Proof the Climate Scientists are greedy liars

[sleestak]

@Bosstone

Fuck that. Government can be impartial. Companies can’t.

Bwahahahahaha!

That is a good one.

Slee

[Bosstone]

@sleestak

Bwahahahahaha!

That is a good one.

Slee

Damn, you guys are unoriginal.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Bloodless_Turnip

I’m curious. If you are say, a company that relies on burning wood to create your product, and you want to do an analysis of how your production would impact local and national weather patterns or air quality - how do you hire a specialist to do that research without paying them?

Why would you want such a study at all? Since you can’t move away from burning wood (or just don’t want to bother), as you said, the study’s conclusion would not affect anything you do. The only reason to do it is to have it available for PR and lobbying purposes, and there’s only one conclusion that would give it value even for that.

IOW your presumption that such a study would be honest, while one funded by someone without a vested interest would not be, is not based in reality. And neither is climate change denial, but you know that too.

[Der_Trihs]

@Bloodless_Turnip

That said, get government funding out of science. The sooner the better.

Which means a great deal of science won’t get done, and what does get done will mostly be pseudoscience designed to “prove” something that a corporation wants people to believe. America will fall farther and farther behind the rest of the world scientifically, technologically, and in terms of policy.

[Chefguy]

@L. G. Butts

YES! +1

It makes so much more sense to do have corporations research their own products. It’s not that I think that the government is dishonest, it’s just that they are incompetent. And anyway, if the research is faulty, the market can always correct the problems.

Take a look at the drug Rofecoxib, one of the most promising pain-killers released on the market in decades. The drug maker set up clinical trials and funded research on this drug and did everything they needed to do without government involvement. It’s a model of corporate citizenship and science done right!

Of course! Because companies in this country have done such a stellar job of policing themselves in the past, that I’m sure we would get accurate and meaningful results every time. Why, look at the tobacco companies, for instance. And the meat packing industry. Good citizens all. :rolleyes:

[ElvisL1ves]

Businesses have fiduciary responsibilities. They need to maximize shareholder equity. And, they operate on incentives. None of that is consistent with pure research being done objectively, or, usually, at all by them.

[GIGObuster]

[looks at previous posts]

The whoosh is strong in this one…

[Happy_Fun_Ball]

@Chefguy

Of course! Because companies in this country have done such a stellar job of policing themselves in the past, that I’m sure we would get accurate and meaningful results every time. Why, look at the tobacco companies, for instance. And the meat packing industry. Good citizens all. :rolleyes:

Dude, what is your damage? Sure, the tobacco companies did some crap, but they are exception, not the rule.

Here is another example of good, honest, science done by corporations. The research in this paper is clear, honest, and free from bias. Claiming that we would not get accurate and meaningful results from corporate based research is just bullshit.

[Czarcasm]

@GIGObuster

[looks at previous posts]

The whoosh is strong in this one…

Blowin’ so strong we may have to name it!

[Bloodless_Turnip]

@ElvisL1ves

Why would you want such a study at all? Since you can’t move away from burning wood (or just don’t want to bother), as you said, the study’s conclusion would not affect anything you do. The only reason to do it is to have it available for PR and lobbying purposes, and there’s only one conclusion that would give it value even for that.

IOW your presumption that such a study would be honest, while one funded by someone without a vested interest would not be, is not based in reality. And neither is climate change denial, but you know that too.

Maybe you’re considering changing to another fuel source? But really, that isn’t the point at all (as you very well know).

The thought that scientists who must vie for research dollars won’t skew their data to better position themselves for those dollars is naive. The thought that the government is somehow pure as the driven snow and corporations (who rely on good research to make money) are all crooks out to screw and kill the very people who purchase their researched product is beyond naive.

[Ludovic]

@L. G. Butts

Dude, what is your damage? Sure, the tobacco companies did some crap, but they are exception, not the rule.

Here is another example of good, honest, science done by corporations. The research in this paper is clear, honest, and free from bias. Claiming that we would not get accurate and meaningful results from corporate based research is just bullshit.

Your sarcasm is duly noted, but seriously what’s your hardon for demeaning the rest of corporate research? Good, safe, drugs such as this one were developed without a need for government intervention.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Bloodless_Turnip

Maybe you’re considering changing to another fuel source? But really, that isn’t the point at all (as you very well know).

YOU said they couldn’t do it. You don’t like the answer so you change the question, and blame the other guy for not getting it, is that it? :rolleyes: You know better than that, and if not, you should.

The thought that scientists who must vie for research dollars won’t skew their data to better position themselves for those dollars is naive. The thought that the government is somehow pure as the driven snow and corporations (who rely on good research to make money) are all crooks out to screw and kill the very people who purchase their researched product is beyond naive.

Too many logical fallacies there to list, so let’s just go with tu quoque, excluded middle, and strawman.

Now: The argument that businesses can do it better, and even purely, is your own. The fact that you aren’t even offering any support for it means *what *? :dubious:

[ElvisL1ves]

@Ludovic

Your sarcasm is duly noted, but seriously what’s your hardon for demeaning the rest of corporate research? Good, safe, drugs such as this one were developed without a need for government intervention.

The list of drugs that have been found, tragically too late, to be either ineffective or actually damaging is far, far larger. And Big Pharma, for all the good they do, does have a financial incentive to get them on the market. How is that to be prevented, without government (which, as you know, is just all of us working together)? :dubious:

[Ludovic]

It’s true that there are many famous cases of tragically untested drugs, but if you click the link, you’ll find that the drug I mentioned has nothing to do with any of those notorious cases at all.

[ElvisL1ves]

Sorry for the multiposts here, but BT, you might want to read this to help strip away your illusions about the corporate role in spreading doubt about science that reaches conclusions inconvenient to their bottom lines.

Or this

In one of the first attempts by industry to influence public opinion on climate change,[33] a 1998 proposal (later posted online by Greenpeace)[34] was circulated among U.S. opponents of a treaty to fight global warming, including both industry and conservative political groups, in an effort to influence public perception of the extent of the problem. Written by a public relations specialist for the American Petroleum Institute and then leaked to The New York Times, the memo described, in the article’s words, a plan “to recruit a cadre of scientists who share the industry’s views of climate science and to train them in public relations so they can help convince journalists, politicians and the public that the risk of global warming is too uncertain to justify controls on greenhouse gases.” Cushman quoted the document as proposing a US$ 5,000,000 multi-point strategy to “maximize the impact of scientific views consistent with ours on Congress, the media and other key audiences,” with a goal of “raising questions about and undercutting the ‘prevailing scientific wisdom.’”[35]

The Guardian reported that after the IPCC released its February 2007 report, the American Enterprise Institute offered British, American, and other scientists $10,000, plus travel expenses, to publish articles critical of the assessment. The institute, which had received more than $US 1.6 million from Exxon and whose vice-chairman of trustees is Lee Raymond, former head of Exxon, sent letters that, The Guardian said, “attack the UN’s panel as ‘resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work’ and ask for essays that ‘thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs’.” More than 20 AEI employees worked as consultants to the George W. Bush administration.[36] Despite her initial conviction that with “the overwhelming science out there, the deniers’ days were numbered,” Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer said that when she learned of the AEI’s offer, “I realized there was a movement behind this that just wasn’t giving up.”[8]

The Royal Society conducted a survey that found ExxonMobil had given US$ 2.9 million to American groups that “misinformed the public about climate change,” 39 of which “misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence”.[4][37] In 2006, the Royal Society issued a demand that ExxonMobil withdraw funding for climate change denial. The letter, which was leaked to the media, drew criticism, notably from Timothy Ball and others, who argued the society attempted to “politicize the private funding of science and to censor scientific debate.”

Or you could just click on the OP link.

You took their bait. Face it.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Ludovic

It’s true that there are many famous cases of tragically untested drugs, but if you click the link, you’ll find that the drug I mentioned has nothing to do with any of those notorious cases at all.

Yet.

And is the existence of a single case enough to trump all the tragic realities you acknowledge?

[Lady_of_the_Lake]

@ElvisL1ves

Yet.

And is the existence of a single case enough to trump all the tragic realities you acknowledge?

There is so much whooshing that I’m getting all confused. I’m not sure if you’re taking the whooshing to a whole new level or didn’t click on Ludovic’s link. (Though confused, at least I’m not a tragic birth defect baby from Ludovic’s proudly presented link! It had a leg with a hand! Can’t un-see!)

[Greg_Charles]

No kidding. If we could only harness the power of these whooshes, we’d have all the clean wind power we’d ever need and we’d never need to burn fossil fuels again. Or as Willie Soon would say, yes we would.

[Jackmannii]

What is up with that article linked to in the OP referring to alleged warming caused by changes in the Sun? Why capitalize Sun? Who the hell does this?

Could it have something to do with the article being published by the Vancouver Sun?

Someone is on the take, big time.

M-O-O-N, that spells corruption.

[SeldomSeen]

Edward Abbey

“Science is the whore of industry and the handmaiden of war.”