Climate Change (fka man-made global warming)

[Vince]

I'm at the point I really don't care. Scientists have gone full circle and are pretty much where they were when the church oversaw all of it. "The earth has to be at the center of the Universe, because that's what we said that God said and if we're wrong you'll stop giving us money."

"Man has to be causing global warming, because that's what we originally said and the only way you'll keep giving us money."

Seriously. Don't care.

[GORDON]

I follow a couple Facebook groups that are supposedly VERY pro-science. One of the little things they keep posting over and over is the idea of a massive conspiracy theory that climate scientists get paid off to falsify data. The joke is, "Gee, I think I'll go spend my millions now that I got paid to shill global warming." They act like scientists work for free, for the betterment of mankind, and 100% of them aren't getting paid by someone, somewhere.

It irritates me. It makes me feel like a psycho conspiracy theorist when I can quickly and easily poke a logical hole in their insulting little arguments that implies people are psycho conspiracy theorists.

[Vince]

It's not like scientists have ever been bought off before.

I don't think it's so much a conspiracy as it is a world view. Just as I don't believe there is a conspiracy among the majority of journalists, there is a common world view that lends itself to reporting facts a certain way. Or not reporting other facts. Humble PhD's are rather rare. They view themselves as smarter than everyone else, and that "common" people just tend to make a mess of things. I think that world view influences their studies. And for years we had people in government that shared that world view and helped perpetuate the feedback loop with continuing grants. So while the individuals within the Facebook groups in question may not be getting paid for their beliefs, they are getting a payoff in the way of affirmation of their superiority of intellect. Flattery is also a currency.

[GORDON]

I would fantasize an argument against those groups that I mentioned earlier, talking about how "scientists never falsify studies...." then link to the tobacco industry in the 1960s claiming that their scientists have proven smoking is good for you. But I know the comment would just be deleted, so there's no point.

Science has never not been political, just try arguing a heliocentric universe in the 1500s.

I don't think all scientists are evil, not even a majority, not even a slight minority. Maybe zero, people are basically good with simple motivations. But I know all of them have to eat, and all of them need funding if they want to work, and money almost never comes without strings.

[Vince]

I don't think all scientists are evil, not even a majority, not even a slight minority. Maybe zero, people are basically good with simple motivations. But I know all of them have to eat, and all of them need funding if they want to work, and money almost never comes without strings.

Agreed. I think if we end the government grants it would help remove some of the politics (though you'll never get rid of all of it). I'd be curious to see the comparison of private grants to science vs government grants.

[Malcolm]

Amazing how we've made progress in the past few centuries with all this biased and bought science.

[GORDON]

Fortunately, capitalism is also a motivator for progress.

[Malcolm]

I don't think all scientists are evil, not even a majority, not even a slight minority. Maybe zero, people are basically good with simple motivations. But I know all of them have to eat, and all of them need funding if they want to work, and money almost never comes without strings.

Agreed. I think if we end the government grants it would help remove some of the politics (though you'll never get rid of all of it). I'd be curious to see the comparison of private grants to science vs government grants.

If only stats existed. Most "private grants" fall under industry R&D.

Government funding for medical research amounts to approximately 36% in the U.S. The government funding proportion in certain industries is higher, and it dominates research in social science and humanities. Similarly, with some exceptions (e.g. biotechnology) government provides the bulk of the funds for basic scientific research.

[GORDON]

Do you think the government is a neutral party?

[Malcolm]

Do you think the government is a neutral party?

Do you think people who run a corporation for profit are? All funding has an agenda attached to it. No one pays you to research knowledge for knowledge's sake. If it can't do something with a dollar sign at the end, it's not getting funded. What magical objective funding groups do you know?

[GORDON]

Exactly? What are you arguing?

[Malcolm]

Exactly? What are you arguing?

I just edited my post above. There's hardly a difference between public and private bias. But governments can do big, insane things which pay off technological dividends for years after. The US went to the moon in '69. I'm still waiting for a private corp to get their Profitnauts there and start mining and setting up colonies and shit. There was no private company nor conglomerate of private companies capable of a lunar landing then or now. Without massive government funding, you miss out on all the tech the Space Race helped spark, or at least delay it appreciably. The further point is all that biased science seems to have some truth to it every now and again, so simply claiming, "Someone's paying for that study," isn't enough to invalidate it. Someone pays for every fucking study but that doesn't make them all false. Someone paid for NASA's studies on heat shield tech. Shit seems to hold up. I bet some specialty manufacturer makes out like a goddamned bandit fabricating it, too.

[GORDON]

"Someone paying for the study" should always raise a flag. "Someone" is rarely doing it for the altruistic good of mankind, and for a long time now there has been money and power in controlling environmental laws. My original point was the "conventional wisdom" that of course scientists work without bias, and are never expected to deliver a certain result, and don't get paid on their output. I think the opposite is much more likely, but that makes me a paranoid conspiracy theorist.

You don't actually seem to be arguing against me, you seem to be trying to argue a more optimistic version of what I am saying, that the system isn't actually rigged, which seems very much against your character.

I suspect you have been bought and paid for by Big Climate.

[Malcolm]

"Someone paying for the study" should always raise a flag.

Do you have a mining operation somewhere such that you can dig free research from a cavern in the earth?

My original point was the "conventional wisdom" that of course scientists work without bias, and are never expected to deliver a certain result, and don't get paid on their output.

Bleh. Horseshit believed by people who never participated in real uni-level research. If you forked out cash to some nerds to develop the next version of kevlar (with a nice spider silk texture for TPR), and their chemical experiments failed, you'd be pissed that their theories were wrong whether or not it's a hit to your bottom line or your uni's grant budget. Whether or not you'd order them to doctor the results determines exactly how much of a short-term capitalist you are. When profit is at stake, people tend to lie. Unfortunately, science (much like art) doesn't exist for it's own sake. It exists to service things. Radar was invented to help blow things up, and nowadays it keeps things from crashing into each other -- a wholly practical use. Paintings were invented originally for basic communication or historical recording. Today, old rich mofos pay a lot of cash for certain artistic endeavours -- sometimes as investments, sometimes for ego.

People say bullshit like, "I study science to explore humanity, to discover the mysteries of the universe, to crack the wonder of the human genome," blah blah blah fucking blahbity blah. Awesome. The dude signing your check enabling you to play with pipettes and centrifuges all day needs money to pay for your lab set. He looks at his R+D department like a slot machine, and if it's not paying out, changes need to be made. Edison, frequently referenced as the gold standard of modern inventors, wasn't creating things to further the human race. He was cheap, cutthroat, douchebag genius.

You don't actually seem to be arguing against me, you seem to be trying to argue a more optimistic version of what I am saying, that the system isn't actually rigged

The "rigged system" is the only one we have. It seems to have brought us ever increasing technological acceleration in many areas. I hear DARPA paid for studies on the ARPANET. Research is not free unless you have a bottomless charity to fund you. Damned if those aren't hard to come by.

I suspect you have been bought and paid for by Big Climate.

I didn't know the weather signed checks. Mine must be really fucking late.

"Someone" is rarely doing it for the altruistic good of mankind, and for a long time now there has been money and power in controlling environmental laws.

Yes, from both sides. If you're claiming that competing interests, agendas, and money render scientific exploration invalid, then we're not discovering any new tech ever again.

[GORDON]

I'm claiming no such thing. I'm claiming there is a lot of dishonesty built in to the system.

[Malcolm]

I'm claiming no such thing. I'm claiming there is a lot of dishonesty built in to the system.

Competition does that, Mr. Capitalist.

[GORDON]

I'm starting to think you read about every other post I make. I already mentioned the success of capitalism a while back.

Again, you're arguing just to argue, you aren't actually disagreeing. I'm done with that for the evening. Good night, sweet dreams!

[Malcolm]

No, I'm actually disagreeing. Firstly, with this taken at face value...

Fortunately, capitalism is also a motivator for progress.

Yeah, it's also a motivator to fuck people over, steal their money, and kill economic confidence. Goes both ways.

people are basically good with simple motivations.

And definitely that.

"Someone paying for the study" should always raise a flag.

This seems a bit extreme, though obvious conflicts like, "How Smoking Increases Lung Capacity" funded by Phillip Morris are worrisome. On the flip side, when I notice the American Cancer Society paying for cancer research, I really don't care. If only there were things like reputable peer-reviewed journals that could serve as further filters on bogus studies.

I'm trying to reconcile you saying the third quote while also arguing the first one.

[Vince]

Thank goodness for science without an agenda.

[Vince]

If only stats existed. Most "private grants" fall under industry R&D.

I never said the stats didn't exist, only that I'd be curious to see them. Thanks for doing the legwork on that. I honestly was curious, but not enough to actually look for them.