[geeks] Global warming, was Mr Bill?

[wa2egp at att.net]

-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Shannon Hendrix <shannon at widomaker.com>
>
> On Sep 19, 2008, at 21:39 , wa2egp at att.net wrote:
> 
> > -
> >> I'd be careful there.
> >>
> >> A lot of scientists are just as bad as economists/finance guys on
> >> stuff like this.
> >
> > How do you know it's "a lot"?
> 
> You just have to read their papers, especially the ones with corporate  
> logos on them, or do a simple check on who's paying them.

That's certainly obvious in scientific journals.

> Years ago, it was probably true that most scientists worked  
> independent of corporate interests.
> 
> The opposite is true today.

So you say.

> >> I've seen scientists thoughtlessly jump on one bandwagon after  
> >> another
> >> for years.
> >
> > Not as much as nonscientists.  Most don't do it "thoughtlessly".   
> > That's your spin.
> 
> No, it isn't a spin, it is an observation.

A rather myoptic one.
 
> The ratio between them and others is irrelevant.

Again, so you say.

> >> Doctors do it too, as you can see by the massive fraud and  
> >> malpractice
> >> in the pharmaceutical industry.
> >
> > Doctors are not scientists.
> 
> Since when were they not scientists?

Most do not do research.  They apply the information and due to malpractice insurance, have to spend their time with patients.

> Not all of them practice science as opposed to applying it, but a  
> great many of them do.  Many do both.

Cite figures.

> Just like physicists, chemists, etc.
> 
> >> When I was growing up, the "consensus" among scientists was that I'd
> >> see an ice age before I was 40.  One of my professors in college told
> >> us about it, and how many of his colleagues got sucked into it  
> >> without
> >> really doing their own work.  He had himself done work that suggested
> >> it could be happening, but avoided the popularity contest that
> >> consensus had become back then.
> >
> > They probably read the article that someone wrote, figured it  
> > sounded logical from the data they had before them and accepted the  
> > possibility.  Since then, the model got better or the data changed  
> > and now it doesn't look likely.  So?  Big deal.  The problem/mistake  
> > was corrected.  You have a problem with that?
> 
> I'm just pointing out that consensus is meaningless.

No. Your opinion is that consensus is meaningless.  Doesn't make it meaningless.

> >> Global warming, regardless of what caused it or if it exists, is big
> >> business and big political power.
> >
> > So is the lack of global warming.  The oil companies don't want it  
> > to be true.  They would financially support scientists who were  
> > against it.
> 
> Oil companies don't just make oil products.
> 
> They are also invested in alternative energy and they fund research on  
> global warming, including that which points the finger at them.

More likely research that will refute it but invest in alternate energy because they want a piece of that pie too.  When fossil fuels get too expensive to use, what are these companies going to do?  If they get into other energy, their future is more secure.

> I've been to events on global warming, and the oil companies are  
> frequently paying a good part of the bill for them.  I've seen several  
> that were sponsored by companies like Sunoco and other oil and energy  
> companies.

Good PR so they don't look like the "bad guys".  They will cover all of their bases.

> They are paying for a lot off the global warming television spots and  
> other media presentations.  Sometimes you can easily tell because  
> their logo is on them.

Again, good PR.  

They did not set out to produce something that contributes to (the possibility of) global warming but got stuck in that position.  Alternate energy is a way out where they can still make profit from their control of energy.

Bob