3 ms·

Another thing worth remembering in this context is that once people get used to lying with a straight face it is a hell of a job to stop.

by nice1 17y ago

MikeCapone 17y ago
Indeed. But at least that's more discouraged in scientific circles than in think tanks and PR/astroturfing campaigns financed by those who want to discredit science for financial gain.
- cwan 17y ago
  And you don't think that the billions of dollars at stake in carbon trading don't result in proponents attempting to discredit critics?
  - thaumaturgy 17y ago
    The current views in climatology were developed long before there were "billions at stake". Meanwhile, if there are "billions at stake" in the "green" industry, there are trillions at stake in those industries that would like to not have to install complicated and expensive filters for their manufacturing exhaust, and for the automotive industry which would surely love not to have to meet quite so stringent air quality standards. Can we at least agree that arguing about monetary motivation is problematic at best, and probably stupid, and stick to the actual science here?
    - cwan 17y ago
      Sure (though the millions at stake in academic research particularly given the political climate as the leaked emails illustrate are also of significance) - but let's first separate the conversation to understanding that (1) what's the problem and (2) what we should do about it are two separate issues. Let's also understand that much of the western world like the US are about to show significant declines in carbon emissions irrespective of what Fox news or any other polemics - pro or con say. (ref: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/15/us-decline-carbon-emissions http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/15/us-decline...)
      - hga 17y ago
        By my count of an enumeration in The Wall Street Journal (in an OPED) there's currently well over 5 billion in academic "research" at stake annually. Paul Jones, the top dog in the CRUtape Letters, himself pulled in 22 million in the period in question.
    - mseebach 17y ago
      > Meanwhile, if there are "billions at stake" in the "green" industry, there are trillions at stake in those industries Don't count on it. Enron, 1998: "If implemented this agreement will do more to promote Enron’s business than will almost any other regulatory initiative outside of restructuring of the energy and natural-gas industries in Europe and the United States, the potential to add incremental gas sales, and additional demand for renewable technology is enormous." The biggest contributor to the debate is governments, and their self-interest in climate change is eclipsing that of any business. > Can we at least agree that arguing about monetary motivation is problematic at best, and probably stupid, and stick to the actual science here? Apparently not. Obviously, your plea is sound, had it not followed an assertion of one side of the argument that it is claiming problematic and stupid.

Another thing worth remembering in this context is that once people get used to lying with a straight face it is a hell of a job to stop.

by nice1 17y ago

Another thing worth remembering in this context is that once people get used to lying with a straight face it is a hell of a job to stop.

MikeCapone 17y ago

Indeed. But at least that's more discouraged in scientific circles than in think tanks and PR/astroturfing campaigns financed by those who want to discredit science for financial gain.

cwan 17y ago
And you don't think that the billions of dollars at stake in carbon trading don't result in proponents attempting to discredit critics?
- thaumaturgy 17y ago
  The current views in climatology were developed long before there were "billions at stake". Meanwhile, if there are "billions at stake" in the "green" industry, there are trillions at stake in those industries that would like to not have to install complicated and expensive filters for their manufacturing exhaust, and for the automotive industry which would surely love not to have to meet quite so stringent air quality standards. Can we at least agree that arguing about monetary motivation is problematic at best, and probably stupid, and stick to the actual science here?
  - cwan 17y ago
    Sure (though the millions at stake in academic research particularly given the political climate as the leaked emails illustrate are also of significance) - but let's first separate the conversation to understanding that (1) what's the problem and (2) what we should do about it are two separate issues. Let's also understand that much of the western world like the US are about to show significant declines in carbon emissions irrespective of what Fox news or any other polemics - pro or con say. (ref: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/15/us-decline-carbon-emissions http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/15/us-decline...)
    - hga 17y ago
      By my count of an enumeration in The Wall Street Journal (in an OPED) there's currently well over 5 billion in academic "research" at stake annually. Paul Jones, the top dog in the CRUtape Letters, himself pulled in 22 million in the period in question.
  - mseebach 17y ago
    > Meanwhile, if there are "billions at stake" in the "green" industry, there are trillions at stake in those industries Don't count on it. Enron, 1998: "If implemented this agreement will do more to promote Enron’s business than will almost any other regulatory initiative outside of restructuring of the energy and natural-gas industries in Europe and the United States, the potential to add incremental gas sales, and additional demand for renewable technology is enormous." The biggest contributor to the debate is governments, and their self-interest in climate change is eclipsing that of any business. > Can we at least agree that arguing about monetary motivation is problematic at best, and probably stupid, and stick to the actual science here? Apparently not. Obviously, your plea is sound, had it not followed an assertion of one side of the argument that it is claiming problematic and stupid.