Considering how any public disagreement with the official story resulted in being labelled a Denier and career cancellation, how meaningful is this?
However, we should not ignore the fact that there are also major political and economic incentives for climate alarmism.
This USA Today cartoon is a good illustration of what I mean by political incentives: https://www.gocomics.com/joelpett/2009/12/13. Climate action tends to support a particular vision for what the future should look like.
As for the economic incentives, I think one of the most important ones is that green economy creates jobs and new markets. That might be quite tempting if you are a Keynesian economist (or a CEO [1]).
[1]: "There’s an enormous opportunity…whether you believe in global warming or not…If you’re in a company, you’d better be pushing those (green) products because the world wants these products." - Jack Welch, former CEO of GE (https://www.freshdialogues.com/2009/05/12/jack-welch-why-com...)
Climate changes with or without people. The question is how much does Human behavior effect it.
It is fair to simply say "climate change" to mean "the rapid climate change that we are experiencing". There is no need to add the "man-made" distinction other than to please people being overly literal.
Further back in time we don't have the resolution to see such small spikes like what we have now.
Heck, even sham climate anti-science gets nearly limitless cash in order to extend the runways of industries that would be regulated out of existence until greener industries take over. Actual, reproducible science that demonstrates a flaw in current thinking serious enough to debunk the idea that humans are the genesis of climate change would get much more.
I find this entire subject to carry a vile stench of deep, tribalist politicization. The evidence I read makes me side with the camp that believes that climate change is caused by man, bad for man, and reducible by man's efforts, but I cannot help but sniff the stench of tribalist politics in much of the research that helped to convince me and it's clear as day to me many set out to prove what they proved to prove their tribal allegiance.
The only political stance is climate change denialism, the data has always shown anthropogenic climate change as the most likely explanation, even when it was a fringe new idea.
wow curiosity triggered someone downvotes already? good, the more you bury legitimate comments, the sooner people will start questioning if the game is rigged.
and that there's an obvious bias in researcher researching along the line of their own grants, so a slightly better approach would be to look if there's an evident deviation in the proportion between funding A: funding B and research A : research B findings, with A : B being opposing theories.
if using climate change make as subject makes you feel uneasy and threatened, let's start with A and B being the faces of coffe good / coffee bad debate.
At some point in the past (say, 80s), yes, they were A / B, and there was significant funding for both. But the results of those studies were clear: it's A. There's no reason to keep investing in B, just like there's no reason to keep investing in flat earth theories. We know the earth is round, we know climate change is man made. There are more important details to keep studying (how bad is it, what kinds of changes can stop it, where specifically will it hurt the most etc). But there's no reason to keep throwing money away on studying a hypothesis which has already been studied and has been conclusively found to be wrong (natural climate change).
Today more than ever since a lot of these studies are just p-value hacking ran off collected data and no theory behind to validate.
And if you apply such meta analysis to flat earther I still expect the results to be consistent, given 0 grants are given to study the opposite, if you run the result/grant meta-analysis, you'll get both that the research is biased (high correlation between grant and results) and that the overall result/grant ratio is skewed againt the flat earth theory from the studies that were granted from flat earthers and failed to demonstrate the hypothesis.
Gravity is not a force. So thinking it is a force would end one’s academic career. See, even scientists can live in their own “bubbles” once things get complicated enough :-)
Gravity is the effect of masses moving along geodesic lines in curved space-time.
Edit: Since you probably don’t believe me https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XRr1kaXKBsU
So why is charge a force and gravity not?
In that respect you may be interested in the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_radiation_of_char...
But those are different things...
The question is answered by stating that all the other forces are explained by the standard model, with gauge bosons mediating their interactions, while gravity is currently best explained using general relativity.
The funny part is, of course, that we were ready to let go, without a severance package even I presume :-) those academics who did not believe that gravity is a force. Given that the leading theory states that gravity is indeed not a force.
IIRC, Einstein's Field Equation equates the stress energy tensor to the spacetime curvature - so I think logic is that if the stress energy tensor has quantized levels, then the spacetime curvature should as well.
The idea being, is that perhaps some phenomena are multifaceted and complicated and climate study is the same. Moreover, it is compounded by a multitude of political and social interests trying to insert themselves into the discussion.
If you wrote on HN that CPUs are made of diamonds and pretzels, you'd get downvoted to oblivion. Does that call into question our belief that CPUs are made of silicon and metals (among other things)?
2. What gravity even is at a technical is still unknown and debated right now between a few theories.
The question here isn't about if humans affect climate to any degree, because that would be an easy agreement, but is it actually significant and what percentage of the changes we measure, which so far are quite minute over the past century, are human vs natural changes.