kallend 2,175 #1 February 22, 2015 And had ethical breaches. www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html www.microcapobserver.com/scientist-falsifying-research-papers-on-risks-of-global-warming-funded-by-energy-industry/236431/... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 236 #2 February 22, 2015 kallend And had ethical breaches. www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html www.microcapobserver.com/scientist-falsifying-research-papers-on-risks-of-global-warming-funded-by-energy-industry/236431/ Say it ain't so. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,175 #3 February 22, 2015 winsor*** And had ethical breaches. www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html www.microcapobserver.com/scientist-falsifying-research-papers-on-risks-of-global-warming-funded-by-energy-industry/236431/ Say it ain't so. Oh the humanity!... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #4 February 22, 2015 Next thing you know, scientists funded by political entities like governments will manipulate data and outright falsify stuff in order to keep tr gravy train flowing. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 236 #5 February 22, 2015 lawrocketNext thing you know, scientists funded by political entities like governments will manipulate data and outright falsify stuff in order to keep tr gravy train flowing. Not a chance, pal. Scientists have too much integrity. I read it on the internet, so it has to be true. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #6 February 23, 2015 winsor***Next thing you know, scientists funded by political entities like governments will manipulate data and outright falsify stuff in order to keep tr gravy train flowing. Not a chance, pal. Scientists have too much integrity. I read it on the internet, so it has to be true. This is why I qualified a response to one of the greenies RE agendas.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #7 February 23, 2015 I mean, it does appear that there are people and organizations that are not to be allowed to find science. I'm sure that NASA GISS and the like get funding by a government. The boss of the place is the President. He has made it known that any doubt cast on whether the planet will warm by 5 degrees or sea level rise less than a meter might as well say the moon is made of cheese. So I can only assume that their boss wants results and they know it. These government scientists, despite their jefe announcing his expectations, don't ever put out that there is a conflict from their funding source. A source that says anything not showing a particular result will be met with trouble. I just love that government funding is to be the only trustworthy funding source. Because the government would never want lies to be put forth My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #8 February 23, 2015 lawrocket . Because the government would never want lies to be put forth Well at least someone was able to keep their plan and Dr."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #9 February 23, 2015 You're done a lot of research on this. Was the information coming out of NASA or NOAA substantially different when Bush was in office? - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #10 February 23, 2015 >Was the information coming out of NASA or NOAA substantially different when >Bush was in office? Nope. See below. ==================== GOP-Tapped EPA Chiefs to Testify on 'Need to Address' Climate Change Christine Todd Whitman, William Reilly, William Ruckelshaus and Lee Thomas will be speaking on global warming. The Obama administration on Monday, June 2, 2014, will roll out a plan to cut earth-warming pollution from power plants by 30 percent by 2030, setting in motion one of the most significant actions to address global warming in U.S. history. Four former Environmental Protection Agency administrators who worked in Republican administrations are scheduled to testify on climate change “and the need to address it” at a Senate subcommittee hearing Wednesday morning on Capitol Hill, according to a media advisory. Christine Todd Whitman, who led the EPA under President George W. Bush; William Reilly, who was administrator under President George H.W. Bush; Lee Thomas, who helmed the agency under President Ronald Reagan; and William Ruckelshaus, who was the EPA's first administrator after it was created by President Richard Nixon and who went on to serve as administrator again under Reagan, are expected to appear before the Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety in a hearing titled “Climate Change: The Need to Act Now.” http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/06/17/former-epa-chiefs-under-reagan-bush-to-testify-on-need-to-address-climate-change Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #11 February 23, 2015 Apparently you've forgotten that the Bush Admin was accused of muzzling federal scientists and demanding that a message be sent. Here's a thread. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3429223#3429223 Some people think that science should be politicized so long as they agree with the politics. Back when Bush was in office it was accepted like a climate model that politics perverted science. Now you are suggesting the science is no different now than then. But when a different President with a different political party was in, there was screaming that science was muzzled. So maybe you can tell me which one it is. Because I have zero doubt both sides play whatever games they can. And those who get ahead play the game. Gavin Schmidt is now responsible for getting funding directed to his office as part of the federal budget. He is now a department head. That means he is a lobbyist and a bureaucrat and a scientist. Thinking that government funded science is ever apolitical would be like thinking that torture is humanitarian. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #12 February 23, 2015 The point is that the actual scientists were saying the same thing under Bush as they are under Obama. For your theory to be right (that the government scientists only support AGW because Obama does) then the scientists under Bush should have been deniers. They weren't, so your theory goes out the window. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #13 February 23, 2015 >For your theory to be right (that the government scientists only support AGW because Obama >does) then the scientists under Bush should have been deniers. They weren't, so your theory >goes out the window. Agreed. When scientists agree on the science when they are encouraged to research and publish, and they continue to agree when they are muzzled and indeed encouraged to dispute the science - that is a strong argument that the underlying science is valid no matter what the political pressures are. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #14 February 23, 2015 Didn't happen, Bill. Bush made the science say what he wanted. We heard that for a decade. Now I think half the people talking about being pro science don't even know what science is. GOP is anti-science has become the new Democrats are communists. A political rhetorical statement just repeated ad nauseum until it is widely believed. It has become anybody that disagrees with one's interpretation of data or even questions it is anti-science. It's the politicization. Bill - your post is even about politicians discussing the political need for a political response. Doesn't exactly disprove the point. On the flip side it is nice seeing politicians advocate policy as non-scoentists. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #15 February 23, 2015 >Didn't happen, Bill. Bush made the science say what he wanted. We heard that for a decade. Per the above link, he was unsuccessful in the long run. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #16 February 23, 2015 DanGThe point is that the actual scientists were saying the same thing under Bush as they are under Obama. For your theory to be right (that the government scientists only support AGW because Obama does) then the scientists under Bush should have been deniers. They weren't, so your theory goes out the window. My point was that science wasn't stifled. Merely that policy decisions (which are never objective ) were made that one side didn't like. Not doing what scientists say to do is not anti-science. I compare it to generals insisting that war is the best solution. To a general, yes. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #17 February 23, 2015 No, your point, copied verbatim, was: QuoteI mean, it does appear that there are people and organizations that are not to be allowed to find science. I'm sure that NASA GISS and the like get funding by a government. The boss of the place is the President. He has made it known that any doubt cast on whether the planet will warm by 5 degrees or sea level rise less than a meter might as well say the moon is made of cheese. So I can only assume that their boss wants results and they know it. These government scientists, despite their jefe announcing his expectations, don't ever put out that there is a conflict from their funding source. A source that says anything not showing a particular result will be met with trouble. I just love that government funding is to be the only trustworthy funding source. Because the government would never want lies to be put forth Clearly you were not talking about policy decisions, but about scientists having conflicts of interest in their research. Given the thread, the context is that you believe Obama's scientists are cooking the books to please him. Your post had nothing to do with policy. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #18 February 23, 2015 DanGClearly you were not talking about policy decisions, but about scientists having conflicts of interest in their research. Given the thread, the context is that you believe Obama's scientists are cooking the books to please him. Your post had nothing to do with policy. I am continuously grateful to posters that are able to tell other posters what they are thinking. It helps so much. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #19 February 23, 2015 Actually, I don't believe they are cooking the books. I used to My main problem is the implication that any funding that is not governmental is suspicious. Is suspect. Meanwhile, a per se political body funding something is not suspect. If there is flawed science then point it out. It's pointed out all the time with climate science on all sides. But only one side points at those funding it. I find it anti-scientific to judge something based on who is paying for it. As hominem is a fallacy. Attack the science has become attack he scientist and those funding it. Do you agree that this is not part of the scientific process? Do you agree that it is entirely political? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #20 February 23, 2015 rehmwa***Clearly you were not talking about policy decisions, but about scientists having conflicts of interest in their research. Given the thread, the context is that you believe Obama's scientists are cooking the books to please him. Your post had nothing to do with policy. I am continuously grateful to posters that are able to tell other posters what they are thinking. It helps so much. Oooh look, they are on sale again.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #21 February 23, 2015 QuoteI am continuously grateful to posters that are able to tell other posters what they are thinking. I knew you'd say that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #22 February 23, 2015 >My main problem is the implication that any funding >that is not governmental is suspicious. Is suspect. It's not. The APA funding research into childhood leukemia is not suspect. The UCS funding research into science education is not suspect. However, tobacco companies funding research that disputes lung cancer findings is suspect. Climate change denial groups funding research that disputes climate change is suspect. Especially when the researchers involved try to hide that funding. I am sure you can see the difference. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #23 February 23, 2015 Andy9o8QuoteI am continuously grateful to posters that are able to tell other posters what they are thinking. I knew you'd say that.thinking that you are clairvoyant isn't helping his argument.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #24 February 23, 2015 Andy9o8QuoteI am continuously grateful to posters that are able to tell other posters what they are thinking. I knew you'd say that. YES,,, but I need someone to tell me why. Or at least ask me why I said that and then listen to my response and have them tell me I'm wrong. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #25 February 23, 2015 turtlespeed***QuoteI am continuously grateful to posters that are able to tell other posters what they are thinking. I knew you'd say that.thinking that you are clairvoyant isn't helping his argument. yes it is ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
