Thread: Skeptical Physicist reconfirms climate change

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

The problem is these oil companies and the like are destroying public trust in science by creating a wash of fabricated junk science. While it should be about finding results free of human preconception, it's about finding the results that get you paid.

Wow, I didn't realize that scientists working for state colleges on government grant money were actually working for free.

Originally Posted by cmind

Wow, I didn't realize that scientists working for state colleges on government grant money were actually working for free.

Yet another douchey post by cmind.

Clearly some employers are more biased than others.

Exactly, and you have to get funded by someone. The difference is companies who want certain results, instead of the facts will pay you excessively. Whereas with companies/governments/universities who want facts, you will generally get the money needed for the study, plus whatever salary your experience and qualifications deserve. Which is usually not a lot.

Originally Posted by tommo

Exactly, and you have to get funded by someone. The difference is companies who want certain results, instead of the facts will pay you excessively. Whereas with companies/governments/universities who want facts, you will generally get the money needed for the study, plus whatever salary your experience and qualifications deserve. Which is usually not a lot.

Yeah man, people with ph.d and masters don't get paid that much.

Originally Posted by Marvo

Yeah man, people with ph.d and masters don't get paid that much.

I said, "plus whatever salary your experience and qualifications deserve. Which is usually not a lot."

People with PhD's can start off on like $60,000 a year. I think once you have around 10 years experience it can go over $100,000. Obviously on average and depending on what areas etc.
But it is still fuck all compared to some other jobs, especially considering that it's one of the most respectable professions ever due to it saving humanity and all.
They also pay around $200,000 to go to university, so there's that to take in to account.

The point is to create a wash. For every legitimate scientific consensus that doesn't favor some Big Money Industry, the public is hit by ones funded by an agenda that confound the experiment.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

The point is to create a wash. For every legitimate scientific consensus that doesn't favor some Big Money Industry, the public is hit by ones funded by an agenda that confound the experiment.

Considering any proposed "solutions" to climate change seem to necessitate pointing guns at people, I'm happy to see the science remain a wash indefinitely.

Originally Posted by cmind

Considering any proposed "solutions" to climate change seem to necessitate pointing guns at people, I'm happy to see the science remain a wash indefinitely.

That's another part of the wash. The solution is to stop pointing guns at people and start investing all the capital spent on war and subsidizing oil companies (along with repatriating funds swindled by financial institutions) and start working on Alternative power sources and Magnetically Powered Trains.

Originally Posted by cmind

Considering any proposed "solutions" to climate change seem to necessitate pointing guns at people, I'm happy to see the science remain a wash indefinitely.

What the fuck?
Honestly, I don't even know what to say. Do you even care to explain your position?

Originally Posted by tommo

What the fuck?
Honestly, I don't even know what to say. Do you even care to explain your position?

Translation: a lot of the solutions proposed involved force in one way or another. So he doesn't mind seeing any controversy that prolongs the implementation of those solutions.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Translation: a lot of the solutions proposed involved force in one way or another. So he doesn't mind seeing any controversy that prolongs the implementation of those solutions.

Yes and what force has ever been proposed. If we were proposing force, we'd have wind and solar power running every house by now.

Originally Posted by tommo

Yes and what force has ever been proposed. If we were proposing force, we'd have wind and solar power running every house by now.

They all employ the use of government regulations for the most part. Hence force.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

That's another part of the wash. The solution is to stop pointing guns at people and start investing all the capital spent on war and subsidizing oil companies (along with repatriating funds swindled by financial institutions) and start working on Alternative power sources and Magnetically Powered Trains.

I do indeed believe that there would be much more investment in these technologies if it wasn't for the huge taxation and the crowding out effect, which is essentially when the government soaks up all the capital and diverts it to its programs instead of letting the free market use it. This is exacerbated by the ridiculously low interests rates the Fed sets. Any lack of investments in alternative technologies now is mostly a result of lack of capital, not lack of willpower. So you see, passing regulations that force companies to divert their already incredibly scarce capital into projects that they didn't choose otherwise would result in both the inevitable bankruptcy of those companies and potentially the lack of money for projects that are more urgently needed than, say, solar power.

So, has there been a rash of bankruptcies in recent years? Yep. Is infrastructure falling apart? Yep.

No... regulation is not the problem. I'd hate to break it to you but the Free Market is not a utopia. It has inherent flaws that deplete resources and end up destroying the economy in the long run. Regulation just need to remain in a manner where they set the rules of the game and stop setting them in a way that benefits oligarchy.

Resource depletion isn't actually a big deal. Pricing more or less deals with that.

Except that the resources are, for all intents and purposes, depleted before the price stops people from buying it.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Resource depletion isn't actually a big deal. Pricing more or less deals with that.

Certain farming strategies which are more efficient than others (such as monocropping) deplete the soil of the land so nothing can be grown for years afterwards. Farmers cannot farm in a sustainable way or they lose their competitive edge.

There was a thread about the meat industry here, the same problem occurs. Cattle ranches cannot put their livestock in better conditions or they lose their competitive edge. Regulation would ensure everyone must lose these detrimental competitive edges.

Originally Posted by tommo

Except that the resources are, for all intents and purposes, depleted before the price stops people from buying it.

That's impossible. You may be inclined to argue that price rises quickly at the end (which is also false for other reasons), but you can't say that price doesn't rise to meet demand versus supply. That's just ignorance of economics on your part.

Originally Posted by cmind

That's impossible. You may be inclined to argue that price rises quickly at the end (which is also false for other reasons), but you can't say that price doesn't rise to meet demand versus supply. That's just ignorance of economics on your part.

Depends how you mean supply.
The way you said it - "demand vs supply" - supply generally means the amount a producer is supplying.

What I mean is the amount the can possible be produced from Earth.

And the price does rise once there is less of the product available. But not enough.
You have a horrible habit of taking everything someone says to the extreme. Try to stop that. Coz it just turns discussions to shit.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Resource depletion isn't actually a big deal. Pricing more or less deals with that.

It doesn't deal with the fact that you have no more resource. :/

I don't understand how you guys can think the price stays the same as the resource gets depleted. That makes no fucking sense.

Originally Posted by cmind

I don't understand how you guys can think the price stays the same as the resource gets depleted. That makes no fucking sense.

oh wow.

Originally Posted by cmind

I don't understand how you guys can think the price stays the same as the resource gets depleted. That makes no fucking sense.

Ahem.
Could you at least make an effort to read the other arguments?

Originally Posted by tommo

And the price does rise once there is less of the product available. But not enough.

READING.
It's awesome.

Nice argument douchebag. I like how you think the cmind's arguments trump mine just because you agree with them.
Too bad facts trump opinion.