3 ms·

It’s because you only get published and therefore funded if you can make a claim that generates power. Money and influence will and does flow to things that wil

It’s because you only get published and therefore funded if you can make a claim that generates power. Money and influence will and does flow to things that will require change. The more dramatic the better. No one is going to fund research that concludes things will be ok. That’s a snooze fest. Only things that suggest we “DO SOMETHING”, which means justify power, get the attention from the people that want to continue justifying power. It’s why everything is a “crisis” today. There’s limited funding and finite seats at the table and you better believe the ideas that are “urgent” are the ones that will get funded. It’s not a coincidence these ideas also generate power.

defrost 3y ago
Large scale well curated Ocean tempreture datasets originated from the Cold War days from a desire to be able to pinpoint submarine movements heard via sound travelling along thermoclines. Atmospheric gas libraries originated from the same era in order to track the changes resulting from atmospheric nuclear tests ( ~800+ IIRC ). Both these data sets were funding by the military with desire to prove climate change etc. although they did hide under the cover of ocean research | environmental research. Other datasets come from global mineral and energy exploration geophysics, again these have goals far removed from climate change - you're correct that they are motivated by the desire for 'power' via mapping resources and extracting them.
- nemo44x 3y ago
  I think you’re entering tinfoil hat territory here. Catastrophic climate doomers will get more clicks/citations/panels than moderates than skeptics. “The world is ending we must act now” is a whole lot more attractive than “there are concerns but they are manageable” which is more attractive than “climatology isn’t actually science because it isn’t falsifiable and there’s a lot of contradicting models built by equally qualified people and we should avoid only listening to the most dramatic ones and try and do actual science when possible and be wary of dogma.” No one’s funding that for more research!
  - defrost 3y ago
    > I think you’re entering tinfoil hat territory here. What, specifically, do you regard in my comment as "tinfoil hat" ? ( eg: my remarks about ocean tempreture data acquisition are supported here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_California_Division_of_War_Research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_California_Divis... ) I've worked four decades in exploration geophysics on global scale surveys of entire countries and I've met a number of my predecessors that worked on ocean tempreture data aquisition and atmospheric sampling. The larger data aquisition surveys are not undertaken at the behest of "Catastrophic climate doomers" - they are funded by deep pockets that can sustain a burn rate of often a million+ USD per day (sub sea seismic modelling, satellite constellations, etc). The data aquired shows that global climate is changing in a manner consistent with the physics first discussed a century ago.
- defrost 3y ago
  Fat Fingered Errata (my bad) > Both these data sets were funding by the military with desire to prove climate change etc. should read: Both these data sets were funded by the military with NO desire to prove climate change etc.

defrost 3y ago

Large scale well curated Ocean tempreture datasets originated from the Cold War days from a desire to be able to pinpoint submarine movements heard via sound travelling along thermoclines. Atmospheric gas libraries originated from the same era in order to track the changes resulting from atmospheric nuclear tests ( ~800+ IIRC ). Both these data sets were funding by the military with desire to prove climate change etc. although they did hide under the cover of ocean research | environmental research. Other datasets come from global mineral and energy exploration geophysics, again these have goals far removed from climate change - you're correct that they are motivated by the desire for 'power' via mapping resources and extracting them.

nemo44x 3y ago
I think you’re entering tinfoil hat territory here. Catastrophic climate doomers will get more clicks/citations/panels than moderates than skeptics. “The world is ending we must act now” is a whole lot more attractive than “there are concerns but they are manageable” which is more attractive than “climatology isn’t actually science because it isn’t falsifiable and there’s a lot of contradicting models built by equally qualified people and we should avoid only listening to the most dramatic ones and try and do actual science when possible and be wary of dogma.” No one’s funding that for more research!
- defrost 3y ago
  > I think you’re entering tinfoil hat territory here. What, specifically, do you regard in my comment as "tinfoil hat" ? ( eg: my remarks about ocean tempreture data acquisition are supported here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_California_Division_of_War_Research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_California_Divis... ) I've worked four decades in exploration geophysics on global scale surveys of entire countries and I've met a number of my predecessors that worked on ocean tempreture data aquisition and atmospheric sampling. The larger data aquisition surveys are not undertaken at the behest of "Catastrophic climate doomers" - they are funded by deep pockets that can sustain a burn rate of often a million+ USD per day (sub sea seismic modelling, satellite constellations, etc). The data aquired shows that global climate is changing in a manner consistent with the physics first discussed a century ago.
defrost 3y ago
Fat Fingered Errata (my bad) > Both these data sets were funding by the military with desire to prove climate change etc. should read: Both these data sets were funded by the military with NO desire to prove climate change etc.