> Not sure I'm following your point. If you weigh the bad actors and financial incentives of climate change proponents against the bad actors and financial incentives on the fossil fuel side, do you think the scale tips in favour of more honesty for the fossil fuel side or climate change side?
No one funds research into problems that aren't that big a deal. There has to be a crisis NOW for climate scientists to get more funding and social status. The news media knows there has to be a crisis for people to tune in; no one would watch programming on a problem that won't occur in their lifetimes. And politicians love to take the side of causes that give them the moral high ground. They also get to be sanctimonious and pretend they are "on the side of science" when they have no more grasp than anyone else.
To wit, if politicians were actually interested in reducing CO2 emissions they could just tax it straight up. They could combine that with lowering taxes on other things so as not to hurt the economy. The market would then implement green energy solutions of all kinds on its own.
But that wouldn't give the politicians any leverage for donations from green tech for future campaigns. So they pick and choose winners and losers based on donations and the revolving door. Fossil fuel isn't that unhappy because they get to set up a Nat Gas plant with new wind and solar installs to fill the gap when it's cloudy and calm.
No one funds research into problems that aren't that big a deal. There has to be a crisis NOW for climate scientists to get more funding and social status. The news media knows there has to be a crisis for people to tune in; no one would watch programming on a problem that won't occur in their lifetimes. And politicians love to take the side of causes that give them the moral high ground. They also get to be sanctimonious and pretend they are "on the side of science" when they have no more grasp than anyone else.
To wit, if politicians were actually interested in reducing CO2 emissions they could just tax it straight up. They could combine that with lowering taxes on other things so as not to hurt the economy. The market would then implement green energy solutions of all kinds on its own.
But that wouldn't give the politicians any leverage for donations from green tech for future campaigns. So they pick and choose winners and losers based on donations and the revolving door. Fossil fuel isn't that unhappy because they get to set up a Nat Gas plant with new wind and solar installs to fill the gap when it's cloudy and calm.