Gah, read slashdot on this

Post #258,989 by ben_tilly 6/14/06 8:30:20 PM Reply	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
Post #258,996 by boxley 6/14/06 10:09:26 PM Reply	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
Post #258,998 by JayMehaffey 6/14/06 10:37:40 PM Reply	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
Post #259,000 by boxley 6/14/06 10:49:51 PM Reply	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
Post #259,012 by Another Scott 6/14/06 11:38:31 PM Reply	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.
Post #259,027 by boxley 6/15/06 8:50:53 AM Reply	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
Post #259,031 by JayMehaffey 6/15/06 9:23:10 AM Reply	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

Welcome to IWETHEY!