Wouldn’t this be interesting? :)
Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science by JustinWonder
↧
↧
Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science by Matthew R Marler
Joseph: <i>What does getting grant money have to do with being a green advocate? </i>
You asked whether they had a financial interest. They have a financial interest in persuading funding agencies that warming is a problem, and their financial interest is served as well by public advocacy that stimulates letter-writing campaigns and such.
↧
Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science by jim2
It wants to solve “perceived” social ills
↧
Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science by Danny Thomas
Joseph,
I think you’ve answered the question with how you (and I) perceive BEST turned out. The devil is in the details. No strings, no “deliverables”, just good honest open science. In fact, FF indirectly funds much of the science that supports the AGW theory via their funding of universities. FF industry has a requirement for openness due to SEC regs. And, they report to stakeholders. I think that FF is covered with too large a blanket. For example, is Exxon a FF entity or an energy company? If their research leads towards seeing a need to supplant their traditional forms of energy generation then I as an investor hold them to a standard that I’m not able to do towards say, Georgia Tech. or M.I.T. We’ve seen on this very thread how folks have contacted the heads of Ga Tech as alumni. I don’t have that standing, and cannot achive same w/o graduating. To attain standing w/ Exxon all I need is one share of stock. I frankly don’t care much how Koch feels about their investment in BEST as I’d guess they’ll be okay either way. But BEST is a great example of a duplication of efforts off which we can bounce the results of NOAA/NASA and independent scientists. I’d be all for more examples like this. And I’d be okay with alternative energy companies, insurance companies, and the like doing the same as long as all is open and no strings.
↧
Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science by swood1000
Willard –
> This does not describe an impartial explanation but rather one skewed to promote the policy preferred by the scientist.
Isn’t that an interpretation?
Yes
Is that the best explanation of the quote?
I believe so. Do you have a better one?
Does this interpretation idealize scientific impartiality?
Not if by “idealize” you refer to a type of behavior higher or beyond that required in the normal course of affairs. Do you agree that “effective” and “honest” should not be “balanced” but that rather “honest” trumps “effective” wherever there is a conflict, and that this principle must be applied literally, and in actuality, in practice? What exceptions would you make?
Does the interpretation rest on an appeal to perfection?
No more than, for example, the criminal code rests on an appeal to perfection. If an applicable ethical rule requires a scientist to “point out weaknesses and limitations,” do you think that is the same as “point out some but not necessarily all weaknesses and limitations”? Is it too much to expect a scientist to actually point out all known weaknesses and limitations?
Wouldn’t it be possible that the quote states a truism?
Let’s see. The definition of truism is “an undoubted or self-evident truth; especially : one too obvious for mention.” Well, no. Although it is true I wouldn’t call it a truism.
Doesn’t that truism follow from basic communication principles?
I don’t know what you mean.
Isn’t “but Schneider” a common contrarian meme?
I don’t know. But there are many common things that are true.
Doesn’t it show a lack of impartiality from those who recycle it?
No.
Does this lack of impartiality raise any eyebrow?
N/A
Does it mean we shouldn’t be thankful for the concern raised by “but Schneider”?
I don’t know what you mean.
Many thanks!
Don’t mention it. Will you please point out the portion(s) of what I wrote that you believe to be untrue or questionable, along with your reasons?
↧
↧
Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science by JustinWonder
+1
↧
Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science by JustinWonder
I just wonder if a whole generation failed to read Orwell or Bradbury.
↧
Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science by JustinWonder
Catchy acronym…
↧
Comment on Open thread by Danny Thomas
Hmmm. A pretty straight up “projection” that it’s fixin’ to get warm: http://www.climatecentral.org/news/warming-spurt-looms-will-it-change-minds-on-climate-change-18716
↧
↧
Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science by Danny Thomas
A pretty famous “conflict of interest”:http://www.prunderground.com/the-man-who-stalked-einstein-how-nazi-scientist-philipp-lenard-changed-the-course-of-history/0054358/
↧
Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science by DocMartyn
Last time someone asked me for my SSN I replied that I only had an SSK.
↧
Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science by Bill Brockman
Only a submariner or buff will get your gag. Good one!
↧
Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science by swood1000
ATTP:
Others are more than welcome to run their blogs as they wish, but I’ll continue to run mine as I wish. If people don’t like that, they don’t need to comment. If I don’t let you post a comment, or choose to moderate it, it’s not censorship; as you’ve proven here by posting the comment that I chose to moderate.
All true. It is also true that it was the first post I have ever had “censored” so to speak. If I had realized how common that seems to be I probably would not have been so shocked.
You are correct that I do not understand blogs from your perspective. I do not know what the “consequences of comments” can be. My assumption was that there is no need to police beyond reining in excess and keeping people civil. My assumption also was that sharp disagreement, as long as it is in good faith and is not abusive or frivolous, is something one would not want to discourage. Perhaps frivolous is in the mind of the beholder, as you no doubt believe the bulk of the skeptic position to be frivolous. I might suggest that you enhance your “Comments policy” page to add a paragraph explaining the pressures you are under, and that underlie your need to moderate more heavily. Also, you might add a paragraph explaining flat out that there are some topics that you believe have been subject to abuse on the blogosphere, that those topics will be moderated as necessary, and that the First Amendment is a limitation on the government, not on private blog owners. Then in your moderation note include a link to the comments policy page. Otherwise the inference arises (in the minds of some people) that comments on your blog are not moderated in order to exclude certain topics (using exclusion criteria that need only be sufficient to you) and there can be an unnecessary misunderstanding.
Also, you said that I seemed to be changing to a different topic without answering all posts that had been sent to me, but I was actually following a LIFO (last in first out) procedure where I start at the end and go backward. If this is unacceptable you might mention it also on your comments policy page.
↧
↧
Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science by JeffN
Genocide doesn’t make you sad, Joshua?
↧
Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science by Joshua
I don’t wait until it’s done to be sad about it, Jeff.
Strike 3.
↧
Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science by kim
Whoo, Baby!
========
↧
Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science by kim
With tongue in cheek he took the uppercutting fist of net neutrality.
==============
↧
↧
Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science by mosomoso
It’s the ultimate conflict of interest: a massive unease or mal-de-siecle giving rise to numerous organisations heavily funded or seeking funding. In the end, it’s just the size and hunger of each (competing) organisation, especially a supra-national, which matters, not its original impulse. It’s the Crusades again. Paltry regional and national barriers are swept aside in the urgent need to “save”. If the North Atlantic froze over it would not change the political position now. (Have severe cold events in the NH in recent winters even made believers blink?) Blizzards and cold waves just used to sort of just happen. Now they are something else and something new.
The Templars grew dynamically after their humble Crusade origins, till the phenomenal wealth of the Templars mattered, not the Crusades. They eventually fell foul of those nation-states which were not so flimsy after all. Their rivals, The Hospitallers, were prepared to duck and even morph into their opposites to survive over the centuries. They’re still around, still with some merged Templar properties, still influential – as Knights of Malta.
It’s too late to make the climatariat go away. If you are a coolist and believer in a new Dalton etc, you may soon find an unlikely ally in Sierra or WWF, especially if you are natural joiner. Provided you are predicting and fearing, the climatariat will be at your elbow.
A business based on fact or need has natural limitations, however much it fudges. The business of Stuff Which Hasn’t Happened Yet has no boundaries whatever. Greenpeace has an even better business model than the Templars. They’re not going anywhere.
↧
Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science by swood1000
Willard –
> then it should not be prohibited on the grounds that it is extremely at odds with the view held by many at that site.
Why is there a “then”?
What does it have to do with everything written before that?
Isn’t that called a non sequitur?
Isn’t Swood begging the question with this non sequitur?
“Then” is an adverb. Here it means “in that case.” For example: “If no reasons exist to prohibit something, then it should not be prohibited.” I’m afraid I will have to refer you to an introductory grammar text if you are still having difficulty with this.
↧
Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science by kim
You need editors like Judy and Steve McIntyre. The route of the zamboni heads first for religion and politics. And then there’s everything else.
===================
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
