| Author |
Message |
WeAz
Commodore
Joined: 03 Apr 2004
Posts: 1519
Location: Where you aren't
|
 Thu Feb 01, 2007 8:50 pm Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study |
|
Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study
| Quote: | | Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today. |
Source
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Feb 01, 2007 8:53 pm |
|
They don't need that $10,000 to undermine the report.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
TrekkieMage
Office Junkie
Joined: 17 Oct 2004
Posts: 5335
Location: Hiding
|
| Thu Feb 01, 2007 9:25 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | They don't need that $10,000 to undermine the report. |
I don't care if the report favors them or not - the idea of bribing scientist to report the "facts" that you want to hear is an absolutly revolting idea.
Science is about debate and facts. Not about what you want to hear. Many things we take for granted today were crazy ideas a hundred years ago or that scientists weren't sure was true or existed...
We'll figure global warming out. Who knows when we'll come to a consensus or what that consensus it, but we'll figure it out.
| Quote: | | Climate scientists described the move yesterday as an attempt to cast doubt over the "overwhelming scientific evidence" on global warming. "It's a desperate attempt by an organisation who wants to distort science for their own political aims," said David Viner of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. |
Couldn't have said it better myself.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Feb 01, 2007 9:35 pm |
|
I do agree with you that giving money to make such a decision is wrong. It's tantamount to bribery, if not that, and that should not be done, especially when it's unnecessary. This is embarrassing to the anti-global warming concept crew. What idiots.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
TrekkieMage
Office Junkie
Joined: 17 Oct 2004
Posts: 5335
Location: Hiding
|
| Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:16 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | especially when it's unnecessary. |
My point is that (particularly in science) it is never necessary. This is science. Not a campaign ad.
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Thu Feb 01, 2007 11:04 pm |
|
I'm thinking if I were one of the worlds largest oil companies, I'd be offering more than $10,000? I hate when stories just feel off.
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Feb 01, 2007 11:37 pm |
|
| TrekkieMage wrote: | | Republican_Man wrote: | | especially when it's unnecessary. |
My point is that (particularly in science) it is never necessary. This is science. Not a campaign ad. |
Actually, depending on the circumstances, I think it could be reasonable. Anti-global warming concept scientists tend to get minimal support from nonprofit organizations and the like, so getting funds from businesses is often the only way to go in order to fund their research.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
TrekkieMage
Office Junkie
Joined: 17 Oct 2004
Posts: 5335
Location: Hiding
|
| Fri Feb 02, 2007 12:00 am |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | TrekkieMage wrote: | | Republican_Man wrote: | | especially when it's unnecessary. |
My point is that (particularly in science) it is never necessary. This is science. Not a campaign ad. |
Actually, depending on the circumstances, I think it could be reasonable. Anti-global warming concept scientists tend to get minimal support from nonprofit organizations and the like, so getting funds from businesses is often the only way to go in order to fund their research. |
I think you may be missing my point. Science is about finding facts and hypothesizing about what it might all mean. The scientific community as a whole aims at producing peer-reviewed open ended research. When is bribing a scientist to twist fact to a certain angle ("true" or not) acceptable?
"Anti-global warming" isn't a cause that needs to be funded. It's a specific interpretation of published fact. If they feel so strongly about it, publish an editorial or something.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Feb 02, 2007 12:15 am |
|
Global warming is not "published fact." It has been neither proven nor disproven, though it has the possibility of both occurring; it is, in essence, a theory. And I agree with you that this is bribing and it is unacceptable. But when it comes to needing funding for research, there can be acceptable distribution of funds towards research organizations from different outlets, whether it be an individual, a corporation, or so on. That's my point.
I see your point about bribing, though, and I agree. I was turning it in another direction, that's all.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
TrekkieMage
Office Junkie
Joined: 17 Oct 2004
Posts: 5335
Location: Hiding
|
| Fri Feb 02, 2007 11:15 am |
|
There are facts about global warming. What is happening is that people are interpreting those facts differently.
And about the "it's just a theory" argument. All of science is "just a theory". We can't know everything. There is solid data (what I refer to when I say "fact" usually), and then there are theories that have stood up to every situation we've tested it against.
Gravity is just a theory. Up until this century, Newton's classic explination of gravity didn't have any flaws. Now we're rethinking the laws of gravity because of the physics behind microscopic organisms and the universe.
Science is fallible. If a mistake is made, it's corrected. No bribes needed. They'll figure it out.
As for funding, most funding comes from non-profit organizations, universities, scientific organizations, and the government. And typcially the grants are larger than that and announced as opposed to snuck around under the table.
|
|
|
PrankishSmart
Rear Admiral
Joined: 29 Apr 2002
Posts: 4779
Location: Hobart, Australia.
|
| Sun Feb 04, 2007 5:40 am |
|
If the information the scientists conclude goes majorly against oil companies, those oil companies are going to loose a LOT more than $10,000 or whatever it was.
I think that it is hilarious that they would even think that they could get away with bribing a team of scientists with some of their lousy money.
|
|
|
magenta
Commander
Joined: 24 May 2005
Posts: 404
Location: AUSTRALIA
|
| Mon Feb 05, 2007 12:47 am |
|
The oil companies want everyone to ignore the facts and mindlessly keep driving around in their large petrol guzzling cars for as long as possible.Its their very livelyhood at stake after all!
They would have to come up with some way to counter the facts for a couple more centuries or so!Their pockets will stay fuller for longer!
|
|
|
PrankishSmart
Rear Admiral
Joined: 29 Apr 2002
Posts: 4779
Location: Hobart, Australia.
|
| Mon Feb 05, 2007 9:45 am |
|
^We are probably lucky to get half a century left out of the conventional gasoline and diesel supplies anyway before it becomes much more difficult to source the fuel. But with recent additions of alcohol and propane who knows how much fossil fuel the world probably has for these companies to exploit.
|
|
|
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
