lawrocket 3 #26 February 23, 2015 billvon>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. So the intent of the researcher becomes relevant. Not what the research or science indicates. I understand the idea that disclosure of funding sources has a role. But valid scientific findings are valid and invalid are invalid. Opening research to attack is how the process works. Attacking the researcher is much easier and requires less effort and critical thought. Attacking the researcher's funding is a way to show that Dr. Evil shouldn't be trusted. I wonder whether Dr. Soon will ever get published again. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #27 February 23, 2015 >So the intent of the researcher becomes relevant. The intent of the FUNDING is relevant. No problem researching the causes of lung cancer. Indeed such research is relevant and important. And no problem accepting funding from the NIH for such research. But when a tobacco company funds it, then their intent becomes very important indeed - because accurate research will generally result in a conflict of interest between the tobacco company and the researchers. And most people understand the problems with such conflicts of interest. (And yes, the same would be true of a large wind power provider funding research into climate change.) >Attacking the researcher's funding is a way to show that Dr. Evil shouldn't be trusted. Attacking his dishonesty (his failure to disclose his sources of funding as required by the journals he published in) is a way to show that a researcher should not be trusted, yes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #28 February 23, 2015 QuoteI am continuously grateful to posters that are able to tell other posters what they are thinking. It helps so much. My services wouldn't be needed if he would write what he was thinking. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #29 February 23, 2015 QuoteBut only one side points at those funding it. Really? I can only assume you're talking about the denier side then, because scientists being paid to say AGW is real is one of the main tenets of denierism. Both sides claim it, and always have. You've set up a straw man, counselor. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #30 February 23, 2015 DanGQuoteI am continuously grateful to posters that are able to tell other posters what they are thinking. It helps so much. My services wouldn't be needed if he would write what he was thinking. I wrote what I think. Sometimes the thinking is jumbled. Other times, what is written is interpreted to mean something I did not intend. Sometimes both apply. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,175 #31 February 23, 2015 lawrocketDidn't happen, Bill. Bush made the science say what he wanted. We heard that for a decade. Incorrect. He tried hard, but the science was what it was and is what it is.... 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
rushmc 23 #32 February 23, 2015 kallend ***Didn't happen, Bill. Bush made the science say what he wanted. We heard that for a decade. Incorrect. He tried hard, but the science was what it was and is what it is. Yet all those evil Bush claims we debunked You cant make this stuff up"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
billvon 3,132 #33 February 23, 2015 >Yet all those evil Bush claims we debunked Which evil claims did Bush make about climate change, and which did you debunk? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #34 February 23, 2015 billvon>Yet all those evil Bush claims we debunked Which evil claims did Bush make about climate change, and which did you debunk? Does not become you Bill the claim, Bush tried to stop gov scientists from going public I debunked nothing The media finally called out that lie"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
billvon 3,132 #35 February 23, 2015 >>>Yet all those evil Bush claims we debunked >>Which evil claims did Bush make about climate change, and which did you debunk? >I debunked nothing So spinning as usual. Carry on! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #36 February 23, 2015 billvon>>>Yet all those evil Bush claims we debunked >>Which evil claims did Bush make about climate change, and which did you debunk? >I debunked nothing So spinning as usual. Carry on! You learn well from the cherry pickers"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
lawrocket 3 #37 February 24, 2015 Wuxi question, John... Was this paper peer reviewed? if so, is the underlying science being attacked? Or is this lawyering 101 that is being done? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
