The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[freebeard]

freebeard thought that redpoint's plagiarism was good. So freebeard really wound up ITS plagiarist curveball.

I'd asked about pronouns. It looks like it's 'none', but what is ITS an acronym for?

In other news, would buying Greenland be a Good Idea? If global warming (irrespective of cause) is happening then yes, but if the Earth's normal homeostatic processes kick in, all that mining and energy extraction would have to happen under more ice.

What to do, what to do....

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

So you agree that the principle of funding bias applies equally regardless of political affiliation, or is this a magical 1-way phenomenon?

Oil companies make massive profits - some of the largest ever.

Science is not profit driven, and no one is getting rich.

[redpoint5]

So, scientists volunteer their time? Job security has no value?

I'm kinda seeing how this is a 1-way bias.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Oil companies make massive profits - some of the largest ever.

Science is not profit driven, and no one is getting rich.

You really don't know much about the funding side of science.
How do you think the power bill gets paid, lease or rent gets paid, money for test gear comes from?
Money for these things doesn't miracle it's self into existence unless it's a .gov lab.

[RedDevil]

It is called the educational system. And that's its main purpose.
The money is provided to get people educated, not to specifically steer towards some goal that suits lobbyists best.

[oil pan 4]

In the United States even educational science programs are expected to solicite private funds.
If you look at private and state run schools the top 2 ways to earn their own income is always sports mainly ticket sales and the science department earning grants, securing study funding ect.
I wanted to be a scientist like my dad but was turned off by all the non science like the large portion of the job where all you do is try to obtain funds, the politics and trying to sell your scientific services like a used car salesman.

I have already given sources but they were ignored like a cooler than expected temperature reading.

[litesong]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

So you agree that the principle of funding bias applies equally regardless of political affiliation.....

AGW science never developed as a political affiliation. Exxon & anti-AGW funded talkers have all talk & "sigh-ants", but no AGW science. redpoint twists in the wind to adorn AGW, as a political talking point, as Exxon, industrial polluters & energy companies have also struggled to dress AGW.

[litesong]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

So, scientists volunteer their time?

Science is not profit-driven. But anti-AGW "sigh-ants" is profit driven.

[freebeard]

AGW science never developed as a political affiliation. Exxon & anti-AGW funded talkers have all talk & "sigh-ants", but no AGW science. redpoint twists in the wind to adorn AGW, as a political talking point, as Exxon, industrial polluters & energy companies have also struggled to dress AGW.

Only one intentional mis-spelling, but what about 'twists in the wind to adorn' and 'struggled to dress'? Dress as in cloak or address?

AGW science never developed as a political affiliation.

Now that is flat wrong. The science has be appropriated by decidedly political interests. In the USofA that's the Social Democrats.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

With regards to the guest speaker I referenced, the claim was that reducing meat consumption (by whatever means adopted by the individual) is:

a. healthier
b. reduces CO2 emissions
c. reduces the extent of farming operations that some might find objectionable, such as raising animals that grow to a size that immobilizes movement due to hormones and breeding

I added that meat is more expensive than other foods, which is probably the key issue for me since I don't like spending money on what is ultimately poop.

The overall point was that there's probably at least 1 reason most people would find compelling enough to reduce meat consumption by any amount of their own choosing.

JBP went the other direction and is on an all beef diet and cites several health benefits from doing so.

I've basically never noticed any difference in any changes in diet, so I'm not very motivated for "health" reasons. Give me a Big Mac or a bowl of pasta, and I'll feel the same (less hungry).

In his book(s),'How Not To Die',Dr. Michael Gregor fingered salt,sugar,high-fructose corn sugar,fat,processed foods,(the standard American diet) as the gateway to high blood pressure,clogged arteries,morbid obesity,type-2 diabetes,heart attack,and stroke.
On one physical,I went out of range on blood pressure and cholesterol.My doctor said they could prescribe meds,I opted for a lifestyle change.I went on a flexitarian diet,eating 'trash' only four meals a week,otherwise a vegan diet,and within 6-months,everything was back in normal range.
Gregor's tracked randomized,large-cohort,double-blind,placebo-controlled clinical trials and is convinced that perhaps 80% of all American illness can be reversed with diet and lifestyle.
Some cultures in the Arctic circle live totally off reindeer meat and milk products.I've got a neighbor that tried the KETO diet,and is gonna try vegan/vegetarian.