4 ms·

> What don't you understand? I don't understand where this comparison goes. Any study sponsored by any given industry, that may have any effect on their botto

> What don't you understand? I don't understand where this comparison goes. Any study sponsored by any given industry, that may have any effect on their bottom line, are generally treated with suspicion because the whole point of private ventures is to increase profits. The narrative is driven by that, not the other way around. In contrast, climate research would happen with or without climate change happening.

Clubber 3y ago
So my original assertion was. I was demonstrating how much money is spent on climate research, then compared it with what Equate sells (which was mentioned earlier). The comparison was to demonstrate how much $154 billion was compared to a market leader at a given time. You know, like "how high is space in Eiffel towers." >There'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. >In contrast, climate research would happen with or without climate change happening. Sure, but when something generates as much media attention and has as much fervor and staying power as climate change does, it gets a whole lot more funding. That's why most of what we hear as the consequence of climate change is absolute worst case scenarios. If people were to lose interest (fear), researchers would lose funding. Getting hit by an asteroid would be more devastating, but I'll bet it doesn't get nearly as much funding, because there isn't as much fervor. https://www.planetary.org/articles/nasas-planetary-defense-budget-growth https://www.planetary.org/articles/nasas-planetary-defense-b... Nope, not even a fraction of a fraction.
- manuelabeledo 3y ago
  > Getting hit by an asteroid would be more devastating, but I'll bet it doesn't get nearly as much funding, because there isn't as much fervor. Perhaps because the chance of an asteroid triggering an extinction level event is infinitesimal, whereas climate change is a very palpable, ongoing issue? Why did we spent so much money developing vaccines to address the COVID-19 pandemic, when there are supervolcanoes that could end all life on Earth as we know it? > We have a massive oversupply of academics and scientists with PhDs. Corporations aren't the only entities with perverse incentives. Corporations, especially publicly traded ones, will almost always pursue maximizing profits. That's quite literally the fiduciary duty of the C-Suite towards shareholders. Academia really is not the most profitable endeavor. Spending 10+ years as a researcher to make less money than a software engineer sounds too dumb for someone smart enough to get a PhD, because it is [0]: > For example, at Pennsylvania State University, professors in the earth and mineral sciences department made an average salary of $157,773, which was below the universitywide average of $166,731. Professors in earth and environmental sciences earned $98,567 on average at Iowa State University, compared with the average salary of $134,039. It's worth noting that, to become an associate university professor, one needs to earn a MSc and a PhD, and spend handful of years as a postdoctorate. Grants aren't "pocket money" for researchers either. In fact they aren't even awarded to individuals, but projects and organizations: > [...] Dr. Hayhoe explained how a $1.1 million grant she received was spent: It was divided over four years, was split with her university for facilities costs, helped pay for a graduate assistant and covered the costs of conferences, laptops and publishing in scientific journals. In short, I don't think these two are remotely comparable. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/27/us/politics/climate-report-fact-check.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/27/us/politics/climate-repor...
- bratwurst3000 3y ago
  Dude wtf to take your numbers … you said this nutrition enterprise was making like 300 million a year and then you are whining about that the budget for planetary defense is to low … it’s 150 million a year .. soo please Google bevor you speak. https://www.planetary.org/articles/nasas-planetary-defense-budget-growth https://www.planetary.org/articles/nasas-planetary-defense-b...
  - Clubber 3y ago
    >soo please Google bevor you speak. >https://www.planetary.org/articles/nasas-planetary-defense-b https://www.planetary.org/articles/nasas-planetary-defense-b... You gotta be trolling. You liked the same article I did. Must be that fervor I was talking about. Do you even know what you are arguing against?

Clubber 3y ago

So my original assertion was. I was demonstrating how much money is spent on climate research, then compared it with what Equate sells (which was mentioned earlier). The comparison was to demonstrate how much $154 billion was compared to a market leader at a given time. You know, like "how high is space in Eiffel towers." >There'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. >In contrast, climate research would happen with or without climate change happening. Sure, but when something generates as much media attention and has as much fervor and staying power as climate change does, it gets a whole lot more funding. That's why most of what we hear as the consequence of climate change is absolute worst case scenarios. If people were to lose interest (fear), researchers would lose funding. Getting hit by an asteroid would be more devastating, but I'll bet it doesn't get nearly as much funding, because there isn't as much fervor. https://www.planetary.org/articles/nasas-planetary-defense-budget-growth https://www.planetary.org/articles/nasas-planetary-defense-b... Nope, not even a fraction of a fraction.

manuelabeledo 3y ago
> Getting hit by an asteroid would be more devastating, but I'll bet it doesn't get nearly as much funding, because there isn't as much fervor. Perhaps because the chance of an asteroid triggering an extinction level event is infinitesimal, whereas climate change is a very palpable, ongoing issue? Why did we spent so much money developing vaccines to address the COVID-19 pandemic, when there are supervolcanoes that could end all life on Earth as we know it? > We have a massive oversupply of academics and scientists with PhDs. Corporations aren't the only entities with perverse incentives. Corporations, especially publicly traded ones, will almost always pursue maximizing profits. That's quite literally the fiduciary duty of the C-Suite towards shareholders. Academia really is not the most profitable endeavor. Spending 10+ years as a researcher to make less money than a software engineer sounds too dumb for someone smart enough to get a PhD, because it is [0]: > For example, at Pennsylvania State University, professors in the earth and mineral sciences department made an average salary of $157,773, which was below the universitywide average of $166,731. Professors in earth and environmental sciences earned $98,567 on average at Iowa State University, compared with the average salary of $134,039. It's worth noting that, to become an associate university professor, one needs to earn a MSc and a PhD, and spend handful of years as a postdoctorate. Grants aren't "pocket money" for researchers either. In fact they aren't even awarded to individuals, but projects and organizations: > [...] Dr. Hayhoe explained how a $1.1 million grant she received was spent: It was divided over four years, was split with her university for facilities costs, helped pay for a graduate assistant and covered the costs of conferences, laptops and publishing in scientific journals. In short, I don't think these two are remotely comparable. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/27/us/politics/climate-report-fact-check.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/27/us/politics/climate-repor...
bratwurst3000 3y ago
Dude wtf to take your numbers … you said this nutrition enterprise was making like 300 million a year and then you are whining about that the budget for planetary defense is to low … it’s 150 million a year .. soo please Google bevor you speak. https://www.planetary.org/articles/nasas-planetary-defense-budget-growth https://www.planetary.org/articles/nasas-planetary-defense-b...
- Clubber 3y ago
  >soo please Google bevor you speak. >https://www.planetary.org/articles/nasas-planetary-defense-b https://www.planetary.org/articles/nasas-planetary-defense-b... You gotta be trolling. You liked the same article I did. Must be that fervor I was talking about. Do you even know what you are arguing against?