5 ms·
You’re right, the scientist example is benign as you say The difference is when there’s a profit motive for the person to inflate the actual numbers or distort
by c54 3y ago
You’re right, the scientist example is benign as you say
The difference is when there’s a profit motive for the person to inflate the actual numbers or distort their recommendation.
If the example was “professional climate scientist selling cloud seeding chemicals suggests we should do more cloud seeding to fight climate change” then there would be cause for skepticism.
- justrealist 3y ago> The difference is when there’s a profit motive for the person to inflate the actual numbers or distort their recommendation. Grant money is distributed based on the perception of a problem. Nobody would be funding climate change research if the scientific consensus is that it wasn't a problem. I am 100% a believer in anthropogenic climate change, but it's ridiculous to claim that there's no financial incentive for researchers to find positive results.
- ahelwer 3y agoYou're talking about the difference between a scientist making like $50-150k/year salary and entities making millions or billions of dollars a year in profit. These are in no way comparable.
- briandear 3y agoWhen their grants depend on an “emergency,” I’d say they are exactly comparable.
- FrustratedMonky 3y agoI think the point is valid. There is "A-LOT" more money in selling Protein based products than there is in any pro-climate change product. I'd like to hear what the positive financial incentive is for promoting climate change? How are they making money? Whereas, with food products, there is a clear and long history of the 'science' being warped by the financial incentives.
- justrealist 3y ago> I'd like to hear what the positive financial incentive is for promoting climate change? How are they making money? Grant money, this is not a mystery. That's what all research labs are on the hunt for, at all times.
- FrustratedMonky 3y agoAs others have pointed out. The person chasing grant money is getting a few thousands of dollars. The person chasing a food product is getting billons. The incentives are very different in scale.
- RiceRichardJ 3y agoThe marketing team for a protein shake is not making billions. If you mean the CEO and shareholders then you can’t compare them to scientists chasing grants, that’s not an apples to apples comparison.
- FrustratedMonky 3y agoThink your head is in the sand a little bit. It is just anecdotal but: All the researchers I know are driving old used cars and scraping by. Nobody is rich. All the big firm researchers/marketers I know are living very comfortable upper class lives, and don't want to jeopardize that with any 'counter findings'. How hard is this to understand: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” ― Upton Sinclair, I, Candidate for Governor
- Clubber 3y agoThere's a lot of money being thrown into climate research. All those researchers like their jobs. We have a massive oversupply of academics and scientists with PhDs. Corporations aren't the only entities with perverse incentives. I mean I don't blame them, I like my job too, but we should recognize the incentive exists. Since 1993, OMB has reported over $154 billion in funding for federal climate change activities, spread across the government—raising questions about fragmentation, overlap, or duplication. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-18-223 https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-18-223 For comparison, this was Ensure's sales in 1996, not profit. In 1996, Ensure had sales of about $300 million and accounted for 80% of protein supplement sales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensure