7 ms·

I mean. Is it unreasonable that researchers work at a company that they think is doing something valuable? This is a datapoint but it's not really a black mar

I mean. Is it unreasonable that researchers work at a company that they think is doing something valuable? This is a datapoint but it's not really a black mark. It's like PROFESSIONAL CLIMATE SCIENTIST WARNS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING. Well, yes.

kuhewa 3y ago
[flagged]
elteto 3y ago
I can’t buy a box of climate change but I can buy one of Ensure. So, no. Not the same at all.
- dr-detroit 3y ago
  [dead]
c54 3y ago
You’re right, the scientist example is benign as you say The difference is when there’s a profit motive for the person to inflate the actual numbers or distort their recommendation. If the example was “professional climate scientist selling cloud seeding chemicals suggests we should do more cloud seeding to fight climate change” then there would be cause for skepticism.
- justrealist 3y ago
  > The difference is when there’s a profit motive for the person to inflate the actual numbers or distort their recommendation. Grant money is distributed based on the perception of a problem. Nobody would be funding climate change research if the scientific consensus is that it wasn't a problem. I am 100% a believer in anthropogenic climate change, but it's ridiculous to claim that there's no financial incentive for researchers to find positive results.
  - ahelwer 3y ago
    You're talking about the difference between a scientist making like $50-150k/year salary and entities making millions or billions of dollars a year in profit. These are in no way comparable.
    - briandear 3y ago
      When their grants depend on an “emergency,” I’d say they are exactly comparable.
  - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
    I think the point is valid. There is "A-LOT" more money in selling Protein based products than there is in any pro-climate change product. I'd like to hear what the positive financial incentive is for promoting climate change? How are they making money? Whereas, with food products, there is a clear and long history of the 'science' being warped by the financial incentives.
    - justrealist 3y ago
      > I'd like to hear what the positive financial incentive is for promoting climate change? How are they making money? Grant money, this is not a mystery. That's what all research labs are on the hunt for, at all times.
      - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
        As others have pointed out. The person chasing grant money is getting a few thousands of dollars. The person chasing a food product is getting billons. The incentives are very different in scale.
        RiceRichardJ 3y ago
        The marketing team for a protein shake is not making billions. If you mean the CEO and shareholders then you can’t compare them to scientists chasing grants, that’s not an apples to apples comparison.
chaostheory 3y ago
I feel that it’s fair to point out biases, especially when there is financial self interest involved

kuhewa 3y ago

[flagged]

elteto 3y ago

I can’t buy a box of climate change but I can buy one of Ensure. So, no. Not the same at all.

dr-detroit 3y ago
[dead]

c54 3y ago

You’re right, the scientist example is benign as you say The difference is when there’s a profit motive for the person to inflate the actual numbers or distort their recommendation. If the example was “professional climate scientist selling cloud seeding chemicals suggests we should do more cloud seeding to fight climate change” then there would be cause for skepticism.

justrealist 3y ago
> The difference is when there’s a profit motive for the person to inflate the actual numbers or distort their recommendation. Grant money is distributed based on the perception of a problem. Nobody would be funding climate change research if the scientific consensus is that it wasn't a problem. I am 100% a believer in anthropogenic climate change, but it's ridiculous to claim that there's no financial incentive for researchers to find positive results.
- ahelwer 3y ago
  You're talking about the difference between a scientist making like $50-150k/year salary and entities making millions or billions of dollars a year in profit. These are in no way comparable.
  - briandear 3y ago
    When their grants depend on an “emergency,” I’d say they are exactly comparable.
- FrustratedMonky 3y ago
  I think the point is valid. There is "A-LOT" more money in selling Protein based products than there is in any pro-climate change product. I'd like to hear what the positive financial incentive is for promoting climate change? How are they making money? Whereas, with food products, there is a clear and long history of the 'science' being warped by the financial incentives.
  - justrealist 3y ago
    > I'd like to hear what the positive financial incentive is for promoting climate change? How are they making money? Grant money, this is not a mystery. That's what all research labs are on the hunt for, at all times.
    - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
      As others have pointed out. The person chasing grant money is getting a few thousands of dollars. The person chasing a food product is getting billons. The incentives are very different in scale.
      - RiceRichardJ 3y ago
        The marketing team for a protein shake is not making billions. If you mean the CEO and shareholders then you can’t compare them to scientists chasing grants, that’s not an apples to apples comparison.

chaostheory 3y ago

I feel that it’s fair to point out biases, especially when there is financial self interest involved