I wonder how many real scientists there are on the teat in comparison to the myriad of Tax dollar paid pseudo intellectual guessers ?

Indyvidual,

The notion that climate scientists are somehow on the 'teat' of tax dollars and therefore biased or dishonest is a tired old conspiracy that doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. It's clear you have no understanding at all of how science actually works.

Most scientists (of any field) undergo a rigorous peer-review process designed to minimise bias and ensure their findings are credible. No one 'guesses'. They follow strict methodologies and submit their work to the scrutiny of the global scientific community.

Further to this, scientists who receive public funding are accountable to multiple oversight bodies, and their work is published openly for scrutiny by other experts - even the general public.

These scientists aren’t exactly getting rich off tax dollars, either. They’re paid mediocre wages to do vital research that informs everything from energy policy to disaster preparedness.

If we’re questioning the credibility of researchers based on their funding sources, then by that logic, shouldn’t we also be questioning scientists and lobbyists funded by the fossil fuel industry, whose profits depend on denying climate change? Those interests have poured billions into climate change denial campaigns, and this is well-documented.

So if we're talking about bias, I’d say there's a far more dangerous bias among those funded by industries that have a vested interest in ignoring the realities of climate change.

Somehow I don’t think you’re too interested in that, though. I know Yuyustu isn’t. Your concern is purely political.

Dear John,

I have a busy life and so I need more time to properly respond to your most intelligent posts.

However, there is nothing intelligent about your potentially implied suggestion in your address to "Indyvidual" that my opposition to the climate-change movement could be based on some financial benefit or connection with the fossil-fuel industry.

Categorically, it is not.

I am retired, I do not work for anyone nor seek employment.
I have no friends or relatives working in the fossil-fuel industry either.
I hold no shares of any kind, directly or indirectly, not even in my superannuation (other than my formal $1 share as an SMSF trustee), thus should the fossil-fuel industry collapse I wouldn't lose a cent.

Even at the time I heard about Thatcher's misconduct and for a while longer, my superannuation was invested in an ethical fund - and before that, until then, I even voluntarily paid a few dollars extra to my electricity provider to supply me with "green" energy.

I hope this settles this ridiculous suspicion.

Yuyutsu,

An issue being political for someone doesn’t necessarily mean that there are financial gains to be made or that there must be some connection to the fossil fuel industry. There are many political reasons that are purely personal:

-Ideological
-Cognitive biases
-Identity politics
-A short-sighted fear of economic disruption
-A distrust of authority

The list is seemingly endless, but it always stops short of evidence - hence the need to cherry-pick data, or appeal to emotion or personal experience.

In fact, the idea that you may be financially benefiting from the fossil fuel industry, or personally connected to it in some way, has never crossed my mind.

//… I even voluntarily paid a few dollars extra to my electricity provider to supply me with "green" energy.//

Well, we can rule out hyper-masculinity then. :) My father-in-law absolutely refuses to put solar panels on his roof because it’s “greenie poofter sh!t.”

Dear John,

«The list is seemingly endless, but it always stops short of evidence»

Politics is not about the external material world - politics is about what people want, then what to do when the wills of different people clash.

How is it possible to produce empirical evidence to prove one's will?
brain-scans maybe?

«My father-in-law absolutely refuses to put solar panels on his roof»

I wanted to have solar panels on my roof, so I invited a company to inspect my home and give me a quote: I was happy with the location and price, but then they told me that as part of the installation they will have to include some "converter" (which would be compulsory even if I did not insist on exporting energy to the grid and only used the energy myself), which would in turn require to convert my electrical-meter box to digital as well. That was, sadly, bye-bye solar panels.