Dude, where are my hurricanes?

[SkyDekker 1,465]

7 minutes ago, airdvr said:

How about instead of crowing Climate Change we admit that we don't know why.  I know that's tough for scientists.  Not much money in "I don't know why".

Mmm, the money is exactly in "I don't know why". Trying to find out the "why" is generally what get's funded. When you mindlessly throw right wing talking points around you may just want to try and think a little bit to see if they actually apply.

I am proud of you for leaving Hunter's laptop out of it!

Edited October 14, 2022 by SkyDekker

[billvon 3,080]

15 minutes ago, airdvr said:

How about instead of crowing Climate Change we admit that we don't know why.  I know that's tough for scientists.  Not much money in "I don't know why".

"I don't know why" is where ALL money comes from for scientists.  And they say that all the time.

Do you know any scientists?

[airdvr 210]

2 minutes ago, billvon said:

"I don't know why" is where ALL money comes from for scientists.  And they say that all the time.

Do you know any scientists?

No Bill.  I don't know any scientists.  But I do know that in a capitalist society money talks.  There's a lot on meat on the bone here. 

As a global society, we must increase spending to at least $4.13 trillion every year by 2030¹ to fund an energy transition sufficient to keep the planet below a temperature rise of 1.5 degrees Celsius, according to a 2021 report by environmental think tank Climate Policy Initiative. That’s a lot. Especially compared to current spending. The annual global climate investment averaged a meager $632 billion per year over 2019 and 2020—15 percent of the $4.13 trillion target.

https://meansandmatters.bankofthewest.com/article/sustainable-living/taking-action/who-funds-the-fight-against-climate-change/#:~:text=The %24321 billion in climate,percent of total global commitments.&text=Unfortunately%2C growth in public investment,growth periods of 24 percent.

[JerryBaumchen 1,446]

14 minutes ago, airdvr said:

No Bill.  I don't know any scientists.  But I do know that in a capitalist society money talks.  There's a lot on meat on the bone here. 

As a global society, we must increase spending to at least $4.13 trillion every year by 2030¹ to fund an energy transition sufficient to keep the planet below a temperature rise of 1.5 degrees Celsius, according to a 2021 report by environmental think tank Climate Policy Initiative. That’s a lot. Especially compared to current spending. The annual global climate investment averaged a meager $632 billion per year over 2019 and 2020—15 percent of the $4.13 trillion target.

https://meansandmatters.bankofthewest.com/article/sustainable-living/taking-action/who-funds-the-fight-against-climate-change/#:~:text=The %24321 billion in climate,percent of total global commitments.&text=Unfortunately%2C growth in public investment,growth periods of 24 percent.

Hi airdvr,

We are not a true 'capitalist society.'  If we were, you would not pay any taxes.

We are a mix.  You and I, along with everyone here in the USA, benefits from it.

Jerry Baumchen

 

Edited October 14, 2022 by JerryBaumchen

[airdvr 210]

4 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi airdvr,

We are not a true 'capitalist society.'  If we were, you would not pay any taxes.

We are a mix.  You and I, along with everyone here is the USA, benefits from it.

Jerry Baumchen

 

Absolutely correct Jerry.  Roads, Social Security, ATC etc...all benefit.

[olofscience 489]

18 minutes ago, airdvr said:

No Bill.  I don't know any scientists.  But I do know that in a capitalist society money talks.  There's a lot on meat on the bone here. 

And here you are again implying that this is all done for money.

Because no one does anything for curiosity, passion, or interest except you right?

[billvon 3,080]

1 hour ago, airdvr said:

No Bill.  I don't know any scientists.  But I do know that in a capitalist society money talks. 

Yes, and our consumer economy is capitalist.  That's why hundreds of millions of private capital gets spent on scientific research on everything from brewer's yeast to fractionation columns  - because those capitalists realize that science is the best tool to improve their yields / production costs / efficiencies / bottom line.  But they are almost always shortsighted - they want to improve their profits in a year or six.

Government research is socialist (directed by the government.)  That's why even more money gets spent on nuclear reactor safety, the space program, climate research, public health and a dozen other things that affect our society.  They take a longer view.  They might invest in a space program that won't get to the moon for a decade, or a space station that won't get completed for 20 years, or even fusion research that won't bear fruit for 40 years.

But in both cases, they give scientists money because they don't know the answers yet.  The money funds research to answer those questions.

[airdvr 210]

4 hours ago, olofscience said:

And here you are again implying that this is all done for money.

Because no one does anything for curiosity, passion, or interest except you right?

When did I say I was immune to the lure of the almighty dollars?  Simply pointing out the tremendous amount of money being spent and the obvious motivations of some scientists to make sure it keeps coming.  I don't recall anyone saying we need to get to the moon or everyone dies.

Nuclear reactor safety? Fusion research?  That's funny.  The left killed possibly the best chance we had for green energy in 1979.  But it will come in handy for all those new reactors we're building.

[billvon 3,080]

1 hour ago, airdvr said:

 I don't recall anyone saying we need to get to the moon or everyone dies.

And I don't recall anyone saying we have to end climate change tomorrow or everyone dies.

Although from what little I remember of the 1970's there was a lot of "we have to claim the moon as ours or the USSR will WIN and we will end up in the scrapyard of history."

[olofscience 489]

6 hours ago, airdvr said:

Simply pointing out the tremendous amount of money being spent and the obvious motivations of some scientists

So, climate change being the reason for the observed phenomenon is NOT obvious, but money being motivations for those scientists IS obvious?

Didn't know you were an expert in their field, why don't YOU publish a research paper showing that p > 0.05 to prove that they're just money grabbers?

 

I won't hold my breath...

Edited October 15, 2022 by olofscience

[olofscience 489]

6 hours ago, airdvr said:

Nuclear reactor safety? Fusion research?  That's funny.  The left killed possibly the best chance we had for green energy in 1979.  But it will come in handy for all those new reactors we're building.

I've repeatedly stated my support for nuclear energy and nuclear research. Even Greta Thunberg has stated support for nuclear.

 

But this is where you don't make sense. Nuclear energy is the most expensive energy per MWh in the world. When I pointed that out to another member of the right (metalslug) he started evading, then completely flipped and got angry.

I'm a fan of nuclear, especially nuclear fusion. I was even considering getting involved with the ITER project in France. But looking at the physics made me realise it will NEVER be cheap. We should still spend the money, but if you're concerned about the costs then you're lying to yourself that nuclear is the answer. You're just using it to blame the left to make yourself feel better.

[kallend 2,112]

15 hours ago, airdvr said:

No Bill.  I don't know any scientists. 

Maybe you should get out more.

[Phil1111 1,149]

11 hours ago, airdvr said:

... Simply pointing out the tremendous amount of money being spent and the obvious motivations of some scientists to make sure it keeps coming.  ...

 

4 hours ago, olofscience said:

So, climate change being the reason for the observed phenomenon is NOT obvious, but money being motivations for those scientists IS obvious?

Didn't know you were an expert in their field, why don't YOU publish a research paper showing that p > 0.05 to prove that they're just money grabbers?

I won't hold my breath...

Money drives the world and motivates mankind. Science is but a cog in the money motivation machine. Not hard to understand.

[airdvr 210]

5 hours ago, olofscience said:

So, climate change being the reason for the observed phenomenon is NOT obvious, but money being motivations for those scientists IS obvious?

Didn't know you were an expert in their field, why don't YOU publish a research paper showing that p > 0.05 to prove that they're just money grabbers?

 

I won't hold my breath...

Hehe.  When you get a bit older the money factor becomes more obvious.  No, I'm not a scientist but I would challenge you to name one mostly government funded program that isn't rife with corruption.

[olofscience 489]

2 minutes ago, airdvr said:

but I would challenge you to name one

After you publish your scientific paper.

[airdvr 210]

5 hours ago, olofscience said:

I've repeatedly stated my support for nuclear energy and nuclear research. Even Greta Thunberg has stated support for nuclear.

 

But this is where you don't make sense. Nuclear energy is the most expensive energy per MWh in the world. When I pointed that out to another member of the right (metalslug) he started evading, then completely flipped and got angry.

I'm a fan of nuclear, especially nuclear fusion. I was even considering getting involved with the ITER project in France. But looking at the physics made me realise it will NEVER be cheap. We should still spend the money, but if you're concerned about the costs then you're lying to yourself that nuclear is the answer. You're just using it to blame the left to make yourself feel better.

Funny when someone shits on the cost of things you all consider green the response is always "it will get better".  You'll never build enough wind and solar to replace coal and gas fired power plants.

[wmw999 2,551]

I’m going to disagree that money is everyone’s primary motivation. Consider the people who are able to eke out a living skydiving: many of them could earn significantly more, but they choose lifestyle over money.

Some people are lucky enough to find a passion; it’s even better when they can earn some money doing it.

That applies to scientists, too. And rife with corruption? Probably not. Completely pure? Absolutely not — but that applies to pretty much every organization that has more than one person. Everyone has to their own motives

Wendy P. 

[olofscience 489]

3 minutes ago, airdvr said:

Funny when someone shits on the cost of things you all consider green the response is always "it will get better".  You'll never build enough wind and solar to replace coal and gas fired power plants.

...and this conclusion is based on?

[airdvr 210]

1 minute ago, olofscience said:

After you publish your scientific paper.

 I've already said I'm not a scientist.  You keep trying to make this about the science.  I'm talking about the dollars. Try and keep up.

[olofscience 489]

1 minute ago, airdvr said:

 I've already said I'm not a scientist.  You keep trying to make this about the science.  I'm talking about the dollars. Try and keep up.

But you're criticising their statements, which is about the science.

All you're doing is hinting that they're just money-grabbers without actually providing any argument against their statement, furthermore, without any proof of their financial corruption.

You're even doing it in a subtle way, which I think is quite cowardly as compared to an open accusation backed up with evidence.

[airdvr 210]

10 minutes ago, olofscience said:

...and this conclusion is based on?

Here’s a breakdown of all the human activities that produce greenhouse gases. Getting to zero means zeroing out every one of these categories:

Making things (cement, steel, plastic) 31%
Plugging in (electricity) 27%
Growing things (plants, animals) 19%
Getting around (planes, trucks, cargo ships) 16%
Keeping warm and cool (heating, cooling, refrigeration) 7%

-Bill Gates

Good luck with that.

Edited October 15, 2022 by airdvr

[olofscience 489]

1 minute ago, airdvr said:

Good luck with that.

Thanks.

You could have just started with that, and you know, not said the other things.

[airdvr 210]

28 minutes ago, olofscience said:

Thanks.

You could have just started with that, and you know, not said the other things.

You asked me for my conclusion.  So my conclusion is we're getting fleeced by a subset of the scientific community whose motivation is more dollars for continued research.

[olofscience 489]

8 minutes ago, airdvr said:

You asked me for my conclusion.  So my conclusion is we're getting fleeced by a subset of the scientific community whose motivation is more dollars for continued research.

Your conclusions are jumping all over the place.

You said "wind and solar will never replace coal and gas", I asked why, and you basically said "we use too much energy, it's impossible".

Then another random attack on scientists without any evidence, well keep digging won't you...

[Phil1111 1,149]

The trust that republicans have in science has dropped from 72% to 46% over the last 46 years."Republicans' lack of trust in science opens up the possibility of their being more vulnerable to influence by ideas that lack scientific support, especially if those ideas are advanced by political conservatives they implicitly trust."

The Reason Some Republicans Mistrust Science: Their Leaders Tell Them To

“One of the things we know from studies about how people respond to news is that nobody likes science or empiricism when it conflicts with their deeply held views.  " Not everybody gets a vote on how to fly the plane,” said Nichols, who wrote about the trend in a 2017 book, “The Death of Expertise.” In the pandemic, “This rejection of science and of expertise [has] become [a] demonstration of political loyalty. That’s the part I didn’t expect — that there would be an entire political movement, led by the president of the United "States, to basically disavow science.”

So for those who disavow science. Its just a matter of being loyal. To the tribe. Its been going on in America since the 70's. So arguing fact, will most likely be unsuccessful.