Originally posted by DA Morgan:
I read a bit of some of them ... enough to get the flavour. But when the point is quantity rather than quality I stop reading.
the problem is that you ignore the quality of those words. its not a matter of one or the other, its a case that to have max quality, you sometimes have to have a quantity of words.
the reverse is also true.
you try to say things with few words and generally dont get much said, save "your wrong"
Because it comes with strings. Look at the current scandal in the FDA and JAMA about funding of pharmaceutical work being corrupted. For example only publishing favorable results.
and you think there is no strings attached by nasa and others that are looking for proof of global warming? global warming funding is every bit as bad as those scandals in FDA and JAMA, but the ones doing it claim that its ok for them to do it.
In some cases it is bad. That is why I don't quote GreenPeace and some other groups where money may be corrupting objectivity. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. You seem please with industry funded research (because you agree with it) and derisive toward GreenPeace (because you don't). I don't trust either of them..
at least greenpeace is open about their corruption and the reason for it. they completely believe in global warming, and do their best to prove it and make no bones about that. others pretend that they are doing honest research, yet refuse to pay for any research that disagrees with it. how honest is that.
They are. That is exactly what they are doing. They are responding with information from public relations departments ... not results from peer reviewed journals..
so how do you get published things in peer review journals when the editors are either hardcore global warming alarmist, or stubbornly refuse to publish data that goes against things their peer review has said was good in the first case. Many of the "attacks" use data from those journals. In some cases they cant because quoteing the articles from those journals would be counted as infringements on copywrite laws.
That is hyperbole not fact. They gave money to someone with a reasonable expectation he wouldn't sink them with a torpedo. No one hires an attorney who will get up in front of the jury and call him a piece of trash. That is just normal human behaviour...
the same can be said of any grant given to people who say in the summery that they are going to prove global warming. The difference is that he could torpedo them, because they have no control over him. on the other hand, those with the purse strings can cut the funding on any research that does not support global warming. It just normal human behaviour to make sure that the research paper agrees with their public stance.
If there had been a real desire for objective research they could have provided access to their facility and taken no financial position. Grad students would have gladly jumped at the chance.
only if they wanted to be labeled as oil company studgies. moble had to stop funding medical research because the researchers were being labeled as oil company studges and were having trouble getting researchers willing to go against that image. moble did not have any finaceal stake in cancer research. you used to be able to see things on tv that were sponsored by moble, but not anymore, because tv producers dont want that stigma.
Good question ... but the truth is that they all do. So perhaps you should put that question to them. While you are at it why not ask Ford and GM, who passed the cost on to consumers, why they opposed seat belts?
dont have a clue about ford or gm, but the electric companies live in the communities they serve. what do you think would happen when the goverment put the cost of the co2 clean up on the electric companies? do you think the e.c. would eat the cost? no, it would be the people of the community that did. The e.c. would actually make more money in the long run but the cost to the community could cost many of them the life of the communtity. how would elderly people that can barely afford the electicity now be able to pay for the increase? how about the disability? what about companies that have a very slim profit margin? what about people that work for companies that would go out of buisness due to the increase in cost of operations?
the electic companies know what damage this would do to THEIR communtities. If the increase in cost hurt the goverments, they will just raise the taxes more to cover the cost of their pay increase.
Conclusion:
Objectivity means always using critical thinking skills. It means I am as cynical and distrustful of those I agree with as with those who I detest.
The fact that I like someone or something doesn't make them right. And the fact that I dislike something doesn't make it ALWAYS wrong.
you claim to be cynical, but you accept the words they post in news articles without question. how is that cynical. being cynical would demand that you demand the facts themselves, not the words of the arthor. your only cynical of those who disagree with you. otherwise we would not have to constantly demand links to the DATA that backs up the links that you give.
you claim to be cynical, but you post politically charged news statments from political organizations, then claim they are neither political, nor that they are mere statements. you claim these statements as fact rather than give the facts that back those statements. being cynical would mean that you doubted them as much as the politically own sites that others previde you in return. but you cant do this.
you claim to be cynical, but your not. If you were cynical, you would be like rics and myself. neither of us are willing to accept either the statement that global warming is caused by man, or the statement that man has cause no damage to the enviroment.
If you wer cynical you would wonder why they are making such noise about something we can do little about, rather than making a lot of noise about things we can easily do, save that it will cost money.
ps. rics i too read what you write, and at least skim all the links people give.