Discussion > Business Opportunities for ScepticS
We don't need to work, we just cash the Exxon cheques, obviously.
TheBigYinJames
Why not buy property on the waterfronts of Charleston and Miami Beach?
The owners will be selling them cheap because they are subject to nuisance flooding due to sea level rise.
You "sceptics" know that sea level rise is not happening.You can make a fortune.
Entropic man
EM, I've lived and worked within walking distance of the waterfront in Charleston, and waded through waist-high water to get home after heavy storms. They have a functioning sea wall and no shortage of very, very wealthy people in the area. (Some of America's Blue-bloods who can trace their families back to before the revolution.)
They aren't going to be selling cheap anytime soon.
The more exposed new-build a few miles south on Folly Beach uses a fiendish trick: they build houses raised up on concrete stilts.
michael hart
EM, I'm waiting for dirt cheap London property as people (many of them Guardian readers) flee. I won't hold my breath. If there was anywhere that should be being abandoned it would be Sandbanks which could sink under the waves even without globalwarming, but no, it seems that nobody is worried.
TinyCO2
Patagon
Until scientists and others around the world stand for truth before their pay packets, the problem will remain.
Dung
For EM:
http://www.econjobrumors.com/topic/why-did-al-gore-buy-oceanfront-property
not banned yet
Dung,
There is not much use in standing for truth if you have nowhere to stand. If the minute you speak you loose your job, you cannot communicate that truth to many people. There are a few exceptions, a few tenured professors with a high reputation, but what should the rest do?
We also need uncensored journals, now it is almost impossible to do critical research related to climatology for lack of funds, and it is even more difficult to publish it afterwards. Remember this journal: http://www.pattern-recognition-in-physics.net/ ?
Patagon
Patagon
I agree with most of what you say but my earlier statement still stands ^.^
Back to the well worn saying " All that is needed for evil to succeed is for good men to stand aside and do nothing."
Dung
Dung,
That is romantic, but unfortunately inefficient. Solzhenitsyn didn't bring down the Soviet Union for standing up, Galileo didn't enlighten the Inquisition. They probably knew and did not care, like Dostoyevsky's Inquisitor of Seville.
We have a formidable machine running on against us, with plenty of resources and extremely well funded, we need a more coordinated effort to counter it. It is difficult because sceptics, libertarians and people who think by themselves, are not gregarious, but there are times when armies need to be assembled. Once the criminalization of dissent is stablished, it will be very difficult to generate any opposition.
Patagon
It will not surprise me at all if "climate loyalty oaths" become commonplace in private industry.
We are basically there in the US for governments, with states required to devote planning time to dealing with so-called "climate change" or risk losing EPA and other federal funding.
And the US military has been told it is dereliction of duty to bot recognize that "climate change" is the biggest threat we face.
hunter
There's a good Scottish expression: Hell mend them.
We're fighting for the well-being of people who will gladly go along with the criminalisation of disagreement.
They deserve everything they get.
TheBigYinJames
Entropic man
Judging by the prices of properties at Sandbanks and similar locations with an historically stable coastline there are a lot sceptics already in that market, freezing us latecomers out. For the price of a two bedroom flat at sandbanks you could buy a farm all the buildings and about 100 hectares of land and have change to buy a decent 4x4. We're at a pretty safe 230 metres.
SandyS
Patagon
I know that the people on Bishop Hill will refuse to be organised, it was tried before and the result was simply that it showed up the differences between us and caused a split of the group.
I would rather keep my integrity than submerge some of my opinions for a greater good.
Dung
After the TV weatherman affair at La République Soviétique Française. I wonder if there are any business opportunities for sceptics.
If employment is at risk by expressing dissent, then the Nomenklatura has a very powerful weapon for controlling the working population (Kundera did a very good portrait of that tool at work during the Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia).
The impact is already clear in academia. I can voice doubts in private conversations with colleagues, but it would be a suicide to make them public.
So I wonder if honest scientists and individuals working in related fields (meteorology, environmental consulting, energy, transportation, etc.) have any chance of been sceptical and keeping a job.
Any suggestions are welcome.
Would it be possible to set up a research fund not linked to ideology?
Who may benefit from it and would be willing to contribute?
Who can benefit from solid advice in climate and meteorology which is not biased by CAGW?
etc.