There is a method to my madness…
I know that if I were a well-known, yet unethical scientist (as all climate researchers are accused of being), currently drawing a paycheck to research climate change… I’d go to Exxon and say, “Give me a ton of money, and I’ll publish a paper saying that anthropogenic climate change is all bullshit.” Then I’d retire to my own private (presumably mountainous) island.
Strange, isn’t it, that we’ve got so many climate researchers, and yet so many of them are unwilling to do the smart thing and allow themselves to be corrupted by the tons of money they could make if they just switched sides?
Also, while this may be true in the US, is it a problem for all the other climate researchers in other countries? If the rest of the world came to radically different conclusions, it would show that something odd is going on in the US. From what I understand, their results are in line with what the scientists here have discovered. So is absolutely every climate scientist in the entire world corrupt?
They don’t want to destroy their scientific reputations with blatant lies.
Now here I have to mention the odd thing that the few scientists that are the darlings of the denier think tanks (who are coincidentally (?) right wing ones) take equivocation to new heights, many times I have seen them telling audiences at the Heartland Institute and others what they like to hear, however they make the speeches in such a way that it does not contradict much of what they actually do at their labs.
That worked for them until recent times, the few contrarian scientists (that **still **have a reputation to maintain) are being eaten alive by the denier audiences when they turn sincere and say things like “yes, humans are very likely to blame for this” like Roy Spencer did recently in his blog.
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/07/eating_their_own.php
However, those moments of candor are not much talked about, heck, even if Lomborg (a non scientist case, but his background is in business and planning regarding this issue) was not ever a denier his equivocations still got him priceless free press among deniers, it will be interesting to see if he continues to get that press after he dropped the idea that governments should not levy a tax on carbon to deal with the issue.
I think that most people are becoming more corrupt because there is little being done with a single or very small groups of people.
Here’s an example, I was hired as an outside contractor to do some data intake and analysis for a university. I examined it and showed them where the data was not good and how it would effect the results.
The university went ahead anyway as they said, they’d gone to far to turn back. They claimed to do so would risk other grant money.
Did the university lie? No, they just published what they had. But the results weren’t really accurate, 'cause the data was flawed. The university made NO ATTEMPT to cover this up. So technically, they did nothing wrong. But who the heck is going to look at their data. OK their peers certainly will, but in the meantime this flawed study gets into the Internet and on the news and even if it’s refuted, it just leads to mass confusion.
When groups of people get together it’s always easier to absolve yourself of corruption. After all “I” didn’t do it, I was told to.
If you pick the fraud apart into little pieces so that no one is holding too much it doesn’t seem bad.
It’s akin to eating one grape at the grocers. Sure one grape ain’t gonna hurt but if 500 people eat one grape, that’s a big dent.
First Blake and now you. How many climate scientists do we have on this board? Can’t be many more than the two alrady identified. If scientific research is driven by the agenda of funding, which makes sense to me, I’d have a hard time confering integrity on the results. Its not like I’m capable to vet the publication of a research outcome.
I don’t think they said they were.
And there is still no evidence that this is the case here, the Wegman report that supposedly showed that his was so has been found to be flawed and plagiarized.
It sounds like you are trying to attach this to the climate researchers, (of course one has to notice that this peculiar “example” that is supposed to be not secret comes with no names or the research it was dealing with) unfortunately most examples that I can remember that fit what you describe are coming from denier researchers and outfits.
And that is the point of “but in the meantime this flawed study gets into the Internet and on the news and even if it’s refuted, it just leads to mass confusion.”
Senator Inhofe did use an appallingly flawed paper by Soon and Baulinas to defeat an early bill in congress that was going to help with emissions; indeed, the point was to seed confusion. By the time the paper was shown to be a sham it was too late, the bill died.
And speaking of universities using flawed data: there is a current investigation by George Mason University on the Wegman report that besides being a hatchet job made to counteract the “hockey stick”, there is evidence that Wegman and others at the University that produced that partisan report resorted to plagiarism.
Didn’t Bjorn Lomborg already do that and then decided to come back when he wanted to get funding for his new movie???
Doesn’t this prove that a skeptic can become a believer just to make money as well? Your argument slices both ways as Lomborg proves.
Nilum you are so ignorant on this subject that I am astounded that you feel that you have anyhting to contribute.
Here’s a hint try to find any interview or publication anywhere in the last 100 years where Lomborg ever indicated he was an AGW skeptic.
Since you clearly have no idea of the facts on this subject and are just repeating rumours that you have heard I don;t think we need to take you seriously.
Funny that right after his change in views… he releases a movie.
So what is your problem with me providing well publicized data?
Now can you please provide an example of where, anywhere in the last 100 years where Lomborg ever indicated he was an AGW skeptic… Not where somebody accused him of that, but where he actually indicated it.
Had you actually read any of his work or seen any of his interviews you would know that he has been strident AGW supporter for at least 15 years, and prior to that he had no position at all on the subject.
As I said, since you’ve quite clearly bought into rumours without doing any research at all, I think we can discount what you say out of hand,
The fact that if you had ever read any of Lomorg’s works, and thus had any clue what you were talking about you would know that it is wrong. Lots of things are well publicised.
Are you so naive that you believe them all, even when people point out that they are wrong? I’m guessing so, provided they support you preconceptions.