whistlingwings wrote: SpinnerMan wrote:
Indaswamp wrote: whistlingwings wrote: Indaswamp wrote:
whistlingwings wrote: Indaswamp wrote:
"Beware of Prophets seeking Profits."
Hey ww........Who Profits off global warming?
dig into that a little.
Great question, mr. forum moderator. Do you think climatologists on fixed university salaries or fossil fuel (oil) companies profit more? Tough, tough question
ask yourself exactly where those climatologists get their funding and HOW they go about getting it...
If you really, really believe that climatologists who make average professor salaries, and always will, have more to gain by lying about their findings (thus ruining their reputations and careers once we do know 100% what is going on) than multi-billion dollar companies....including BOTH co2 dependent companies (oil companies) and clean energy (solar, wind, etc)....hmmmm
You have no idea how the funding game is played.....
Publish or perish.
Get research money or don't get tenure.
However, WW, why is it necessary to perform double blind studies? If scientists are always going to be objective arbiters of the truth, why are double blind studies necessary?
The main purpose of a double blind study is to eliminate unintentional bias, not intentional bias. If you guys really believe most academic researchers falsify their findings, or believe that for-profit corporations are more honest than academic researchers...wow. Ask R. Taleyarkhan if he enjoyed the feedback he got about his falsified results. 99% of academic researchers I've interacted with have had the intention of producing accurate research.
Does nobody remember cigarettes?
I NEVER said that most falsify them. I said there is a ton of unintentional bias
I said it is human nature to tell people what they want to hear, especially if it helps you personally
I said it is human nature to want to be part of the in crowd and not outside the clique, especially if it helps you personally
Intentions are not adequate to produce unbiased results. This is well documented scientifically. That is my point.
Another example of unintentional bias, 20 researchers do a study on a particular thing, let's say catastrophic man-made global warming. Who publishes? Those that find evidence of it or those that find nothing? Those that find evidence always publish. Those that find nothing, odds are they don't publish and keep looking until the find what they are looking for.
This natural human bias applies to everything whether it is a chemical causing cancer or any other thing that people research. They are not researching it to prove that there is nothing interesting going on. They are doing the research to prove that something interesting is going on. That's what they hope to see. And by pure randomness, there will be false positives and these will always be published. If you look at any complex set of data in enough different ways with enough different plausible assumptions, sooner or later you will get a false positive, and then you will publish it. This is an inherent bias just like the bias of the observers in human trials and the reason double blind studies are necessary.
Well intended people are still biased and they are biased in a very particular direction. Why did these researchers choose this field? It was not so their life's work could show that we are doing little harm to the environment. People like that are not attracted to the environmental sciences. People that want to help the planet are and there is a huge selection bias in the people that choose this as a career. It's the same reason that business schools are not over run with communists and engineering schools are not over loaded with liberals, but if you go to the art school you will see overwhelming numbers of radical environmentalists, communists, and other emotionally-driven nutjobs (BTW, I started dating my wife when she was getting her fine arts degree and many of her fellow students scared me). Having taken many environmental science course, even in Atlanta, and not Boston or San Francisco, the politics was not unbiased, but even there most of the true nutjobs went into political science and not physical sciences.
I am an academic researcher. I don't have to ask anyone else about academic research. It's been what I do for around two decades.
And I am sure that you do not REMEMBER cigarettes either because I'll bet that you are too young to remember that. Warning labels existed before I was born and I'll bet before you were born as well.
However, as I said. There is warming. It's just a hell of a lot more costly to do anything about it and even then it is almost assured to fail because of China.
I had an academic research on this subject in my office. I liked the way this guy thinks. His premise is that we will do nothing until China cares. Now, he had a bunch of calculations about how much warming he thought it would take until China cares. I think he was very wrong, but that was just opinion and not expert opinion, but I liked his very practical approach. He was asking the right questions. Now trying to answer those questions was a whole different matter, but he was asking the right ones and that is where you start.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.