/sci/ - Science & Math

Dolphins are the Africans of the sea.

>>10489131
Skeptical science genuinely convinced me that artificial global warming is real and maybe even actually dangerous. They have a bunch of well sourced and logically written articles debunking and correcting denier claims usually in two levels of difficulty to understand (higher level is very easy to understand if you arent a child or retarded). They obviously dont have any solutions and the articles on renewables are hands down shit and they avoid talking about nuclear like the plague, so obviously still take it with a grain of salt.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/
They have a list of articles sorted by "climate myths" so you can just go through it and every time you come across something you might believe you can check it out. For me the most interesting were "we dont know for sure" and "CO2 lags temperature", both of which I genuinely used to believe.

>>10489162
>skeptical science
Im asking for hard facts, not a convincing lecture.
HARD FACTS.
(thats not to say I dont believe in it, but why do I believe in it? I want to know the truth.)

>>10489257
lol ok you made me double check and there actually arent any real sources to any of it. Was pretty sure that I found references to research papers on the articles Ive read but I cant find them. Dont know what the purpose of the blog is then...

>>10489299
This is a huge problem. Noone can find the truth anymore, and everyone is being led by opinion.

>>10489131
This seems to be a pretty widespread problem. Everything is an agenda, it’s hard if not impossible to find someone who reports just the facts they gather.

>>10489489
Right, and I would expect to encounter this if someone were looking to read the news, but it seems now even in research there is this problem. What is to be done about it? Where can we find real information?

There will always be review papers in scientific journals.
If it is something really controversial, scientists will also publish letters expression what is the consensus of the field.
Then for really big things like climate change you have scientific task-forces like the IPCC.

>>10489299
What are you talking about? The climate myth articles are littered with links, often to published research and expert interviews.

>>10489555
Holy trips of wisdom, then where do I go to find this type of info? And, if the ipcc does a good job of rgulating myth, or ratjer ensuring truth in scientific publication, why is there such an insurgance of misinfo?

OP makes fairly accusatory statements about the state of published climate research: that it's highly polluted with falsehoods or intentionally misleading papers.
In order for OP to make these claims, he must be well-versed in the science and contemporary research surrounding climate change. How else could he identify falsehoods and misrepresentations, if he didn't know the truth?
And yet he posts a picture of a dolphin and asks us where to find credible research.

OP, believe me, if you're knowledgeable enough to identify systemic bias across an entire scientific field, you're the expert on that field here, not us. Please do the world a favor and apply your considerable knowledge to compiling a list of honest climate researchers. I'll keep the thread bumped for you.

>>10489581
Thanks, Im about to take off in a plane, so it will be in a few hours. I doubt the thread will die before I land.

>>10489586
Better yet let's see these false reports and misinfo in the literature.

>>10489571
>why is there such an insurgance of misinfo?
Because many people are invested, billions or trillions of dollars in some market that emits a lot of GHG and those people would benefit tremendously if climate change action is delayed by a few decades.
Plus there are some who are invested politically, because their preferred economic/political system is not able to deal with climate change.

>>10489565
Alright I checked some more articles and the ones I checked first were outliers in that they all didnt have a single paper linked to, or any other source other than for the figures for that matter.
Most others do link to a few papers but most links just redirect to another article on the website.
Still its very much worth reading and most stuff is backed by just enough sources to make it valuable.

You are the source of accurate information. Now what you could do is download articles and reports on a file, try to get information from both sides of the argument. After that, review them and check what makes them different. Argue with yourself or a peer, taking both sides of the argument and try to discuss with each other about the differences and try to correct them using only data recorded on the report or article. Once you've done most of the talking points, you'll soon make a stand on what you believe on climate change.

But if you want to find credible sources, you have to go the long way and search up who were the people that wrote the article and where was it published. Make sure that they don't have a history of producing false reports, or at least if they are to be trusted.

I know this sounds like too much work, but that's because it is. It's a controversial topic that has been poisoned by politics, and if you want the best information, you're going to have to work for it.

>>10489606
Elegant, but it doesnt stop the fact that people read something false and develop confirmation bias from that, which makes it much harder to get anything done.

>>10489257
You can review the climate data yourself it's publicly available. Of course the problem is statistics is notoriously difficult, and not at all just a standard algorithm you can plug in. You usually need to go to a grad school and specialize in it in order to know all the pitfalls because it's a difficult field to get right

One way to start would be to find a paper on Google Scholar that determines conclusions from public avail data (usually through UN, other government data or NGOs). Most climate science papers are written using this data that you too can generally access if you had an elementary data science course to just arrange and feed it into MATLAB or jupyter notebooks where it can be parsed then you as a statistician make conclusions.

>>10489131
>assume all work is just one big conspiracy
>dismiss all hard grounded research on the basis of above
>NOBODY KNOWS ANYTHING. THERE ARE NO FACTS
I sincerely hope you are just your average impressonable /pol/ zoomer still going through the (((((red pilled))))))) contrarian phase. I mean, no one past 20 can be seriously this deluded.

>>10489257
You can review the climate data yourself it's publicly available. Of course the problem is statistics is notoriously difficult, and not at all just a standard algorithm you can plug in. You usually need to go to a grad school and specialize in it in order to know all the pitfalls because it's a difficult field to get right

One way to start would be to find a paper on Google Scholar that determines conclusions from public avail data (usually through UN, other government data or NGOs). Most climate science papers are written using this data that you too can generally access if you had an elementary data science course to just arrange and feed it into MATLAB or jupyter notebooks where it can be parsed then you as a statistician make conclusions. See if you can even replicate their findings, using their own methods. That's the first thing you should do to verify if what they've done is correct because you'd be surprised how many papers are floating around that can't be replicated or nobody bothers to.

>>10489131
Conduct your own experiments to reach your own conclusions. Do not trust anyone when it comes to any politicized subject. In fact, trust nobody. Not even yourself.

>>10489131
“In particular, climate change data seems highly polluted with false reports and misinformation. Even reviewed research papers seem to be misleading, somehow pushing seperate agendas rather than delivering facts. ”

Prove it. :-I

>>10489553
>Where can we find real information?
by testing shit yourselves

Dolphins are black and white

>>10489131
IPCC report. Biggest collection of data regarding cc. However not super up to date

>>10489592
This is a seriously biased viewpoint though.
People invest in wind and solar too, are they not incentivized to spread misinfo then? There's a whole lot of scientists whose careers depend on this, can they not be expected to be biased?
There's a lot of politicians who depend on "renewable votes", can THEY be trusted blindly?

To be clear, I do believe in climate change, and also that something needs to be done about it, but you're still painting an incomplete picture here.
Also, last I checked, the predicted ocean level increases are in the inches/decade order of magnitude, so it's not like we're at death's door.

>>10490328
To expand on this: while it is true that GHG emission has people with money being biased, anti-GHG people are biased too, but with government power, not money.

Here's something people almost never talk about, even though it's important: Sweden has almost no carbon emissions from electricity production. How did they achieve this? Why isn't it a big deal?

I'll tell you why: they used an incredibly simple system of incentives where consuming power from carbon positive sources was more expensive. This created a stable investment environment, where people could pour money to clean energy generation and have it pay off handsomely. Not only that, but they still wanted to make the best investments possible, so all that money was spent on the cheapest, most efficient forms of clean energy, which happened to be nuclear and hydro in Sweden.

So why isn't everyone else doing this?
Because the main objective of government bureaucrats isn't a clean environment, but gaining power. Subsidizing choice methods increases the size and responsibility of the government, so officials can give jobs to their friends, exact bribes, and just generally have more power. The Swedish system was incredibly simple compared to that, and worked waaay better, but it neither expanded government power, nor created extra job opportunities to give away.
In general, the right wants more power though the acquisition of money, and the left wants more power though the expansion of government. Never forget that.

>>10490341
>but with government power, not money.
just how naive are you? the oil lobby has been shaping world politics to what has been most profitable for them since the 70s, even before AGW concerns.

>>10490405
Not only did I not deny that, I started by saying those people are biased and powerful.
My point is that government power corrupts the same way power from money does. If officials didn't care about money and power, lobbying would not be effective.

>>10490414
what an absolute non-argument then. ''power can be used by corrupt people!!!11!!1!'' no shit, retard.
this the science board.

>>10490424
No, because even in the absence of private market power, the personal interests of bureaucrats are often the opposite of the people they represent/serve. This needs to be taken into account the same way rich as people's influence. The post I originally replied to only showed one side of the argument, and it's often like this, so I think my posts were justified.

>>10490431
and I repeat, this is the science board. the actions of a politician do not concern science as a whole.
climate sciences and AGW has been studied by hundreds of scientists across the world.
the politics game is played elsewhere.

>>10490437
Please note that I was by far not the first one who mentioned politics/politicians, only I was the first one who suggested that politicians on the left might not universally be more benevolent than the ones on the right.

We're talking about climate change. The research is in large part funded by the government, and the steps of mitigation are in large part executed by the government.
The implication that politics is not relevant is incredibly tenuous.

>>10490446
I'm gonna be charitable, assume you're just naive and not arguing in bad faith.
climate sciences and AGW is not a political issue, how governments handle climate and pollution problems in their countries is a political issue. j̶e̶w̶s̶ some people would like you to confuse both things as if it was a left against right thing, so they can manipulate public discourse for their benefit.

>>10490424
>>10490405
Are you legitimately retarded? Can you not read? Nobody ever denied the oil lobby exists, it's literally babby's first redpill tier.

>>10489131
You can't really find accurate information on questions nobody really knows the answer to.

Nobody seems to really know if the world is warming or cooling

It's pretty easy to conclude that
1. dumping fuck tons of trash and pollutants into the earth destroys ecologies and eventually food supplies, habitability of the earth
2. Dumping fuck tons of pollutants into the air could move our climate cycle away from its steady state which has been favorable to humans for a while. Ozone depletion was pretty fucking obvious but that has improved a lot. Why push our luck with cooling/warming?

>>10490452
The OP was about finding unbiased research. Research funding is in large part decided by politicians. This is a fact.

I've had enough of you insufferable condescension and evasion of the points I made. I'm done, feel free to think you won the debate.

>>10490461
fuck off shill.

>>10490460
>Nobody seems to really know if the world is warming or cooling

>>10490328
> People invest in wind and solar too, are they not incentivized to spread misinfo then?
No, they are not.

Renewable energy industry does not need climate change to sell their product. In fact, solar began long before climate change was even a scientific fact.

Solar / wind markets their products on the renewable part, as opposed to dead dinosaur oil. See any more dinosaurs around?

Conservatives lie because their party is fundamentally opposed to change. To be open to change is by definition to be liberal. Their entire party is based on sticking their collective heads in the sand and yelling, "No! No! No!", hoping anything past 1950 will all go away.

>>10490341
>Here's something people almost never talk about, even though it's important: Sweden has almost no carbon emissions from electricity production. How did they achieve this?...

>...which happened to be nuclear and hydro in Sweden.

your whole post was interesting but I'll take this part to do a parallel to what is happening here in Chile, hydro is now considered "evil" and people started protesting a new hydro project they even cited "that it indirectly produces a lot of CO2 gases" and "visual contamination of the transmision towers"....and nuclear is out of the question.

it might well be the "oil lobby" behing ONGs that protest hydro power with a lot of ads and even campains on national tv, by contrast the outrage about traditional combustion plants is VERY subdue.

>>10490503
brave and inspiring, neolibs really are champions of the earth.

>>10490503
>Renewable energy industry does not need climate change to sell their product.
They do need the subsidies to make it more attractive. Wind and solar are the most subsidized renewables, and in the US, their tax incentives exploded in the last decade (pic).
Also do note that the Swedish method used ~10% wind and solar, because it was easier/cheaper to use other ways.

Germany spent untold subsidies on wind and solar, and the result was a doubled price of wholesale energy that was beaten down mainly on the already poor. This does not change the fact that billions of tax dollars/euros were given to companies making/installing these systems.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/high-costs-and-errors-of-german-transition-to-renewable-energy-a-920288.html

>>10490513
Why is nuclear out of the question?
Look, the truth is that you can't run a country with wind and solar, and biomass is essentially just burning trees. After a point, you'll simultaneously protest to do something, and against all things that work.
The German system I mentioned above resulted in their restarting their coal fired plants as well, so where do you go from here?

everything that predicts the future or tries to model processes over millions of years is literal pseudo science

>>10490669
Ah too bad, I guess we have to throw out astronomy, geology, biology and cosmology because anon wills it.

>>10490775
yeah sounds about right

>>10490517
>Why is nuclear out of the question?
>Look, the truth is that you can't run a country with wind and solar, and biomass is essentially just burning trees. After a point, you'll simultaneously protest to do something, and against all things that work.
>The German system I mentioned above resulted in their restarting their coal fired plants as well, so where do you go from here?

yes I agree and I'm aware about the coal burning in germany (no pun intended)...about nuclear its just not for us, if the japanese had problems with their plant it almost a guarantee that we'll have problems...we are one of the most seismics countries on the earth... the biggest recorded earthquake happened here, "valdivia earthquake,1960"; right now we have a big concern about a recent discovered "sleeping fault" that is right by one of our national nuclear investigation centers....so it's like playing with bad odds...a combo of hydro, solar and wind its our best bet but like I said hydro is getting a lot of undeserved bad rep from ONGs (oops forgot that "NGO" is the anglo term).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_Valdivia_earthquake

>>10490514
> Doesn't go into batshit crazy mode at the mere hint of peak oil
> Must be a neoliberal!
Go to bed, Alex.

>>10489553
Just ride the tiger my senpai, truth is for pussies

>>10490517
> They do need the subsidies to make it more attractive.
Psst - oil is heavily subsidized as well.
Name the last time any nation fought an 8-year war and occupied 2 Middle Eastern nations over a windmill.

>>10489131
Beluga has the eye of god

>>10490941
but anon that example doesn't work, we don't depend on windmills like we do oil.

>>10490461
The scientific community has never stopped studying climate change and global warming despite enduring multiple administrations hostile to the idea. Your conspiracy theory is dogshit.

>>10490941
The very post you're replying to shows that renewables receive 2-3 times as much funding as fossil fuels.
That said, I personally think no source of energy should be subsidized, but that's beside the point.
>8-year war
That's a non-sequitur. My point was that you can't make the argument that big oil money influences research but big solar/windmill somehow doesn't. We're literally talking about the transfer of billions of dollars a year from taxpayers to the renewable industry. How come the renewable CEOs enjoy blind trust and the benefit of doubt, but oil CEOs don't? Money is money.

>>10491400
I have no conspiracy theory, I'm not denying climate change, and I'm not saying we shouldn't act on it. I'm saying there's moneyed interests on both sides, and if you want truly unbiased information, you should always keep that in mind.

>>10491505
Big oil literally funds deniers and conservatives think tanks that fund deniers. Renewable energy companies don't fund climatologists.

>>10491693
I don't know whether they do or don't, because I was too lazy to look that up. They do lobby the government however:
https://www.opensecrets.org/search?cof=FORID%3A11&cx=010677907462955562473%3Anlldkv0jvam&q=renewable&type=orgs

So, they lobby, and then receive billions of taxpayer money.

>>10490405
Rockefellers are behind the whole climate movement and they started Standard Oil.

>>10492746
The climate "movement" was started by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.

>>10492712
And?

>>10492712
Lobbying in the US provides the highest return on investment of pretty much anything in the US.

>>10493381
...
They lobby the government. The government funds climate research. It's the same thing, except the government is there as a middle man instead of think tanks or PACs.
There's a direct link between urging more and weightier response to climate change and receiving money (again, billions of dollars).
Do you really think this cannot create perverse incentives?
How is lobbying the government -> the government pays scientists
inherently more pure than
Giving money to think tanks -> think tanks pay scientists?

Also - and this is just a side note - how come we even need scientists? Isn't the science settled? Shouldn't we focus on the solutions?
And there's the fact that all of those billions of dollars achieved literally nothing. We're not a single 0.1°C lower than we were before spending all that money. Even if you assume there were no inherent problems in the process, the government still spent nearly a trillion dollars, a lot of CEOs got rich, and we got absolutely fuck all temperature reductions. How is this acceptable?
At the very least there was/is a gross mismanagement of funds.

>>10493398
Yes, I know, and it's disgusting.

>>10493635
>muh lobbying
Call me when the US government goes to war to support the renewable energy industry.

>>10493635
>>10493635
>They lobby the government. The government funds climate research.
Unless they lobby the government to fund climate research this is meaningless. Saying that the government wanting ti fund both renewable energy and climate research means that climate research is undertaken for the benefit of renewable energy is backwards causality.

>Also - and this is just a side note - how come we even need scientists? Isn't the science settled?
What climatologists are currently studying is not the same as what has been definitively settled. You have a nasty habit of equivocating.

>Shouldn't we focus on the solutions?
We already have solutions, the problem is the political will to implement them.

>And there's the fact that all of those billions of dollars achieved literally nothing. We're not a single 0.1°C lower than we were before spending all that money.
What were the billions spent on? Just renewables or research too? Scientific findings are not "nothing." Also the premise of needing to see reductions in temperature today is nonsensical because the temperature would continue to rise even if we stopped all emmissions immediately. This is because the effects of past emissions last several decades. Emissions in the US have been decreasing since 2005 and we are at levels seen in the 90s. This is a good start but more needs to be done to mitigate future damage.

>>10493688
I neither understand, nor care about the various wars of the US. I'm talking about climate change, and have no idea why you thought this to be a relevant comment,

>>10493716
>Saying that the government wanting ti fund both renewable energy and climate research means that climate research is undertaken for the benefit of renewable energy is backwards causality.
That wasn't the premise. If the government wants to fund either energy and/or research, they can do so, they would not need to be lobbied. My point was that renewable lobby money could be directed to more research, or more funding and subsidies. Research that increases the perceived severity of the problem creates indirect cash flow to renewable companies, and increased funding and subsidies do so directly.
I do not know what the renewable companies specifically lobbied for, because that is not available online.

>What climatologists are currently studying is not the same as what has been definitively settled. You have a nasty habit of equivocating.
How was what I said equivocation? (usage of ambiguous or unclear expressions) I might have been wrong, but I don't see how I was unclear.
Sweden barely funded scientists and yet they are almost carbon neutral in electricity generation.

>We already have solutions, the problem is the political will to implement them.
No argument here, although I suspect we're not thinking about the same solutions.

>>10493716
https://www.gao.gov/key_issues/climate_change_funding_management/issue_summary
^How the money was spent up to 2014.
>Also the premise of needing to see reductions in temperature today is nonsensical
Doesn't really matter because even by the most pro-climate-change organizations' admissions, the progress is negligible to zero.
https://www.climate-change-performance-index.org/sites/default/files/documents/ccpi2019_results.pdf
Page 15. The US is literally dead last in the list of reformers. All this in exchange for almost a trillion dollars.

>>10490341
I'm just gonna chime in and agree with the others, regulatory capture is the reason a carbon tax hasn't been implemented. plenty of people have advocated one.

>>10493716
Found new, better source:
https://www.bbhub.io/dotorg/sites/28/2018/09/Fulfilling-Americas-Pledge-2018.pdf
> In fact, a 2018 retrospective analysis demonstrated that renewable generation
between 2007 and 2013 was responsible for nearly a third of the overall 10 percent reduction in U.S. energy related CO2 emissions.
So, renewables accounted for a ~3% decrease.
Not really worth the money.

On the other hand:
>Gains in energy efficiency driven by a variety of policy and market forces have lowered expected growth in demand.
>Aging of the coal fleet, the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards and other federal public health regulations, and cheaper natural gas led to 15 percent of the U.S. coal fleet retiring
between 2006 and 2016.
So emissions were/are going down, but it has more to do with market forces and prices than anything else. A simple carbon-tax-like solution would not only have been infinitely faster, it would also have been cheaper.
There's fuck all need for either more research, subsidies or lobbying. Just make emissions more expensive and let the market take care of it.

>>10493829
>>10493829
>That wasn't the premise. If the government wants to fund either energy and/or research, they can do so, they would not need to be lobbied. My point was that renewable lobby money could be directed to more research, or more funding and subsidies.
What do mean by lobby money? The subsidies to renewables are subsidies.

>Research that increases the perceived severity of the problem creates indirect cash flow to renewable companies, and increased funding and subsidies do so directly.
Why would scientists care if renewable energy companies make more money?

>How was what I said equivocation? (usage of ambiguous or unclear expressions) I might have been wrong, but I don't see how I was unclear.
You conflated the science that climatologists are currently doing with the settled science they have done.

>Sweden barely funded scientists
Source?

>and yet they are almost carbon neutral in electricity generation.
And?

>Doesn't really matter because even by the most pro-climate-change organizations' admissions, the progress is negligible to zero.
Yes, because very little has been done.

>The US is literally dead last in the list of reformers. All this in exchange for almost a trillion dollars.
One has very little to do with the other. The US is basically doing nothing to mitigate emissions. Only a few billion dollars a year is being spent on renewable infrastructure. What's needed is a carbon tax with the revenue spent on nuclear and renewable infrastructure. You're conflating money spent on general research and technology with mitigation efforts when they're not the same thing, and then saying that all of this money should be having a mitigation effect but is not, therefore mitigation doesn't work. Total misdirection.

>>10493919
So now we've gone from "renewable energy companies are influencing research" to "the government isn't doing enough mitigation." Don't you think renewable energy companies would love a carbon tax? It would destroy their competition. I'm sure they're lobbying for it as we speak.

>>10494209
>What do mean by lobby money? The subsidies to renewables are subsidies.
>Why would scientists care if renewable energy companies make more money?
When you lobby, you lobby FOR something. They could have lobbied FOR more subsidies, more research, or, as you said, more taxes. We don't really know, but all three make sense from their point of view, and only one of them help in any significant manner.

>Sweden
https://www.government.se/government-policy/education-and-research/research-funding-in-sweden/
Their entire research budget was 40 billion SEK in 2014, which is ~4 billion USD. And that is all research, not just climate.

>And?
And that means you don't need to spend large amounts of money to go carbon neutral. The US spent large amounts of money to go carbon neutral, but did not do so. Do you really not see why this is thought-provoking at the very least?

>Yes, because very little has been done.
And yet a lot of taxpayer money was spent.

>One has very little to do with the other. The US is basically doing nothing to mitigate emissions. Only a few billion dollars a year is being spent on renewable infrastructure.
Sweden straight up doesn't even prioritize renewables. (http://www.res-legal.eu/search-by-country/sweden/)) They do not need to be. The market has to be incentivized.

>Carbon tax
My very first post itt talked about how that works well and is needed.

>Only a few billion dollars a year is being spent on renewable infrastructure.
Yes, and even that is too much. It's not the government's job to make these expenditures.

>You're conflating
I'm not. All that money was spent with the expressed purpose of combating climate change. That's why the GAO article's name was "Climate Change Funding and Management". Also, the subsidies weren't paid for general research and tech, but to build more renewables.

>>10494230
Beginning with my very first two posts (>>10490328 >>10490341), I talked about how the government has to change policy by way of tax incentives, and suggested that renewable companies are making a profit off of subsides and govt policies. I did not change what I was talking about, did not shift the goalposts, and was consistent from beginning to end.

We don't know what exactly they're lobbying for. If they were lobbying for taxes, they didn't lobby enough. If they were lobbying for subsidies, they sure as hell succeeded.

>>10493277
One man tinkering in his lab is not a movement. The current global warming/green movement started after the global cooling scare ended which was barely 40 years ago.

Rockefellers are behind the entire thing.

>>10494338
>When you lobby, you lobby FOR something. They could have lobbied FOR more subsidies, more research, or, as you said, more taxes. We don't really know, but all three make sense from their point of view, and only one of them help in any significant manner.
Wow you're dumb. None of this responds to a word I said. Let's try again:

What do mean by lobby money? The subsidies to renewables are subsidies.
Why would scientists care if renewable energy companies make more money?

>Their entire research budget was 40 billion SEK in 2014, which is ~4 billion USD. And that is all research, not just climate.
So you expect their research budget to be the same as the US when they have 3% of the population? You have no evidence that they "barely funded scientists" as I thought.

>And that means you don't need to spend large amounts of money to go carbon neutral.
It doesn't, but this is irrelevant anyway.

>And yet a lot of taxpayer money was spent.
On something else.

>Sweden straight up doesn't even prioritize renewables. (http://www.res-legal.eu/search-by-country/sweden/))
LOL, this says Sweden subsidizes renewables. Prioritization refers to grid access, not government support.

>Yes, and even that is too much. It's not the government's job to make these expenditures.
Then why is Sweden subsidizing renewables?

>I'm not. All that money was spent with the expressed purpose of combating climate change.
No, it simply says that it's climate change research and technology. Climate change research does not have to be about fighting climate change.

>Also, the subsidies weren't paid for general research and tech, but to build more renewables.
It literally says "technology to reduce emissions" (which it did) and "science to better understand climate change."

You have no idea what you're talking about. Stop spouting nonsense.

>>10494350
So to be clear you've abandoned the idiotic claims that renewable companies are having scientists spread misinformation and keeping the government from instituting use a carbon tax?

>>10494375
Global cooling was never accepted science. It was one poorly researched paper over reported by the media because it was dramatic. Meanwhile the research predicting man made warming started in 1896.

1. Form an opinion without any actual knowledge
2. Find sources that support this opinion and call other ones biased

>>10494852
3. Blame everything that supports opposite opinion an elaborate Jewish conspiracy.

>>10489131
Reddit

>>10489553
This has always been a problem. Scientists are people, too. Some of them are good, diligent and hard working. Others are lazy, shiftless and opportunistic. I have personally seen professors bury data that flies in the face of their next grant proposal.
The solution is to verify for yourself. Examine the raw data. If you can't, then educate yourself. If you can't be bothered, don't pretend to have an informed opinion.
I have been through the academia machine. As a result, I am at least a little bit skeptical about anything I cannot personally test and verify.

>>10494851
Both factually incorrect. Hundreds of papers were published on global cooling and no one attributed any significance to greenhouse gas related warming just as no one attributed any significance to aerosol related cooling.

>>10495714
Hmmm

>>10495714
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

>>10494768
>What do mean by lobby money? The subsidies to renewables are subsidies.
What? I've no idea what you're talking about. Subsidies and lobby money are two different, but related things. You lobby for things i.e. the various renewable orgs lobby for things. Do you not understand what lobbying is? The money goes org -> govt
Subsidies: govt -> industry.
I never said scientists care about the industry. They care about their own careers.
I said it is in the interest of those lobbyists to fund scientists who are more alarmed than justified. That's a one way connection, they do not need to be in cahoots with the scientists.

>Swedish scientists
If you looked closer in the link, environment funding is grouped together with agriculture and spatial planning, and this group together gets ~123 mill USD. I'm not going to look any closer. This is enough to me to consider this a small amount.

>It doesn't, but this is irrelevant anyway.
Ok, now, I see we've gotten to the point of baseless assertions. Not spending money and getting to be carbon neutral clearly means that you do not have to spend a lot of money to go carbon neutral, this is logically obvious. Besides, most of the swedish shift was founded by the private sector, because this is not a government problem, the carbon taxes we both agree on incentivize the market enough.

>On something else.
I don't know what to say. Do you want me to link everything again?

>LOL, this says Sweden subsidizes renewables. Prioritization refers to grid access, not government support.
They do, but in small amounts and with limitations.
>Then why is Sweden subsidizing renewables?
Because it is commonly but erroneously assumed to be a good thing. It is not.
It makes energy more expensive, and barely, if at all, reduces emissions. I never said Sweden did everything right.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/04/23/if-solar-and-wind-are-so-cheap-why-are-they-making-electricity-more-expensive/#21a987351dc6

>>10494768
>No, it simply says that it's climate change research and technology. Climate change research does not have to be about fighting climate change.
>It literally says "technology to reduce emissions"
You literally contradicted yourself. And yes, they did reduce emissions by 3 percent, which is laughable compared to the investment. Not to mention the huge difference in difficulty between supplying 0-25% of energy from renewables, to doing so exclusively. A lot of nations have done the first (at great cost), but literally no nation has ever achieved the second (except for a day or two).

And this is all beside the point because wind and solar investments are bad business by themselves. They were always bad.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/02/05/if-saving-the-climate-requires-making-energy-so-expensive-why-is-french-electricity-so-cheap/#60d4ef6a1bd9
They cannot be used to supply any non-insignificant amount of energy with any sort of stability, and should not be invested in by the government.

>>10494820
Did not say that. I said that there's an incentive for renewable companies to fund science like that. I'm not sure it actually happens, never said I was. The incentive is there, and that's all I ever said.
The government doesn't need to be kept from doing anything because it is the bureaucrats' incentives that are against the carbon tax, not the companies'. I explained this in my initial posts. At this point, I'm not sure whether you didn't understand, or are misrepresenting my stance on purpose.

>>10496077
>What? I've no idea what you're talking about. Subsidies and lobby money are two different, but related things. You lobby for things i.e. the various renewable orgs lobby for things. Do you not understand what lobbying is? The money goes org -> govt
You're the one who used the term! >>10493829. I'm asking you what you meant. It really shouldn't be so hard.

>Do you not understand what lobbying is? The money goes org -> govt
No, it goes org->lobbyist. Again, you have no idea what you're talking about.

>I said it is in the interest of those lobbyists to fund scientists who are more alarmed than justified.
Yet you can't provide a single example of this happening.

>If you looked closer in the link, environment funding is grouped together with agriculture and spatial planning, and this group together gets ~123 mill USD. I'm not going to look any closer. This is enough to me to consider this a small amount.
That's just a group with the name environment in it, it doesn't tell us that or encompasses all climate research. Also, this ignores funding that goes to the EU for climate research. Much of European research is international. And how can you consider this a small amount when Sweden has 3% of the population of the US?

>Not spending money and getting to be carbon neutral clearly means that you do not have to spend a lot of money to go carbon neutral, this is logically obvious.
It's logically dangerous. Sweden benefits greatly from the ability to rely on hydro power. The US does not. And they did spend money on renewables, as your own source shows.

>Besides, most of the swedish shift was founded by the private sector
Your own source says the most important factor was tax exemptions, not a carbon tax. Tax exemptions are subsidies. Also I love how somehow putting a tax on carbon is "the private sector" but subsidies are not. Makes no sense.

>I don't know what to say.
You can say sorry for conflating mitigation and research.

>>10496077
>They do, but in small amounts and with limitations.
More baseless generalizations.

>It makes energy more expensive, and barely, if at all, reduces emissions.
Solar and wind are more expensive, Sweden uses mostly hydro and nuclear. So are you going to admit that subsidizing them worked or are you going to continue this charade?

>>10496121
>You literally contradicted yourself.
Are you trying to imply that what you quoted is talking about the same thing? What the fuck is your problem?

>And yes, they did reduce emissions by 3 percent, which is laughable compared to the investment.
You don't even know how much was invested or what's worth it, you're talking out of your ass.

>Not to mention the huge difference in difficulty between supplying 0-25% of energy from renewables, to doing so exclusively.
Most our power should be nuclear.

> I said that there's an incentive for renewable companies to fund science like that.
The incentive is not worth the cost, which is why no one does it. Scientists already agree that emissions need to be reduced. On the other hand, fossil fuel companies can reap major benefits from a single contrarian paper being waved around by a Republican senator on a science committee. So your comparison only serves as equivocation.

>The government doesn't need to be kept from doing anything because it is the bureaucrats' incentives that are against the carbon tax, not the companies'.
Utter nonsense. Somehow subsidizing renewables increases government power but not taxing carbon? And oil companies have no incentive to stop a carbon tax??? Fuck off.

>>10489138
>wherever I am, I must also rape

>>10496295
>I'm asking you what you meant.
I've explained it to you several times. I genuinely don't understand what YOU don't understand.

>No, it goes org->lobbyist.
Yes, org->lobbyist->govt.

>Yet you can't provide a single example of this happening.
No, I can't, and I never said I could. I only said there was an incentive.

>it doesn't tell us that or encompasses all climate research.
It doesn't, but the fact that all other groups have their own, non-climate goals does. But this all doesn't matter, and by "Sweden didn't spend much", I meant on infrastructure and generation, not research. This is a tangent that we shouldn't have went on. I apologize for not correcting this sooner.

>It's logically dangerous. Sweden benefits greatly from the ability to rely on hydro power. The US does not.
This is a good point, and I agree but it does not invalidate what I said. It might be possible for some US states to use hydro, it might not for others. Hydro will obviously be needed where it can be used.

>spent money on renewables
Also true, and I should have explained this sooner. While they did HAVE subsidies, the market largely didn't take advantage of them (solar + wind combined make up less than 10% of energy generated). Which goes to show that they really aren't worth it, even with subsidies.

>tax exemptions
I don't know which source you're referring to, but mine says "The main incentive for the use of renewable energy sources is a quota system". That's not exemption, that's a quota system. It punishes non-renewable energy use, and was largely redeemed though hydro (see pic). This isn't strictly speaking a tax or a subsidy, it's its own thing.

>Also I love how somehow putting a tax on carbon is "the private sector" but subsidies are not. Makes no sense.
All the investments were done by the private sector because the Swedish energy market is privatized. The subsidies helped those investments a little, but most of it came about because of the quotas.

>>10496295
I did not conflate anything. Scroll back and look. All I said was "a lot of taxpayer money was spent" I did not say that it was all on research. Tech grants and subsidies together make up a lot, those were what I meant, you just took my words to mean something else.

>>10496389
>generalizations
Addressed in >>10496295, only PV is subsidized, wind has tax incentive, and they still make up only a small amount of the generated energy.
Hydro and nuclear are not subsidized.

>Are you trying to imply that what you quoted is talking about the same thing? What the fuck is your problem?
Well, we're both off queue here. The subsidies and the GAO tables were separate things. You replied to me as if they weren't.
When I was talking about how much money was spent needlessly, I was talking about the GAO tech bracket + the subsidies, I did not mean the research. I'm sorry if that was unclear.

>You don't even know how much was invested or what's worth it, you're talking out of your ass.
Okay, now this is just wrong. I posted both the subsidy charts and the GAO article.

>Most our power should be nuclear.
Totally agree.

>The incentive is not worth the cost...
You're probably right. I can't be sure, because I can't get lobby breakdowns, but even on right-leaning sites, I couldn't find anything like that. Which is fine, because I didn't say it happened, only that there was an incentive.

>Somehow subsidizing renewables increases government power but not taxing carbon?
Detailed this in >>10490341

>And oil companies have no incentive to stop a carbon tax?
Literally never said this. Not only that, I started with saying they do in >>10490341.

I really don't understand why you're all mad, we agree on most things here.