3 ms·

No, but also don't miss the fact that most of those on the other side are funded by big government. Neither side is neutral.

by dpatru 17y ago

bballant 17y ago
Fair enough, but the security and welfare of citizens is the primary interest of big government (o.k. secondary, but aligned with the primary interest of getting re-elected), whereas big oil has no interest other than making loot. With respect to climate change, big oil loot comes at the expense of our planet (and our security, and lives our troops in the middle east, and our health, and our economy).
- zaphar 17y ago
  Employment is not a valid criteria by which to validate a scientific paper. It's a red-herring, when the actual paper and data is available to validate. Employment has 0 bearing on it's validity. The point of the article and other like it is that papers and careers were being blacklisted not on the validity of the science conducted but on the personal opinions of a group more interested in their own ideas than in open discourse.
chubbard 17y ago
Here's what I don't understand about the nobody's neutral point. Sure nobody's absolutely neutral (just like nobody's is absolutely truthful). It's all relative, but who's more neutral seems to be what they have to gain. Who benefits more by being right? If big oil is right then they get to carry on using fossil fuels until we run out. By some estimates there's still several trillion dollars of oil, coal, etc in the ground yet to be extracted. If global warming advocates are right what do they get? Gold star, notoriety for being great scientists, pat on the back and a gold watch? Even billions of dollars in research grants? Once they're right research money dries up, and you still have to fix the energy crisis that would ensue. And, big oil is handing out money left and right for any study saying the opposite. If funding were your only incentive you could just as easily get money from the other side. If you can prove global warming is or IS NOT caused by human activity you'll be very very famous, maybe rich. Still that's paltry in comparison to the revenue of the oil, coal, and to some degree gas industries. I can't seem to make the the pay offs for being right equal out. I like to not be so paranoid, but quite frankly this whole debate just seems like a smoke screen from both sides at the moment. Which could be yet another tactic since status quo benefits the CO2 producers.

No, but also don't miss the fact that most of those on the other side are funded by big government. Neither side is neutral.

by dpatru 17y ago

No, but also don't miss the fact that most of those on the other side are funded by big government. Neither side is neutral.

bballant 17y ago

Fair enough, but the security and welfare of citizens is the primary interest of big government (o.k. secondary, but aligned with the primary interest of getting re-elected), whereas big oil has no interest other than making loot. With respect to climate change, big oil loot comes at the expense of our planet (and our security, and lives our troops in the middle east, and our health, and our economy).

zaphar 17y ago
Employment is not a valid criteria by which to validate a scientific paper. It's a red-herring, when the actual paper and data is available to validate. Employment has 0 bearing on it's validity. The point of the article and other like it is that papers and careers were being blacklisted not on the validity of the science conducted but on the personal opinions of a group more interested in their own ideas than in open discourse.

chubbard 17y ago

Here's what I don't understand about the nobody's neutral point. Sure nobody's absolutely neutral (just like nobody's is absolutely truthful). It's all relative, but who's more neutral seems to be what they have to gain. Who benefits more by being right? If big oil is right then they get to carry on using fossil fuels until we run out. By some estimates there's still several trillion dollars of oil, coal, etc in the ground yet to be extracted. If global warming advocates are right what do they get? Gold star, notoriety for being great scientists, pat on the back and a gold watch? Even billions of dollars in research grants? Once they're right research money dries up, and you still have to fix the energy crisis that would ensue. And, big oil is handing out money left and right for any study saying the opposite. If funding were your only incentive you could just as easily get money from the other side. If you can prove global warming is or IS NOT caused by human activity you'll be very very famous, maybe rich. Still that's paltry in comparison to the revenue of the oil, coal, and to some degree gas industries. I can't seem to make the the pay offs for being right equal out. I like to not be so paranoid, but quite frankly this whole debate just seems like a smoke screen from both sides at the moment. Which could be yet another tactic since status quo benefits the CO2 producers.