You can login if you already have an account or register by clicking the button below.
Registering is free and all you need is a username and password. We never ask you for your e-mail.
The only thing I disagree about in this is the idea that scientists don't spread alarmism. People think of science as being some pure quest for truth, it's not, it's a cutthroat quest for funding, which comes from one of three groups:
The public: You have to make your research seem humanitarian and lifesaving
Businesses: You have to make your research seem profitable
Government (the largest one): You have to make your funding politically appealing
In softer sciences (any science where opinion plays more of a part than data), results often reflect demand. Climate science is no different, there is huge demand for climate alarmism right now (mostly as a thinly veiled excuse to hate capitalism and love state-socialism) so the research mostly reflects that, especially among up and coming researchers without tenure.
Citing this "consensus" as evidence of the truth is about as meaningful as citing the number of ads for Hillary Clinton as evidence she's the best candidate. It's a basic misunderstanding of the role many scientists and public funding for science play in modern society.
there is huge demand for climate alarmism right now
Do you actually have experience writing grants in science? Climate change is extremely cliche. Grant reviewers hate hearing about it. Funding for science is very low currently. Invoking climate change is actually correlated with reduced science funding.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] Broc_Lia 0 points 4 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago
The only thing I disagree about in this is the idea that scientists don't spread alarmism. People think of science as being some pure quest for truth, it's not, it's a cutthroat quest for funding, which comes from one of three groups:
The public: You have to make your research seem humanitarian and lifesaving
Businesses: You have to make your research seem profitable
Government (the largest one): You have to make your funding politically appealing
In softer sciences (any science where opinion plays more of a part than data), results often reflect demand. Climate science is no different, there is huge demand for climate alarmism right now (mostly as a thinly veiled excuse to hate capitalism and love state-socialism) so the research mostly reflects that, especially among up and coming researchers without tenure.
Citing this "consensus" as evidence of the truth is about as meaningful as citing the number of ads for Hillary Clinton as evidence she's the best candidate. It's a basic misunderstanding of the role many scientists and public funding for science play in modern society.
[–] hambrehombre 1 point 0 points 1 point (+1|-1) ago
Do you actually have experience writing grants in science? Climate change is extremely cliche. Grant reviewers hate hearing about it. Funding for science is very low currently. Invoking climate change is actually correlated with reduced science funding.
[–] Broc_Lia 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
You've tried that one before. It didn't work last time either.