It is indeed difficult to subtract politics from any government business that involves spending a lot of money.
Which climate-change research does not, not on the government-budget scale.
Wasn’t it pretty? I had a feeling but wasn’t sure of the generic name. Bravo, Ludovic . Bravo!
Study shows “convincing evidence” of industry science impartiality, says industry scientist
You know what the great thing is? If you doubt me, you can read my papers. They’re published. The Materials and Methods sections spells out exactly how experiments were performed. You can repeat them and see if you get the same results.
Ain’t science great? I mean, it beats just declaring a hypothesis to be true because it feels like it should be true.
elucidator:
Nobody cares. If enough of us say a word means a thing, it means that thing. Most of us stopped caring what you think when we graduated high school, and you were no longer a source of supplemental lunch money.
I really don’t think this is just a pedantic issue. It’s at the heart of why creationists get to declare that evolution is “just” a theory. The word has lost it’s original meaning, and as a result instead of showing that evolution has been tested and explains all the available data, it is relegated to “wild ass guess” because it isn’t understood that “theories” are the highest level of acclaim that science has.
Ooooo…one guy accepting kickbacks? We should immediately disregard years of research by scientists around the world and assume that climate change, if it exists at all, is not affected by humans.
Maybe we should patiently wait to hear what Jesus has to say.
Plumbkrazy:
Ooooo…one guy accepting kickbacks? We should immediately disregard years of research by scientists around the world and assume that climate change, if it exists at all, is not affected by humans.
Maybe we should patiently wait to hear what Jesus has to say.
Why, don’t you know? Jesus want us to accelerate the disaster so he will come sooner!
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/2008/april/conservationsin.html
Friends, I’m going to get a little controversial now, but someone has to speak the truth. The sissy Christians who pick and choose whatever Bible verse they like to fit their latest agenda will burn in Hell and give off just as pleasing a scent to the nostrils of the Lord as any hell bound, America hating Muslim will. It is these pansy, false Christians whose liberal ideas are polluting the spiritual truth of God’s Word. I’ll say it now, and I’ll say it again and again! If you are a True Christian™, you shouldn’t be recycling. True Christians™ shouldn’t be attending Global Warming rallies, or be celebrating Earth Day. True Christians™ understand that worrying about such things, or supporting such efforts is in direct conflict with the Word of God! Friends, we can sum up our Evangelical stand on “Conservation” by making all these fancy scientifical types understand one truth: That is if Jesus can feed five thousand people with two stinky fish and five loaves of stale bread, He can certainly turn the lights back on and make clean air by just burping! Oh, Glory! Glory!
Praise the Lard! Save us Cheesus!!!
Do I detect a faint note of sarcasm?
I wonder how one would test to see whether a person or entity has taken an “advocacy position with respect to climate change.”
It seems like a tricky question to me. Seems to me the best approach is to be skeptical of all scientists and evaluate their research on the merits.
cite?
Ever hear of the Manhattan project?
Yes the market always self corrects. Like with the research funded by tobacco companies that showed no link between tobacco and lung cancer.
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.
Really? They are the exception? I suppose asbestos companies are the exception too?
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).
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.
Right because THATS the argument people are presenting. Government is pure as driven snow and corporations are evil. pfft.
I know its biting sarcasm, but sometimes you don’t give me enough to decide what exactly you’re being sarcastic about. Clearly, somebody here is being very stupid, I can guess who, but not why. You may need a bit more exposition before you hit them with your zinger.
Fiveyearlurker:
You know what the great thing is? If you doubt me, you can read my papers. They’re published. The Materials and Methods sections spells out exactly how experiments were performed. You can repeat them and see if you get the same results.
Ain’t science great? I mean, it beats just declaring a hypothesis to be true because it feels like it should be true.
What happens to the research that contradicts the company position? Especially if said research undermines a goal the company greatly desires?