weather=/=climate

Sarah Pallin is such a fucking moron.

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"

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.

Are there really people who deny climate change?

Define people.

Saying we affect the climate is not the same as saying we can control it. Quite the contrary, we clearly are unable to even control to what extent we affect it. Are we also arrogant for thinking human activity can destablize ecosystems and drive species extinct?

I did not have you pegged as a person who didn't believe in man-made (or rather man-caused) climate change.

Climate Change:
Is it real? Yes
Do humans have a noticeable, reliable and provable impact on it? Errmm maybe, kind of, hard to say with so many different studies proving and disproving each other.
Should we take steps for cleaner air, recycle more and find renewable energies that don't rely on finite resources? YES, obviously YES!
Will Climate change occur even without the existence of humans? YES! climate change is a natural part of earths ecosystem and is required to keep balance for all of it inhabited species, even if it means the extinction of some in favor of others.
Will it happen as fast without humans? See answer to if humans have an impact.
Can humans reverse Climate change? Yes, but we need to learn how to properly terraform a planet and fully control it's weather and climate first.

The idea that climate scientists are only saying what they're saying because of money doesn't make much sense. Do the scientists at NASA really get more money if they lie about their data? Many of the organizations who support the idea that the climate is changing are funded regardless of their findings.

Besides that, if we go by the agenda theory, shouldn't there be an absolute TON of money out there for scientists who exonerate big business interests? Shouldn't there be many more outliers if the only goal is funding?

Thread ends.