re: What are your reasons for believing climate change is "a hoax"

quote:

---

No. Every major would LOVE a reduction in demand.

---

I'd like to hear the mental gymnastics behind this one.

quote:

---

all of this still can be true

---

Can be true?

See, even you can't be sure it is man made.

quote:

---

Of course they do.

---

But this was the thread you started?

quote:

---

But that is not a logical reason for YOU to think that climate change is a hoax

---

Where did I assert that? You're making isht up. Again.

quote:

---

Only if you claimed that it meant YOUR opinion was more valid because of it. YOUR opinion on the matter is no better than the burger flipper's.

---

There's nothing better when people with zero understanding of the actual thermodynamic and heat transfer processes parrot "scientits" and claim to be scientific themselves.

It's a sad attempt to be smart by proxy.

quote:

---

It's a sad attempt to be smart by proxy.

---

Is this better than attempting to be dumb by proxy? Serious question.

quote:

---

I'd like to hear the mental gymnastics behind this one.

---

I mean... i put it right there in the post.

quote:

---

Helps lower the CAPEX and extend ROI on existing assets.

---

No gymnastics. Just simple financial calcs.

quote:

---

politics drives $, and $ drives research, so I think that the distinction between politics and money in this situation is really not that important.

---

Full Disclosure: I am a scientist, but not a research scientist. I really don't have a dog in the fight (and I think I've tried to make that clear). But here are my observations from what I know of the "process".

What I'm trying to say is, while most scientists get into the field because of an underlying curiosity about the world we live in. That being said, money (not politics) really ends up drives a lot of the research today. Now, I don't know a lot of (any) "rich" scientists. I'm sure they're are some, but I don't know any of them. Most want enough money to keep their labs and their research going. Lots of universities where this research is being done evaluate folks on how much $$ they bring in and the number of papers they produce. So, in order to stay employed, it behooves folks to continue to get grants and write papers.

So most scientists end up supporting the left, not because of a political agenda to prove the right wrong, but because the left supports public funding of research significantly more than the right. That is where their bread is buttered. It is my limited experience working on a few small grants ages ago, that most (state/federal) agencies that provide funding really don't care WHAT the results say, they just want the contract fulfilled and the deliverables produced. That way the administrators and bureaucrats can check the boxes and get their budget appropriations for the next year and keep the cycle going.

And while I appropriated the civil discussion, I think you have one thing wrong. I would say $ drives politics, not the other way around. But that's a topic for another debate.

quote:

---

funding climate change denial efforts.

---

Denial or just anywhere right of "the climate will destroy us in five years"?

quote:

---

That's amusing

---

Which part? What parts do you agree or disagree with?

quote:

---

Denial or just anywhere right of "the climate will destroy us in five years"?

---

I think you know the answer to that question but are not interested in having an honest discussion