What is the more likely scenario? That Environmentalists are conspiring to ruin the economy or Oil Companies are trying to protect their profits? You decide!
I don't get the connection between Environmentalists and Greece. In fact all the Environmentalists I respect say an essential part of getting our planet in order is to get consumption under control -- whether that be government or individual. Sounds like the answer for Greece.
For a thoughtful perspective on environmentalism try http://enviroeconomics.ca/
There is no question that large companies be it oil or seed make it their mandate to do all to protect their interests at virtually all costs. I also do not getthe connnection between environmentalists and Greece?? As much as I abhore paying tax for benefit I do not receive I also know that the good book says'.. too whom much is given much is expected.." or something like that. Now accuse me of taking this out of context and I will likely agree with you, but I will still argue there is a principle there that extends to more aspects of life than one.
As much as I do not mind paying a higher prcentage tax as I earn money I also do not want to give it to those who believe they are entitled to it because. Why did the price of oil go up this week - not likely because of some environmentalist ramblings Vagaries in oil prices due to heresay in other parts of the world when the US/Can sits on some of the largest oil reserves in the world reeks of self serving greed.
Maybe time to move south where we don't need the same amt of fossil fuel to live.
Agreed, always good to understand perspectives of things we read which that chart is trying to suggest. A few quick points:
1. When deciding what to believe, lets first start with the premise that in the US over 80% of college professors and journalists are registered Democrats (similar stats in Canada) who are far more sympathetic to claims of warming.
2. Governments around the world, spend by far the most on global warming promotion. You can call it research, but who is going to get future funding if they claim “there appear to be no problems”. There is clearly incentive (as we have seen with the IPCC) to exaggerate data in order to insure future funding. The US federal government alone spends over $4b dollars a year on warming research. I have read more than a few times (but have not bothered to investigate so it may be wrong) that money funding claims of global warming is 1000 to 1, funding its denial.
3. Reading that chart, you posted, it is clearly created by someone that is very biased. “Oil companies spending Obscene profits”. So obviously they don’t like oil company profits. For clarity, I would point out that oil companies earn less (defined as return on invested capital which every finance person would agree is the correct method) than most sectors of the economy like technology, health-care, telecom services, etc.
So yes, good reminder for us all to understand the biases in what we read.
1. I'm not sure what you are saying. What I hear you saying is that a college professor or journalist is likely to be a Democrat. That being the case, his science is likely flawed. Please explain to me why a Republican scientist is more likely to be a good scientist than a Democrat scientist.
2. I think it is important to distinguish between investing in climate science research, to see which way it goes, and investing in research where the outcome is pre-determined. The first is research, the second is not. So let's take your 1000 to 1 figure in that light.
In Canada, at least, if I were looking for government funding, I would not want the results of my research to support climate change. Here is a quote from Joe Oliver, minister of natural resources "These groups threaten to hijack our regulatory system to achieve their radical ideological agenda. They seek to exploit any loophole they can find, stacking public hearings with bodies to ensure that delays kill good projects. They use funding from foreign special interest groups to undermine Canada’s national economic interest." More here http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/an-open-letter-from-natural-resources-minister-joe-oliver/article2295599/.
The point here is not whether Oliver is right or wrong. I'm just saying if the result will determine who gets the money, and if that's what you want, you better find in favour of climate change denying. Things may be different in other countries.
1. I am saying the way most people get information, is from school and education. Given those providing that information, are doing it from a predominately liberal perspective, they are far more likely to believe in global warming. That is not to say they are wrong, but its important to know their biases. Therefore, people are not hearing a balanced perspective, but rather hearing a slant about the evils (not the environmental virtues which we discussed a couple of years ago) of capitalism and oil companies. Ask 100 random people about oil companies, and whether they get unfair tax breaks and make too much profits. Probably 90% of people (particularly if they are under 30) would agree, yet it is factually wrong given oil companies pay the highest taxes in all of corporate America as a % of their profits (and their profit percentage is not higher than average). Why is there this perception? Apparently the oil companies are not so powerful as to even get a simple message like “we pay the highest taxes in the land at 40%”. Yet, we are to believe oil companies are successfully manipulating the minds of people about global warming.
2. Therefore, surely you would agree that governments around the world -as the largest source of global warming funding - overwhelming push their agendas. It is possible, that Canada is one of the few countries in the world not funding pro-global warming research more-so than anti (although I don’t properly understand the independence of Environment Canada). In Europe, global warming is accepted as virtual fact, under the Obama administration same thing, as well as much of the world. So net, in the vast majority of the world, there appears to be a global warming agenda. I am not clear if funding is 1000 to 1, but it would not surprise me.
I really am confused. What I hear you saying makes no sense to me. I hear you saying that there is no such thing as unbiased science. I hear you saying that if a scientist concludes that there is global warming (or there is no global warming), it is because he was biased in that direction, or that the funder, the donor, told him which way to find. In other words, you say there is no such thing as funding of climate science for the sake of taking it where it will take us, that there is no funding of climate science for the sake of discovery.
I mean, if that's the case, then why even do science. Then there is no such thing as discovery.
Your post, implied that big oil was funding a view that went against science. I tried to show (clearly unsuccessfully) that the oil industry has not even successfully battled the negative imagine that they get massive tax breaks. The media and educators largely control the perception of the oil companies (amongst others things), and as a result the oil industry is demonized on this issue (amongst others) despite paying the highest tax percentages in corporate America. So oil companies can’t successfully clean up their own imagine on the taxes they pay, yet somehow the oil industry has successfully duped much of society (including me) into thinking global warming is a hoax? You seem to imply that only conclusions that are pro-global warming are legitimate, and those that show other conclusions.
Global warming science is not settled (in fact he name change to ‘Climate Change’ should have any reasonable person turn more skeptical about the science), and there appear to be many good scientists on both sides of the debate. I think it is shameful, that the media and many educators presented global warming as scientific fact.
Not sure how I "seem to imply that only conclusions that are pro-global warming are legitimate, and those that show other conclusions." Perhaps you can explain.
The graphic that started this discussion may well be saying that there are only two kinds of research: 1) that funded by environmental groups, and 2) that funded by big oil. You seem to be agreeing with that. The graphic implies that big oil is the big donor in biased research. You are saying, not so. You are saying the environmental groups (including governments who have already concluded climate change is a reality) are the big supporters of biased research.
I am saying there is another category of research which does not have a bias. I am saying that only research that has no bias can really be called science. And I am saying, that just because the finding of scientific research does not support my bias, does not make it bad science. Just to be clear.
The peer reviews of some of the climate literature are very interesting.
I think you would agree that just because big oil has not been able to correct the perception regarding taxes, is no evidence that it does not support biased research.
I think we have some clarity. The only point that I wanted to clarify, is that I don’t disagree there are likely plenty of unbiased researchers that get funded. However, with the media and educators as the main filters of how the public obtains information, there is a high level of bias of what gets disseminated and portrayed as legitimate
Wow I have not looked on this blog for quite a while and there has been a lot of activity. I guess I have a question and a comment. 1. While I agree with Karl that the graphic is obviously biased my question arises from it. I do not understand what the government has to gain from perpetuating climate change. I have had this discussion before with other people who say that the government is creating a climate change myth to advance its own objectives and agendas. Climate scientists as well would be in on this I assume for self serving interest. What is the gain? I understand Karl that you are saying that "governments around the world -as the largest source of global warming funding - overwhelming push their agendas." What is the advantage of this agenda for the government? I understand believing that climate change science is garbage, I do not understand the advantage of having an agenda that supports climate change science (if the science is right or wrong). 2. I do not get the connection between environmentalists and Greece either?? 3. Very nice having more then one view point expressed on this blog. Eric was posting a lot of one sided posts recently. 4. I am enjoying the ramblings KK!!
I think what the government has to gain from climate change is more power and control. If there is a big climate crisis, government can seize more control of our lives, telling us what we can drive, build, consume, etc. I think about my sister working with welfare recipients. Even when clear fraud is occurring, it is nearly impossible to stop funding to the fraudulent recipients, as the infrastructure has no incentive to reduce funding. Governments have a powerful incentive to grow, as they can increase power with other people’s money.
However, I am not suggesting the majority in the government are simply using it as a tool to seize control. I think most truly believe in a global warming crisis given the views presented by schools and the media. I think their own incentives to see their departments grow, enhances their passion.
Of course not. Environmentalists are not conspiring it is just that their ignorance will ruin the economy.
ReplyDeleteI present, as exhibit A , Greece.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI don't get the connection between Environmentalists and Greece. In fact all the Environmentalists I respect say an essential part of getting our planet in order is to get consumption under control -- whether that be government or individual. Sounds like the answer for Greece.
ReplyDeleteFor a thoughtful perspective on environmentalism try http://enviroeconomics.ca/
There is no question that large companies be it oil or seed make it their mandate to do all to protect their interests at virtually all costs. I also do not getthe connnection between environmentalists and Greece??
ReplyDeleteAs much as I abhore paying tax for benefit I do not receive I also know that the good book says'.. too whom much is given much is expected.." or something like that. Now accuse me of taking this out of context and I will likely agree with you, but I will still argue there is a principle there that extends to more aspects of life than one.
As much as I do not mind paying a higher prcentage tax as I earn money I also do not want to give it to those who believe they are entitled to it because.
Why did the price of oil go up this week - not likely because of some environmentalist ramblings
Vagaries in oil prices due to heresay in other parts of the world when the US/Can sits on some of the largest oil reserves in the world reeks of self serving greed.
Maybe time to move south where we don't need the same amt of fossil fuel to live.
My ramblings for today
KK
Karl, on this, check my other blog http://www.mysteinbach.ca/blogs/2989.html
ReplyDeleteRead it and agree - but for many the xtra dollars is not available at the time
DeleteKarl k.
Agreed, always good to understand perspectives of things we read which that chart is trying to suggest. A few quick points:
ReplyDelete1. When deciding what to believe, lets first start with the premise that in the US over 80% of college professors and journalists are registered Democrats (similar stats in Canada) who are far more sympathetic to claims of warming.
2. Governments around the world, spend by far the most on global warming promotion. You can call it research, but who is going to get future funding if they claim “there appear to be no problems”. There is clearly incentive (as we have seen with the IPCC) to exaggerate data in order to insure future funding. The US federal government alone spends over $4b dollars a year on warming research. I have read more than a few times (but have not bothered to investigate so it may be wrong) that money funding claims of global warming is 1000 to 1, funding its denial.
3. Reading that chart, you posted, it is clearly created by someone that is very biased. “Oil companies spending Obscene profits”. So obviously they don’t like oil company profits. For clarity, I would point out that oil companies earn less (defined as return on invested capital which every finance person would agree is the correct method) than most sectors of the economy like technology, health-care, telecom services, etc.
So yes, good reminder for us all to understand the biases in what we read.
Welcome back, Karl. Have missed you.
ReplyDelete1. I'm not sure what you are saying. What I hear you saying is that a college professor or journalist is likely to be a Democrat. That being the case, his science is likely flawed. Please explain to me why a Republican scientist is more likely to be a good scientist than a Democrat scientist.
2. I think it is important to distinguish between investing in climate science research, to see which way it goes, and investing in research where the outcome is pre-determined. The first is research, the second is not. So let's take your 1000 to 1 figure in that light.
In Canada, at least, if I were looking for government funding, I would not want the results of my research to support climate change. Here is a quote from Joe Oliver, minister of natural resources "These groups threaten to hijack our regulatory system to achieve their radical ideological agenda. They seek to exploit any loophole they can find, stacking public hearings with bodies to ensure that delays kill good projects. They use funding from foreign special interest groups to undermine Canada’s national economic interest." More here http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/an-open-letter-from-natural-resources-minister-joe-oliver/article2295599/.
The point here is not whether Oliver is right or wrong. I'm just saying if the result will determine who gets the money, and if that's what you want, you better find in favour of climate change denying. Things may be different in other countries.
1. I am saying the way most people get information, is from school and education. Given those providing that information, are doing it from a predominately liberal perspective, they are far more likely to believe in global warming. That is not to say they are wrong, but its important to know their biases. Therefore, people are not hearing a balanced perspective, but rather hearing a slant about the evils (not the environmental virtues which we discussed a couple of years ago) of capitalism and oil companies. Ask 100 random people about oil companies, and whether they get unfair tax breaks and make too much profits. Probably 90% of people (particularly if they are under 30) would agree, yet it is factually wrong given oil companies pay the highest taxes in all of corporate America as a % of their profits (and their profit percentage is not higher than average). Why is there this perception? Apparently the oil companies are not so powerful as to even get a simple message like “we pay the highest taxes in the land at 40%”. Yet, we are to believe oil companies are successfully manipulating the minds of people about global warming.
ReplyDelete2. Therefore, surely you would agree that governments around the world -as the largest source of global warming funding - overwhelming push their agendas. It is possible, that Canada is one of the few countries in the world not funding pro-global warming research more-so than anti (although I don’t properly understand the independence of Environment Canada). In Europe, global warming is accepted as virtual fact, under the Obama administration same thing, as well as much of the world. So net, in the vast majority of the world, there appears to be a global warming agenda. I am not clear if funding is 1000 to 1, but it would not surprise me.
I should have read my note. The first sentence should read "I am saying the way most people get information is from school and THE MEDIA."
ReplyDeleteI really am confused. What I hear you saying makes no sense to me. I hear you saying that there is no such thing as unbiased science. I hear you saying that if a scientist concludes that there is global warming (or there is no global warming), it is because he was biased in that direction, or that the funder, the donor, told him which way to find. In other words, you say there is no such thing as funding of climate science for the sake of taking it where it will take us, that there is no funding of climate science for the sake of discovery.
ReplyDeleteI mean, if that's the case, then why even do science. Then there is no such thing as discovery.
Your post, implied that big oil was funding a view that went against science. I tried to show (clearly unsuccessfully) that the oil industry has not even successfully battled the negative imagine that they get massive tax breaks. The media and educators largely control the perception of the oil companies (amongst others things), and as a result the oil industry is demonized on this issue (amongst others) despite paying the highest tax percentages in corporate America. So oil companies can’t successfully clean up their own imagine on the taxes they pay, yet somehow the oil industry has successfully duped much of society (including me) into thinking global warming is a hoax? You seem to imply that only conclusions that are pro-global warming are legitimate, and those that show other conclusions.
ReplyDeleteGlobal warming science is not settled (in fact he name change to ‘Climate Change’ should have any reasonable person turn more skeptical about the science), and there appear to be many good scientists on both sides of the debate. I think it is shameful, that the media and many educators presented global warming as scientific fact.
Here is an example of what you are talking about! Make sure you read the whole story.
ReplyDeletehttp://ca.news.yahoo.com/coal-not-oilsands-true-climate-change-bad-guy-184214482.html
Not sure how I "seem to imply that only conclusions that are pro-global warming are legitimate, and those that show other conclusions." Perhaps you can explain.
The graphic that started this discussion may well be saying that there are only two kinds of research: 1) that funded by environmental groups, and 2) that funded by big oil. You seem to be agreeing with that. The graphic implies that big oil is the big donor in biased research. You are saying, not so. You are saying the environmental groups (including governments who have already concluded climate change is a reality) are the big supporters of biased research.
I am saying there is another category of research which does not have a bias. I am saying that only research that has no bias can really be called science. And I am saying, that just because the finding of scientific research does not support my bias, does not make it bad science. Just to be clear.
The peer reviews of some of the climate literature are very interesting.
I think you would agree that just because big oil has not been able to correct the perception regarding taxes, is no evidence that it does not support biased research.
ReplyDeleteI think we have some clarity. The only point that I wanted to clarify, is that I don’t disagree there are likely plenty of unbiased researchers that get funded. However, with the media and educators as the main filters of how the public obtains information, there is a high level of bias of what gets disseminated and portrayed as legitimate
ReplyDeleteWow I have not looked on this blog for quite a while and there has been a lot of activity. I guess I have a question and a comment.
ReplyDelete1. While I agree with Karl that the graphic is obviously biased my question arises from it. I do not understand what the government has to gain from perpetuating climate change. I have had this discussion before with other people who say that the government is creating a climate change myth to advance its own objectives and agendas. Climate scientists as well would be in on this I assume for self serving interest. What is the gain? I understand Karl that you are saying that "governments around the world -as the largest source of global warming funding - overwhelming push their agendas." What is the advantage of this agenda for the government? I understand believing that climate change science is garbage, I do not understand the advantage of having an agenda that supports climate change science (if the science is right or wrong).
2. I do not get the connection between environmentalists and Greece either??
3. Very nice having more then one view point expressed on this blog. Eric was posting a lot of one sided posts recently.
4. I am enjoying the ramblings KK!!
Mark
Hello Mark.
ReplyDeleteI think what the government has to gain from climate change is more power and control. If there is a big climate crisis, government can seize more control of our lives, telling us what we can drive, build, consume, etc. I think about my sister working with welfare recipients. Even when clear fraud is occurring, it is nearly impossible to stop funding to the fraudulent recipients, as the infrastructure has no incentive to reduce funding. Governments have a powerful incentive to grow, as they can increase power with other people’s money.
However, I am not suggesting the majority in the government are simply using it as a tool to seize control. I think most truly believe in a global warming crisis given the views presented by schools and the media. I think their own incentives to see their departments grow, enhances their passion.