Sounds like your primary argument is that, because the research is funded by governments, it can’t be trusted (or should be more heavily scrutinized). And because the people who are experts in the field need funding from the government, they’re more likely to falsely report data or intentionally draw incorrect conclusions.
To start, no one is going to be able to refute your argument that the vast majority of global warming studies are funded by the government. However, that’s how scientific research works. The vast majority of scientific research is funded by governments. So I suppose you could say you simply don’t trust scientific research generally, but I’m not sure that’s the message you really want to send.
Second, if you’re primary reason for questioning scientific conclusions is based on the funding (a strategy I find very problematic in questioning scientific studies unless you think the actual data (as opposed to the conclusions) is falsified), you’re questioning the wrong side. As scripta mentions, the funders of the global warming is a myth studies have a clear and obvious financial interest in the conclusions they reach. So I think it’s unwise to dismiss the government funded studies in favor of the studies funded by industry because of who is funding it.
Third, I’m not sure what experience you have with scientific studies, but I spent undergrad in statistics, biology, chemistry, and research methods classes (that isn’t to say that I’m an expert in the field by any means, but only to provide proof that I have insight into how academics and experts in their respective scientific fields think, and what they get pumped about). Peer reviewers are harsh. Legitimate scientific journals don’t publish any studies they receive. They go through peer review of many of the top experts in the field. Those experts take pride in questioning studies and pointing out flaws. Does that mean the conclusion of every study that’s published ends up being true? Of course not, but I do think it means you can’t just dismiss a study because of who funded it.
Fourth, people who question the conclusions of these scientific studies are not questioning the data or the logic. They are questioning other aspects of the studies, trying to avoid having to actually question the data or conclusions.
Yes sellers will refuse to sell their house because they don’t want to acknowledge that the house has lost value.
But what ends up happening is even worse. The whole housing market comes to a grind because no one is buying and selling, and that ultimately causes the price to fall even more because the lack of liquidity causes people to walk away from their mortgages especially in situations where someone has to relocate for work or family reasons.
This is what I’m expecting as well. Mid-America might see 5-10% drop. The frothier areas (SF, Pacific NW, LA) might see a 15-20% correction. It will be painful undoubtedly. But I don’t think there will be the opportunity to become a RE mogul like in 2009.
I know folks who did nothing more that snap up properties in Arizona and LV in 2009 and rent them out who are up an incredible amount.
According to that graphic, between 9500 BC and today, the earth’s temperature has never varied more than 1* from the 30 year 1961-1990 average. Is that what you really believe, or is it possible there have been 50-100 year periods in the last 12,000 years where the global temp could have gone up or down a degree or two? Or are we really living in the first time period where that will happen?
I can’t speak for everyone in the climate research field, but the recent publication by the IPCC absolutely points me in a “follow the money” type direction when it comes to some of their conclusions. No so much on the science and data, but on the solution. Nuclear power is undoubtedly the most efficient way to power our civilization without producing massive amounts of CO2 and the IPCC report goes out of its way to say we should NOT look to nuclear for our future power needs. Rather it calls for “an evolution of global and national financial systems.” Sorry, but to me, that smacks of activism and not science.
Also, sorry for helping take this thread off topic. If we want to continue talking climate change related property value issues, we should probably make a separate thread considering the debate surrounding climate change
Ok, but right now we’re talking about the effects of global warming/ climate change/ whatever you want to call it. We aren’t discussing the solution. Whether we use nuclear power or not to solve the problem going forward is not relevant to the question of whether there is a problem.
I have a hard time separating the two. The IPCC (and others) are more environmentalist than climate scientist. They have a view of how the industrial world should operate (capitalism is not a feature to them) and I think they are willing to conclude whatever will take for that world to come about. If that means predicting a 3 degree rise over the next century, that’s what they are going to do.
I don’t have a problem with recent data. I just have a problem with the predictions based on that data. Is Miami Beach really going to be under water in 50 years? I want to see the climate scientists that are willing to put their money where their mouth is. I want to see the market take them seriously. Until I see smarter people than me deciding what they believe with their wallets, I’m not prepared to admit there is an imminent rise in sea level problem.
I think Seattle is a very good example of how housing markets are local in nature.
That market has been crazy the past few years. Its an area that I think the word “bubble” is closer to realistic and a crash is possible. Its a lot more inflated than most of the nation. Still I don’t think Seattle will “crash” like 2009.
Note I am in Portland which isn’t too far behind.
Couple of my opinions on the Seattle market :
The Chinese investment in Seattle metro was something like 0.1% of the total purchases. Much is made of the darn rich foreigners ruining everything but thats mostly a blip on the radar. But again housing is local and certain neighborhoods of $1-3M homes saw more of that and did feel it. OTOH something like 50,000 people move to Seattle metro annually right? That and the good tech jobs are the primary reasons Seattle costs shot up far eclipsing a few hundred Chinese investors. We also like to blame everything on the Californians in the NW which is always fun. They’r probably only 10-20% of the influx though. (didn’t research that % but just my guess)
Seattle was never a “one company town” in my memory. Microsoft, Nintendo, Nordstroms, Boeing etc have all been around a long time.
Yeah. I believe climate change is real and that humanity is worsening it. But the doom and gloom projections are exaggerated.
Here is measured data on sea level from NASA :
average increase is 3.2mm per year. No sign of acceleration. In the next 50 years that rate will mean an additional increase of about half a foot. I think Miami can figure out how to deal with a 6 inch increase in that time…
Predictions for sea level increases try to model the increases over time out to the year 2100. Those vary in results from 0.2m to 2m. So even worst case Miami won’t sink into the sea for 80+ years.
Unfortunately for Florida it is built on porous rock, so you can’t build levees to stop the rising tide. They’ll either have to move or raise all structures Venice-style.
But we didn’t have satellites looking at temperatures around the world back then. Therefore all the physical evidence used to estimate past climate was planted by Satan, just like the dinosaur fossils were. The Earth is only a couple thousand years old! /s.
My great grand-pappy also lived across the street from a coal plant (and also smoked a pack of cigarettes a day) and lived to be 103! Follow the money, the studies funded by the tobacco and coal industries showed no ill effects. It’s only those government and pansy hippy industry funded studies that disagree because they make money by… uhh… Clean… Uhh… It’s all obvious!
The assumption that government funding means a bias in results towards promoting global warming is absurd.
As someone who has applied and been funded by US government institutions (NIH not climate-related), the governmental agencies really don’t have much say in results as long as they are scientifically sound. And there’s much less money available for confirmation studies than you’d think.
But it’s beside the point, grants will be available for other research even if scientists found that there was no causation between air pollution and temperature increases. Maybe it’d be looking at other causes, maybe it’d be looking at remediation. Maybe it’d be looking at recovery of some ecosystems. There’d also be more studies trying to back up the alternative point of view.
But maybe more importantly, there would be much more money to be had from private companies (such as fossil fuel industry) backing up future studies. And those have much deeper pockets than government funding, especially in the US. So if grant money for research was the sole motivation as a scientist, the safer bet would be to try to get on the good side of all those who do not like the global warming results and increasing regulations stemming from them. Think tobacco industry vs. cancer data kinda deal.
IMO confirmation bias is more likely than simple greed from a scientist but that only goes so far once many people study the same system. Contrarian data would be bound to arise.
“Are you saying human innovation could combat the effects of climate change in ways other than severely reducing our CO2 output?”
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. And I have yet to hear anyone claim that it would be more costly to our economy to combat the effects of climate change this way rather than switching to all green power.
There isn’t really much motivation for the “fossil fuel industry” to fund studies that say climate change isn’t a problem. 1. It’s bad PR at this point. 2. Most companies that would be in a position to fund that sort of thing are so large and forward thinking that they have actually positioned themselves to do really well in an economy pointed in the direction of green energy.
I bet you can’t find a large oil company (Like Exxon, Shell, BP) that has publicly said anything in the past 5 years remotely close to what climate change deniers say.
I guess what I am saying is, there isn’t really anyone interested in funding research with a hypothesis that climate change isn’t a problem. Even most republicans are afraid to say that nowadays because they will be labeled as deniers. The furthest they are willing to go is to say that we shouldn’t upend our economy because of the problem that climate change poses. I would love for more studies into how horrible climate change will actually be, but I don’t care so much about that anymore because there is so much out there calling for the end of the world that I think a “It won’t be that bad” study would never really be reported on. I’m willing to believe the doom and gloom scientists if they are now willing to step aside and let the economists put out their studies about how much it will cost to have a POSSIBLE effect on climate change. Money is something people can wrap their heads around. Medicaid for all is a great idea to most people until they hear how much it will cost them in taxes - and they actually get a tangible benefit in that deal. Try offering them the same thing for climate change with no tangible benefit. I am confident my side will win that debate.
Actually most of them are investing into green energy themselves. Exxon funded 100s millions research into algae-based biofuels. BP also funds a joint venture with Dupont for renewable fuels. Shell and chevron are heavily invested in solar energy. Total invests with aim to replace 20% of its fossil fuel supply with renewable fuels in 20 years. And to be fair their investment have a little to do with concerns about carbon emission regulations and a lot to do with concerns about the sustainability of drilling for traditional fossil fuels in the next 50-100 years.
Anyway, all those projects are getting funded 100s millions annually, much more than the scientists get paid by government agencies to study climate change. So my point is, getting funding for greener energy based on climate concerns is not that big an issue and not likely why climate scientists are raising the alarm they are about global warming.
