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, Touché) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday December 23 2016, @06:01PM
Yeah. And right now all of the academic infrastructure has evolved around the selective pressures of Global Warming Fearmongering; now that the selective pressures are perhaps altering, there is significant resistance, because it threatens the very ecosystem that has become so cozy.
Get it yet?
Oh, I'm pretty sure the poster understands your argument. The question is -- what is your prediction based on what will happen in the FUTURE, based on the claimed theory?
It's time to run an empirical scientific study, since we may now have the opportunity.
Hypothesis: Climate scientists are mostly a bunch of paid shills who don't believe what they're saying. They just run after the money wherever it is and will endorse whatever viewpoint helps their careers along. In the past, many promoters of this hypothesis have accused the federal government with tampering with this research by their method for awarding grants.
Experiment: Change grant-writing environment to reward scientists who actually are AGAINST climate change and decrease incentives to write pro-climate change "propaganda." See what happens.
IF the hypothesis is true, we should see significant defections and a statistically significant decrease in the consensus for AGW. One might argue that it's harder for those with invested careers to "change their tune," so perhaps the shift should be most noticeable among younger scholars. But it SHOULD happen, IF the hypothesis is true.
So, all of you conspiracy theorists who are convinced that the "scientists" aren't doing "real" science -- here's your chance to prove it scientifically. The fact that some are already responding with objections against such an experimental design seems to indicate that you don't want your theory to actually be tested. Are you afraid you may not be proven correct??
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 23 2016, @06:09PM
People spend a lot of resources promoting their ridiculous religions; the battle could be very long-lived indeed. See here. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 23 2016, @08:51PM
>"a statistically significant decrease in the consensus for AGW"
I think you meant this to be some unlikely possibility, but this is just a matter of sample size. I assure you that by throwing money at skeptics there will be a non-zero decrease. Looking for statistically significant deviations from zero effect is a waste of time btw, no one who knows what they are doing does that (unless there is a real theory that predicts exactly zero effect) .