@truthadvocate: you'd be right, if the people doing the science were the ones getting the 100 billion. Only they're not. Sure, they've got an interest in seeing their theories prevail, but I don't believe that's what's causing them to reach the conclusions they are reaching. The scientific models are all basically in agreement. Climate change isn't 100% man made, but mankind is definitely making it much worse and needs to reverse its impact. The "more study" ship has sailed.
I'm guessing 100 billion will go to governments, corporations & scientific grants. The money that doesn't end up in a scientist's pocket still influences scientists. Corporations help politicians get elected. In return politicians help corporations by influencing spending including scientific & educational funding. I used to trust 'scientific' claims. But when governments fund grants & research institutions, the line between science & propaganda becomes blurry.
Govt has _always_ funded research. So have corporations and other moneyed institutions. And they all like it when the science serves their interests. So I'm confused why you "used to trust 'scientific' claims". What has changed since then? When do you think scientist became corrupt? Do you really think MIT et al who are warning that climate change is a real and serious threat are in the pocket of the US govt., which is somehow keen to dole out 100 billion it doesn't even have?
It's not that science changed. It's more that I've become less naive.
MIT, the home of Noam Chomsky. Many of these institutions in addition to external incentives, have an internal structure that allows or even encourages bias to exist.
If you want 10-year it can't hurt to tell the board what they want to hear. Humans are imperfect. Thus any institution they create will also be imperfect.
Governments pass debt onto future generations & print money. So they do dole out money they don't have.
Might as well ask why they don't interview moon landing conspiracy theorists on shows about NASA. Just because idiots believe something doesn't mean it's a viewpoint worth exploring.
all and all...great interview!!!
GrifterUno 2 years ago
100 billion dollars committed. The people that don't recognize the financial incentives to corrupt the science are the true deniers.
truthadvocate 2 years ago
@truthadvocate: you'd be right, if the people doing the science were the ones getting the 100 billion. Only they're not. Sure, they've got an interest in seeing their theories prevail, but I don't believe that's what's causing them to reach the conclusions they are reaching. The scientific models are all basically in agreement. Climate change isn't 100% man made, but mankind is definitely making it much worse and needs to reverse its impact. The "more study" ship has sailed.
frankroto 2 years ago
I'm guessing 100 billion will go to governments, corporations & scientific grants. The money that doesn't end up in a scientist's pocket still influences scientists. Corporations help politicians get elected. In return politicians help corporations by influencing spending including scientific & educational funding. I used to trust 'scientific' claims. But when governments fund grants & research institutions, the line between science & propaganda becomes blurry.
truthadvocate 2 years ago
Govt has _always_ funded research. So have corporations and other moneyed institutions. And they all like it when the science serves their interests. So I'm confused why you "used to trust 'scientific' claims". What has changed since then? When do you think scientist became corrupt? Do you really think MIT et al who are warning that climate change is a real and serious threat are in the pocket of the US govt., which is somehow keen to dole out 100 billion it doesn't even have?
frankroto 2 years ago
It's not that science changed. It's more that I've become less naive.
MIT, the home of Noam Chomsky. Many of these institutions in addition to external incentives, have an internal structure that allows or even encourages bias to exist.
If you want 10-year it can't hurt to tell the board what they want to hear. Humans are imperfect. Thus any institution they create will also be imperfect.
Governments pass debt onto future generations & print money. So they do dole out money they don't have.
truthadvocate 2 years ago
Do you ever interview anyone who is agaisnt this fraud?
MrBankRuns 2 years ago
Might as well ask why they don't interview moon landing conspiracy theorists on shows about NASA. Just because idiots believe something doesn't mean it's a viewpoint worth exploring.
totaldreck 2 years ago
hmmm, meh
LeGioNoFZioN 2 years ago