= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
taryneast comments on Parapsychology: the control group for science - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (184)
I understand your point, but the analogy still has a good deal of validity since the essential point is that the practical consequences of a negative result are to damage the careers of the scientists in question.
"And of course if they worry that funding for climate research might drop as a result of what they've found, they can console themselves with the knowledge that their new belief allows them to earn twice as much money working for an oil-industry funded body such as the CEI."
I disagree. If it turns out that global warming was wildly exaggerated, why would the oil-industry fund any climatology work at all?
To reduce their currently extortionate insurance premiums.
Assuming the world discovers and accepts that global warming was wildly exaggerated, how would oil-industry-funded climatology research reduce insurance premiums?
I'm told by somebody in the industry, that premiums in cyclone-areas (notably the rigs in the gulf of mexico) are going through the roof right now as climate change predictions mean that cyclone activity is likely to continually increase. If climate change were wildly exaggerated, it could be used to argue for reduced insurance premiums in those regions.
Assuming for the sake of argument that that that's true, so what? After that happens, what's the incentive to fund further research?
Um, I was responding to "why would the old industry fund climatology work at all" - my answer is "they might do it if it would reduce their insurance premiums".
I do not postulate that they would continue to fund further research after that.
"Um, I was responding to 'why would the old industry fund climatology work at all'"
Ok, that's not the question I asked.
Looking back at your comment above, that is a word-for-word copy of what you asked. How have I misunderstood your question? Have I taken it out of context? If so - my apologies - and can you supply the correct context?
Lol, yes you took it out of context. Here is the first part of my question:
"If it turns out that global warming was wildly exaggerated"
So the question is about what happens after anthropogenic CO2 triggered global warming is (hypothetically) debunked as a serious threat.
Doh! yep I didn't realise you meant "after it'd already been debunked". I think we're in "violent agreement" :)