That is not a useful response that's going to change minds. If people believe it's real, then arguments are needed to invalidate the things we have accepted as true.
What I'm missing in this picture is a clear motivation for the "scientists" to do this. Is it pure self-promotion? The scientist gets more attention if they point out a worrying trend? Or is there a larger scheme and purpose?
I used to disbelieve the climate skeptics because it's obvious what their motivation would be: the oil industry would want climate change science to be suppressed, and would financially sponsor discrediting, interference and propaganda.
We know tobacco companies did this in regard to cigarettes and cancer; companies that profited from lead additives downplayed their considerable health impacts; etc.
So I'm being asked to substitute one conspiracy theory (climate change skepticism is funded by the oil industry) with another conspiracy theory (there is a climate change hoax and it is a product of... what?).
The problem is that the original theory seems plausible and is easy to understand. I'm being asked to believe that the world's largest industry wouldn't attempt to discredit science that harms it. In fact, it is a victim of individual scientists who are being bad on purpose?
It seems that politics has corrupted more than we originally thought.
I believe what it comes down to is "publish or perish."
There's a mixture of motivations at play here, and the media is a part of it.
But the entities that have the most control over project funding is not oil companies. They DO have sway, and CAN fund results. But who has the most money? The most power? Governments.
It becomes terribly difficult to be successful when government grants are threatened. And colleges can only support their faculty for so long when ALL grants are threatened.
So I'm not asking you to NOT believe that oil companies fund, and therefore influence research. I'm asking you to realize that the government is much more powerful and controls much more money to fund research. And it's become quite clear that their motives are not an altruistic search for the truth.
What motivates scientists to do such a thing? Survival. And success.
Good question. How about the fact that it's not real?
That is not a useful response that's going to change minds. If people believe it's real, then arguments are needed to invalidate the things we have accepted as true.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/06/13/doctored-data-not-u-s-temperatures-set-a-record-this-year/?sh=5497f64f6184
Sorry. This was supposed to be added to the comment.
Thanks!
What I'm missing in this picture is a clear motivation for the "scientists" to do this. Is it pure self-promotion? The scientist gets more attention if they point out a worrying trend? Or is there a larger scheme and purpose?
I used to disbelieve the climate skeptics because it's obvious what their motivation would be: the oil industry would want climate change science to be suppressed, and would financially sponsor discrediting, interference and propaganda.
We know tobacco companies did this in regard to cigarettes and cancer; companies that profited from lead additives downplayed their considerable health impacts; etc.
So I'm being asked to substitute one conspiracy theory (climate change skepticism is funded by the oil industry) with another conspiracy theory (there is a climate change hoax and it is a product of... what?).
The problem is that the original theory seems plausible and is easy to understand. I'm being asked to believe that the world's largest industry wouldn't attempt to discredit science that harms it. In fact, it is a victim of individual scientists who are being bad on purpose?
It seems that politics has corrupted more than we originally thought.
I believe what it comes down to is "publish or perish."
There's a mixture of motivations at play here, and the media is a part of it.
But the entities that have the most control over project funding is not oil companies. They DO have sway, and CAN fund results. But who has the most money? The most power? Governments.
It becomes terribly difficult to be successful when government grants are threatened. And colleges can only support their faculty for so long when ALL grants are threatened.
So I'm not asking you to NOT believe that oil companies fund, and therefore influence research. I'm asking you to realize that the government is much more powerful and controls much more money to fund research. And it's become quite clear that their motives are not an altruistic search for the truth.
What motivates scientists to do such a thing? Survival. And success.