SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the it's-an-ill-wind-that-blows-no-good dept.
An overwhelming majority of scientists, including numerous UCLA researchers, agree that we have to take action to curb the effects of climate change.
UCLA Chancellor Gene Block joined leaders in higher education from more than 35 states today calling on incoming president Donald Trump's administration to protect the Earth's climate.
Chancellors and presidents from more than 170 colleges and universities signed on to the open letter calling for "aggressive climate action."
Trump has at times described climate change as a hoax and proposed withdrawing from the historic Paris climate agreement signed at the annual United Nations climate conference in 2015. An overwhelming majority of scientists, including numerous UCLA researchers, agree that climate change is caused by humans and will result in dramatic, disruptive changes within this century. UCLA research has projected that without drastic action, Los Angeles will heat up an average of 4 to 5 degrees by midcentury.
"As a university," Block said, "we have a deep commitment to research innovative solutions for tomorrow, to serve the greater public good and to educate the leaders of future generations. Strong federal and international climate action is critical to this mission."
(Score: 3, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday December 23 2016, @05:47PM
Nope. You said that researchers want government money, and will say whatever they have to say to get it. You said that. [1]
If the government wants research that points to "global warming is all fake" then the researchers will say so. They don't need a few generations of selective breeding to do it, this is not some evolutionary[2] competition, this is (in your stated opinion), a bunch of cynical human beings who are prepared to tell huge fat lies to the entire world in order to secure their income. If a liar wants to change his lie, he will do so (see the "schizophrenia" thread above) without having to wait to evolve into a different species first. But now suddenly you are saying that climate scientists are unwilling to change their lies because there is some kind of "ecosystem" in place. An ecosystem is made up of cynical liars. Your argument makes no sense at all. Why can't the entire ecosystem of liars simply change their minds when the Money-Faucet changes? They'd have the government backing them, they'd have nothing to lose and everything to gain from doing so.
Or are you saying that they aren't liars, that they are in fact honest researchers doing their jobs as best they can, and who actually believe what they say? You do realise that would completely undermine your own argument, don't you?
I realise it's hard applying logic to alt-right talking points, but please do try to at least be consistent.
[1] I'm assuming you are the same AC.
[2] Congrats on accepting evolution BTW, I would have pegged you as one of those deniers as well.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 23 2016, @06:02PM
In Academia and Politics (and now in popular culture), Global Warming has become an industry. Now that this industry is threatened, incumbents are doing all they can to protect their industry. If they fail to protect their industry, then their industry will dissipate, and researchers will begin building new industries around more lucrative subjects.
As with every complex system, this evolution takes time; in no way does anyone make the argument that allegiance to any particular subject changes immediately—clearly, you are arguing against a Straw Man.
Get it yet?
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 23 2016, @07:05PM
In Academia and Politics (and now in popular culture), Global Warming has become an industry. Now that this industry is threatened, incumbents are doing all they can to protect their industry. If they fail to protect their industry, then their industry will dissipate, and researchers will begin building new industries around more lucrative subjects.
As with every complex system, this evolution takes time; in no way does anyone make the argument that allegiance to any particular subject changes immediately—clearly, you are arguing against a Straw Man.
Get it yet?
----------
The above comment was marked "flamebait" [soylentnews.org] by partisans, so I must include this text here to trick the system into thinking that I've made a new comment with new content.