IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Gah, read slashdot on this
[link|http://science.slashdot.org/science/06/06/14/209235.shtml|http://science.slash...6/14/209235.shtml]

The fact that the author is funded by Exxon is enough to limit its credibility. I'll shut up on causes of global warming unless I take time to look at the subject in more detail.

Cheers,
Ben
The great masses of people ... will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one. -- Adolf Hitler
New oh, and who pays for the co2 advocates?
I like this quote from /.
'm sure there are oil companies dying for someone of repute to go against the tide and say they aren't ruining the planet.

But they have to just sit and wait for someone else to fund the study. Any study funded by an oil company, or even a subsidiary twice removed from an oil company will be automatically bashed for being "bought" by said oil company.
The other side does not have an agenda? Do they not intend to reap huge profits and salaries by scaremongering? Remember the movie is brought to you by a guy who flooded a creek with a few inches of water to float a canoe to make an environmental point.
thanx,
bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
New Nobody is free of self-interest
Nobody is free of self-interest, and thus it is a good idea not to trust anybody blindly.

At the same time, I trust government scientists more then corporate ones. The person working for the government at least in theory is trying to find the best possible description of reality and their reputation and career are somewhat staked on being right. The guy working for a corporation has more to gain by producing a convincing answer that supports the corporations posistion.

Or to put it more directly. The government scientists might be wrong, but they are not usually intentionally deceptive, corporate ones often are.

Jay
New who directs government scientists? Politicians
I saw that many times in Alaska, Clintonian suits hardwalking on environmental studies that didnt support their position, then OMYGOWD when Bushites did the same thing an almighty furor broke out, go figure.
thanx,
bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
New Not quite.
Saying politicians direct government scientists is like saying CEOs direct programmers. There's a connection, but it's very, very indirect. Don't confuse public policy statements with the work done by scientists.

I'm aware of incidents like [link|http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/science/earth/29climate.html?ei=5088&en=28e236da0977ee7f&ex=1296190800&pagewanted=all|Hansen's]. And we know that scientists have biases just like everyone else. But good scientists aren't directed by politicians to find a particular result to support a particular policy. They're directed to investigate a problem and accurately report the results. Hansen's case, as I understand it, was a conflict between his appropriate role in reporting research results versus the perception that he was making policy statements for the government (something that isn't his role).

For example, the National Science Foundation funds [link|http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/progSearch.do?SearchType=progSearch&page=2&QueryText=&ProgOrganization=&ProgOfficer=&ProgEleCode=1530&BooleanElement=true&ProgRefCode=&BooleanRef=true&ProgProgram=&ProgFoaCode=&RestrictActive=on&Search=Search#results|climate research] even though the results may contradict the Administration's positions. It's similar in government labs. (Of course, politicians determine (in the broadest sense) what research gets funded. But they don't direct research outcomes.)

Cheers,
Scott.
New BLM in Alaska re-writing biology reports to suit the admin
clinton pro envirowaco any dissent written out and results suppressed, now stifling sensitive data on actual environmental issues.,
thanx,
bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
New That is why I said in theory
That is why I said in theory. The difference is that when the government manipulates science to get the answers it wants, it is recognized as wrong. When the corporations do the same thing, it is considered a good use of the advertising budget.

Jay
     BullGore the Movie - (boxley) - (14)
         No attack from me. - (ben_tilly) - (8)
             was refering to the eurogogs :-) -NT - (boxley)
             Gah, read slashdot on this - (ben_tilly) - (6)
                 oh, and who pays for the co2 advocates? - (boxley) - (5)
                     Nobody is free of self-interest - (JayMehaffey) - (4)
                         who directs government scientists? Politicians - (boxley) - (3)
                             Not quite. - (Another Scott) - (1)
                                 BLM in Alaska re-writing biology reports to suit the admin - (boxley)
                             That is why I said in theory - (JayMehaffey)
         Canada Free Press is most definitely not CP - (jake123)
         A less biased source of information. - (Another Scott) - (3)
             point, what is the percentage of man made c02 releases - (boxley) - (2)
                 Let's see... 45 kB images. - (Another Scott) - (1)
                     Mount st Helens was 02.% ? -NT - (boxley)

You want to debate how many LRPD's fit on the head of the GRR?
78 ms