conquer the landmasses, that the planets oxygen levels rose to the point that they are at now.
Little tiny plantcells radically changing the athmosphere by releasing new gases into it unwittingly and changing the atmospherinc balance forever.
The fact that we have the power to change this planet forever should not come as a surprise to us. Evading that, by claiming arrogance in the face of change is just evading responsibility.
|
