twa Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 I predict they will end/reduce when they become anything but a niche for rich folk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 I predict they will end/reduce when they become anything but a niche for rich folk. Just like automobiles in general once were. It's all a matter of economy of scale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 Just like automobiles in general once were. It's all a matter of economy of scale. You might be right....but I doubt it. the ingredients matter and are more problematic...they don't scale well w/o advances in tech Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 You might be right....but I doubt it. the ingredients matter and are more problematic...they don't scale well w/o advances in tech which is a problem a lot of things have had to overcome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 which is a problem a lot of things have had to overcome true, deep sea mining might change the game, w/o something new it ain't gonna work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 (edited) Have to wonder how much some of this will matter to those engaged in the denial fight? Does it matter that your scientists are being paid off to produce specific results and calls his research on testimony "deliverables?" One of the names they invoke most often is Wei-Hock Soon, known as Willie, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who claims that variations in the sun’s energy can largely explain recent global warming. He has often appeared on conservative news programs, testified before Congress and in state capitals, and starred at conferences of people who deny the risks of global warming. But newly released documents show the extent to which Dr. Soon’s work has been tied to funding he received from corporate interests. He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work. Document: Funding That Climate Researcher Failed to Disclose The documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as “deliverables” that he completed in exchange for their money. He used the same term to describe testimony he prepared for Congress. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html&assetType=nyt_now&_r=0 Edited February 22, 2015 by Burgold Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 But, but, but, . . . . All them other scientists got paid by scientific thingies. And they're all liberal. In fact, the fact that somebody actually studies climate science proves that he's biased. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 isn't all research funded by fossil fuel?.......not like the other is making any money, and is funded by ......fossil fuel full disclosure from them all is good.....good science is better. is his science wrong?.....or just deniable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 isn't all research funded by fossil fuel?.......not like the other is making any money, and is funded by ......fossil fuel full disclosure from them all is good.....good science is better. is his science wrong?.....or just deniable His science is wrong. More, it seems to be approved by his funders before publication which is a huge no no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 His science is wrong. More, it seems to be approved by his funders before publication which is a huge no no. If his science is wrong it should be demonstrable.(by someone funded outside the AGW crowd ) what grant or funding is not ?....I wish you applied that equally Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 If his science is wrong it should be demonstrable.(by someone funded outside the AGW crowd ) what grant or funding is not ?....I wish you applied that equally You're on an unsteady limb here. This is much like the tobacco revelations. This scientist hid his funding, disguised how much he was getting from different sources, allowed sources with a clear interest to preview and critique his pieces before publication and was paid to give specific types of testimony before congress. In scientific terms, that's about as ugly as it gets. As for your demonstrable point, I think that's been done. After all, this guy has been generating results that 97% of all other scientists working in the field haven't. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 (edited) you have proof of your preview and critique assertions?....besides a term used it was well known he has been funded by fossil fuel corps for a decade or more. 97% consensus that is wrong ? http://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/ http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/02/the-big-list-of-failed-climate-predictions/ remember when there would be no snow? Edited February 22, 2015 by twa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 How can it be well known if it wasn't disclosed? The FOIA report was a bit telling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 How can it be well known if it wasn't disclosed? The FOIA report was a bit telling. it should certainly be disclosed....by all researchers how ? http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Willie_Soon nothing but a smear job after he helped expose the games the AGW crowd are playing with science http://www.scibull.com:8080/EN/abstract/abstract509579.shtml Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 It generally is. I know it was in the institutions I worked with. In fact, it was pretty closely monitored (mind you, I was only a grad student, but I remember the researchers needing to be very meticulous) So, you think he is the one lone Don Qioxte tilting at the windmills and 97% of all scientists world wide are in on the conspiracy, manipulating their data, changing their results, so it will appease their masters? He's the only honest broker? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 (edited) It generally is. I know it was in the institutions I worked with. In fact, it was pretty closely monitored (mind you, I was only a grad student, but I remember the researchers needing to be very meticulous) So, you think he is the one lone Don Qioxte tilting at the windmills and 97% of all scientists world wide are in on the conspiracy, manipulating their data, changing their results, so it will appease their masters? He's the only honest broker? so let's wait and see what those institutions say vs what Greenpeace and co. say certainly not alone, the 97% is a dishonest talking point used to suppress real science http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html#Update2 want to go further? http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/12/all-97-consensus-studies-refuted-by.html are you tainted by past funding by the Ruskies?.....they and the Sauds have a vested interest in seeing foolish energy policy here.....and fund Greenies add I'll ask again....is his science wrong?.....or simply inconvienient Edited February 22, 2015 by twa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 so let's wait and see what those institutions say vs what Greenpeace and co. say add I'll ask again....is his science wrong?.....or simply inconvienient It seems to be based on the preponderance of criticism by his peers... wrong. As to your statement that the 97% of scientists whose research indicates climate change is real is funded only by global warming proponents... care to prove it? And the Russians (as I sadly know first hand) are very, very much against the position that the climate change we are experiencing has a man made component. I used to have heated arguments about this with them. They want the climate change argument killed. It's reality would be very expensive to an economy they've pinned to oil and gas production. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 (edited) you seem to be making statements I didn't make.. "only by global warming proponents" The Russians are funding Green groups here why then? http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/012715-736562-environmental-groups-take-russian-money-to-oppose-fracking.htm and in Europe http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/06/20/russias-quiet-war-against-european-fracking/ http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/20201c36-f7db-11e3-baf5-00144feabdc0.html even funded you you need to think like a Russian http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/10/business/energy-environment/10gas.html?_r=0 An organization of natural gas exporting countries informally known as the Gas OPEC has elected a Russian as its first secretary general, underscoring the oversize role the country is likely to have in the group that it helped found a year ago. His peers need to show the science....just as he does(their results seem lacking) Edited February 22, 2015 by twa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 So, what you're saying is that you think like a Russian? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 So, what you're saying is that you think like a Russian? I've been accused of such, and of drinking and being paranoid like one as well. flattery will get them no where....free booze on the other hand might. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 I've been accused of such, and of drinking and being paranoid like one as well. flattery will get them no where....free booze on the other hand might. Beware hyper-cyicism. It isn't healthy and leads to even greater drinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 I'll keep that in mind.....while I look up cyicism probably a nasty bug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Have to wonder how much some of this will matter to those engaged in the denial fight? Does it matter that your scientists are being paid off to produce specific results and calls his research on testimony "deliverables?" It's so tiring. It's a shame how many people don't even understand how research works. It allows for one side to just wave their arms all over the place and appeal to a group of people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 (edited) It's so tiring. It's a shame how many people don't even understand how research works. It allows for one side to just wave their arms all over the place and appeal to a group of people. Instead of doing a fly by. Why don't you tell us how research works. My Mom was an epidemiologist for NIH for thirty years. I conducted neuro-hemispherological research as a grad student and hosted a science, health, and tech radio program for three years after being a special ed teacher who was constantly immersed in data about disabilities and conducting scientific/psychometric tests. So, tell me how it is so normal to hide or disguise your funding sources or to allow your funders to edit/critique your work before publication? Tell me that that's the norm of good science to start with an answer instead of a hypothesis. Scientists absolutely rely on funders from all sources and there is nothing wrong with taking money from an oil company to conduct your research. Be careful, in listening to a guy who only tells you what you want to hear. Edit: if I jumped the gun in snapping at you. Sorry. In a bad mood this morning. Edited February 23, 2015 by Burgold Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 It's not normal, or at least it's not ethical/honest. It's also not normal/ethical/honest to completely discount peer review and go out of your way to avoid peer review of your own work. I was agreeing with you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now