I welcome you to try to explain that to your average Tea-Godder. That argument’s old news. It’s been circulating since 9/11 and that circulation hasn’t done much to end the “Mooslims worship a different god. Or SATAN!” belief.
Doesn’t matter, does it? All that matters is my interpretation is the right one. Having the wrong beliefs about the same god, isn’t going to keep your head on your shoulders.
Aye, Republican, it is!
that was hilarious, thanks
Saw this, and had to share:
George Bush, Dark Prince of Love
It’s actually a humorous political piece, but worthy of attention, I believe, if only for the cover art (found on a Goodreads thread for “Worst Romance Covers”).
Harvard scientist who is a leading climate denier caught taking bribes.
Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics? Dr. Strangeway? You can’t make shit like this up! I mean, if the five most sarcastic Dopers were to brainstorm for hours, we couldn’t make up a better name for a bogus publication of extravagant scientific pretensions! Proceedings of the Institute for Homeopathic Medicine? Not even close! Journal of Applied Phrenology? Fuhgeddabout it! Christian Science Monitor? Well, yeah, kinda, but that’s different…
Jack Chick wrote that ? 
Anyone surprised by this?
Not me. I thought it was standard operating procedure.
Not defending this guy, but he’s guilty of taking bribes from industry in the same way I’m guilty of talking bribes from the National Institutes of Health. They funded his research. Yes, he shod have disclosed it in his publications, and yes, I doubt the quality of his work, but research needs funding. I guarantee Harvard and the Smithsonian didn’t give a shit about where the $$ came from until this hit the media.
The point is that no climatologist not funded by the fossil-fuel industry appears to be a denier, and that ought to tell us something about AGW denialism.
Oh, no argument there. But the word used was “Bribe”. It’s not a bribe.
I like how in panel 21, the kid’s just smugly drinking his soda. And I welcome Jack Chick to go try this in the middle east for real if he thinks it’ll work
I can’t answer this because I’ve never written research papers, but how common is it, when corresponding with sponsors, to call the papers coming out of your research “deliverables”? I can’t recall ever hearing the term used as anything other than delivering a product under the terms of a contract.
Like so many bribes, it’s not a bribe in the LEGAL sense, just in the pragmatic sense.
Do you characterize your papers as “deliverables” that you complete in exchange for their money? Because that’s what he does.
Do you violate journals’ terms of disclosure for your funding? Because that’s what he does.
Do you specifically tailor your work so that it gives the exact results that the National Institute of Health wants? Because that’s what he does.
The source of funding is important in this case, because the oil industry WANTS certain results, because certain results will give them more profits. You can’t say this about the NIH. You’re comparing apples and oranges.
In my work, we do research, have sponsors, and have deliverables. The deliverables are the written product that results form the research.
But they are paying for us to do the work, create the product, and acknowledge our funding source.
For the right amount of money, I’ll do that for you. How many pages do you want and what do you want the results to be?