4 ms·

Government money? Seriously? Would you rather Exxon, Phillip Morris and Pfizer fund the research? Private funds by Musk and Besos? And there is always the poss

Government money? Seriously? Would you rather Exxon, Phillip Morris and Pfizer fund the research? Private funds by Musk and Besos? And there is always the possibility of a different answer. But there's also the vast majority of evidence (with some political motivation) vs a striking lack of evidence (also with some political motivation). I'm going to err on the side of -- most people who dedicate their life to study something are honest about their study of that something.

edgyquant 3y ago
See this is exactly what the other poster means. Your gut reaction is to shut down any dissent.
- lordnacho 3y ago
  He's not shutting down anything, just pointing out the ludicrousness of the comment he was responding to. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DvFlBAvWsAA72Tq.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DvFlBAvWsAA72Tq.jpg
  - lelanthran 3y ago
    What's the difference?
    - aCoreyJ 3y ago
      What YOU did was an attempt to shutdown descent by attacking the poster instead of actually debating the issue
      - lelanthran 3y ago
        You're confusing me with some one else.
        zen928 3y ago
        it's palpable to the rest of us to see how quick the discussion jumps to feigned confusion, a lack of charity to understand what others are saying and to immediate dishonesty when trying to shut down conversation they're 'confusing' you for the parent poster of the comment chain you directly replied to in the discussion that you inserted yourself into, something understandable from anyone who spends time on sites that have parent/child discussion chains. the confusion is solely yours alone, but for any other new users to the site you're taking up the role of continuing the discussion by commenting on reply chains inside that discussion, so having a reply to your comment that mistakenly mentions "your" previous post can be immediately understood in this context as the parents post and not as a misdirected attack that needs to be personally identified before continuing casual discussion. do you need any more context to respond with honest intentions?
        lelanthran 3y ago
        You're throwing accusations of dishonesty purely because I pointed out that I'm not the original poster? FCOL, I didn't even make a point/take a side, I genuinely want to know what the difference is between "shutdown a conversation" and "dismiss opposing argument without consideration". That post was the first post I made on this story, and I'm supposed to accept that prior to posting that I was shutting down discussion? > it's palpable to the rest of us to see how quick the discussion jumps to feigned confusion, a lack of charity to understand what others are saying and to immediate dishonesty With all respect to you, that's rich.
- agoose77 3y ago
  My pet peeve is people interpreting "that's a stupid argument, here's why" as a conspiracy theory.
- daveguy 3y ago
  Interesting that you would twist some simple observations into an accusation that I am trying to "shut down any dissent". Maybe not everything follows your world view. I'm happy with anyone who wants read all the comments... So the "we're so persecuted" arguments are wearing transparently thin.
  - madsbuch 3y ago
    > ... some simple observations ... It seems like your "simple observation" is referring to the false dichotomy of stating that there are only money from Exxon, Phillip Morris and Pfizer (and the likes?) as an alternative to governmental money? There is a plethora of way to finance any projects besides either be financed by the government or large corporations – and luckily much research is funded in other ways.
    - throwaway894345 3y ago
      Can you elaborate on these other ways? I genuinely haven’t thought too much about how research has been financed historically.
      - madsbuch 3y ago
        Independent fonds would be a big one. Otherwise, independent researchers that finance their own research (In the case of the LK-99 research many lists had independent researchers names with Twitter links where they publish their research). I am sure one can easily think up more ways to figure financing of (scientific) projects.
        RF_Savage 3y ago
        Where does the money in the funds originate from? Who set the original goal of the fun and the research direction?
        madsbuch 3y ago
- ryneandal 3y ago
  The entire premise of the Scientific Method is dissent and skepticism. Fallacious claims that "big science" is effectively an arm of the government because of research grants and other funding is not dissent, it is a feeble red herring.
srackey 3y ago
1. People dedicate their time to stupid nonsense all the time. They mostly all honestly believe in said nonsense, and are probably in consensus with others sharing the same nonsense. That doesn’t mean it’s real! See: alchemy, lysenkoism, or the UFO stuff we keep seeing. 2. All science that does not internally generate revenues must rely on a patron, be that a person, corporation, or government. Funds from these orgs is limited, so scientists must justify why they should get money. This introduces a huge bug in science as a truth cremation mechanism because seeking truth may not be in a patron’s best interest. As the sums of money get larger, this effect becomes more intense.
- bonoboTP 3y ago
  > truth cremation mechanism love that typo
OrvalWintermute 3y ago
> Would you rather Exxon, Phillip Morris and Pfizer fund the research? Private funds by Musk and Besos? Actually Exxon just bought the $5B Denbury CO2 pipeline. While I am on the fence about CO2 actually being a problem, we need to recognize that companies that may be viewed as opposed to something may be part of the solution. If someone works out a super-efficient algael biofuel that is commercially viable at a national scale, I fully expect the oil multinationals will move to growing it everywhere.
- rcMgD2BwE72F 3y ago
  Is this why Exxon is the leading manufacturer of Li-ion batteries? https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/who-we-are/technology-and-collaborations/the-history-of-batteries-lithium-ion-batteries https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/who-we-are/technology-and-c...
- photochemsyn 3y ago
  That CO2 project is for enhanced oil recovery from aging oilfields, it's really not a viable mechanism for continuing to burn fossil fuels in electricity plants while capturing and burying the CO2 emitted from those plants. Fossil fuel carbon capture and sequestration does actually have all the hallmarks of a fraudulent science program; it would take roughly all the energy produced by a power plant to capture and sequester the fossil CO2 molecules emitted by that plant. Exxon and Chevron are promoting it only because it's the kind of false claim that they can use to prevent moves towards replacing fossil fuels with renewables.
  - OrvalWintermute 3y ago
    Denbury is moving into sequestration > In addition, we are building a portfolio of properties for carbon sequestration, in close proximity to our CO2 pipelines There isn't enough information available to understand if this is permanent sequestration, or a longterm reserve to supply their oil uses. However, moving CO2 from plants to oilfields does seem to be better than just venting it into the atmosphere.
    - 3y ago
aCoreyJ 3y ago
Seriousl question: why is this "enlightened centrism" pessimistic viewpoint so popular on hn
- growingentropy 3y ago
  Because when you get away from the center, you've often chosen a "team." Choosing a team clouds your judgment.

edgyquant 3y ago

See this is exactly what the other poster means. Your gut reaction is to shut down any dissent.

lordnacho 3y ago
He's not shutting down anything, just pointing out the ludicrousness of the comment he was responding to. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DvFlBAvWsAA72Tq.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DvFlBAvWsAA72Tq.jpg
- lelanthran 3y ago
  What's the difference?
  - aCoreyJ 3y ago
    What YOU did was an attempt to shutdown descent by attacking the poster instead of actually debating the issue
    - lelanthran 3y ago
      You're confusing me with some one else.
      - zen928 3y ago
        it's palpable to the rest of us to see how quick the discussion jumps to feigned confusion, a lack of charity to understand what others are saying and to immediate dishonesty when trying to shut down conversation they're 'confusing' you for the parent poster of the comment chain you directly replied to in the discussion that you inserted yourself into, something understandable from anyone who spends time on sites that have parent/child discussion chains. the confusion is solely yours alone, but for any other new users to the site you're taking up the role of continuing the discussion by commenting on reply chains inside that discussion, so having a reply to your comment that mistakenly mentions "your" previous post can be immediately understood in this context as the parents post and not as a misdirected attack that needs to be personally identified before continuing casual discussion. do you need any more context to respond with honest intentions?
        lelanthran 3y ago
        You're throwing accusations of dishonesty purely because I pointed out that I'm not the original poster? FCOL, I didn't even make a point/take a side, I genuinely want to know what the difference is between "shutdown a conversation" and "dismiss opposing argument without consideration". That post was the first post I made on this story, and I'm supposed to accept that prior to posting that I was shutting down discussion? > it's palpable to the rest of us to see how quick the discussion jumps to feigned confusion, a lack of charity to understand what others are saying and to immediate dishonesty With all respect to you, that's rich.
agoose77 3y ago
My pet peeve is people interpreting "that's a stupid argument, here's why" as a conspiracy theory.
daveguy 3y ago
Interesting that you would twist some simple observations into an accusation that I am trying to "shut down any dissent". Maybe not everything follows your world view. I'm happy with anyone who wants read all the comments... So the "we're so persecuted" arguments are wearing transparently thin.
- madsbuch 3y ago
  > ... some simple observations ... It seems like your "simple observation" is referring to the false dichotomy of stating that there are only money from Exxon, Phillip Morris and Pfizer (and the likes?) as an alternative to governmental money? There is a plethora of way to finance any projects besides either be financed by the government or large corporations – and luckily much research is funded in other ways.
  - throwaway894345 3y ago
    Can you elaborate on these other ways? I genuinely haven’t thought too much about how research has been financed historically.
    - madsbuch 3y ago
      Independent fonds would be a big one. Otherwise, independent researchers that finance their own research (In the case of the LK-99 research many lists had independent researchers names with Twitter links where they publish their research). I am sure one can easily think up more ways to figure financing of (scientific) projects.
      - RF_Savage 3y ago
        Where does the money in the funds originate from? Who set the original goal of the fun and the research direction?
        madsbuch 3y ago
ryneandal 3y ago
The entire premise of the Scientific Method is dissent and skepticism. Fallacious claims that "big science" is effectively an arm of the government because of research grants and other funding is not dissent, it is a feeble red herring.

srackey 3y ago

1. People dedicate their time to stupid nonsense all the time. They mostly all honestly believe in said nonsense, and are probably in consensus with others sharing the same nonsense. That doesn’t mean it’s real! See: alchemy, lysenkoism, or the UFO stuff we keep seeing. 2. All science that does not internally generate revenues must rely on a patron, be that a person, corporation, or government. Funds from these orgs is limited, so scientists must justify why they should get money. This introduces a huge bug in science as a truth cremation mechanism because seeking truth may not be in a patron’s best interest. As the sums of money get larger, this effect becomes more intense.

bonoboTP 3y ago
> truth cremation mechanism love that typo

OrvalWintermute 3y ago

> Would you rather Exxon, Phillip Morris and Pfizer fund the research? Private funds by Musk and Besos? Actually Exxon just bought the $5B Denbury CO2 pipeline. While I am on the fence about CO2 actually being a problem, we need to recognize that companies that may be viewed as opposed to something may be part of the solution. If someone works out a super-efficient algael biofuel that is commercially viable at a national scale, I fully expect the oil multinationals will move to growing it everywhere.

rcMgD2BwE72F 3y ago
Is this why Exxon is the leading manufacturer of Li-ion batteries? https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/who-we-are/technology-and-collaborations/the-history-of-batteries-lithium-ion-batteries https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/who-we-are/technology-and-c...
photochemsyn 3y ago
That CO2 project is for enhanced oil recovery from aging oilfields, it's really not a viable mechanism for continuing to burn fossil fuels in electricity plants while capturing and burying the CO2 emitted from those plants. Fossil fuel carbon capture and sequestration does actually have all the hallmarks of a fraudulent science program; it would take roughly all the energy produced by a power plant to capture and sequester the fossil CO2 molecules emitted by that plant. Exxon and Chevron are promoting it only because it's the kind of false claim that they can use to prevent moves towards replacing fossil fuels with renewables.
- OrvalWintermute 3y ago
  Denbury is moving into sequestration > In addition, we are building a portfolio of properties for carbon sequestration, in close proximity to our CO2 pipelines There isn't enough information available to understand if this is permanent sequestration, or a longterm reserve to supply their oil uses. However, moving CO2 from plants to oilfields does seem to be better than just venting it into the atmosphere.
  - 3y ago

aCoreyJ 3y ago

Seriousl question: why is this "enlightened centrism" pessimistic viewpoint so popular on hn

growingentropy 3y ago
Because when you get away from the center, you've often chosen a "team." Choosing a team clouds your judgment.