Printable View
I don't think you understood my point with the Sierra Club. They accepted "dirty" money from oil companies for years and years.. but no one would dare call them being in the "pocket of big oil"... but if some other group does that doesn't spew the same sort of rhetoric, they are evil and obviously are in it for nefarious reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rheisia
Anyone, for or against climate change, or any other scientific issue, not declaring a conflict of interest in their publications are violating ethics rules and should be punished. Every paper has a place for such declarations.
As an example:
Quote:
Competing interests: There are no actual or potential conflicts of interest including any financial, personal, or other relationships with other people or organizations within 3 years of beginning the work submitted that could inappropriately influence (bias) their work. No author’s institution has contracts relating to this research through which it or any other organization may stand to gain financially now or in the future. There are no other agreements of authors or their institutions that could be seen as involving a financial interest in this work. The data contained in the manuscript being submitted have not been previously published, have not been submitted elsewhere and will not be submitted elsewhere.
To bad it doesn't hold the same for Politicians.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fallen
We're in total agreement there, for sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
Interestingly, I was at a university meeting last year where grant-funded plans to have meteorologists discuss climate change were discussed. Evidently research shows that people are more likely to trust and listen to their local news weatherperson.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
I don't write in science but my understanding is that most studies operate with a hypothesis and predicted results. The real test comes when a person is willing to accept when data refutes a prediction. So beliefs and inclinations (perhaps biases) shape the kinds of studies that are done and the predictions that precede the tests. Science work from a university or similar institution usually goes through an Institutional Review Board (IRB) meant to screen for conflicts of interest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fallen
I read education journals from time to time and it's rather common for researchers to apply some intervention to a classroom setting and then report, to their probable dismay, that it did not produce any measurable benefits.
People are idiots then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Silvean
About a month ago. The meteorologists were calling for 12-18 inches where I live. My mom works at a hospital in the area, and they "asked" (told her really) to stay overnight due to the pending weather to ensure she was there for the morning shift.
They made her sleep on basically an exam table with those thin shitty mats. She is 63. It was NOT comfortable. In the course of 3 hours.. it changed from 12-18, to 9-12, to 6-9, to 3+ to light coating. We got a dusting if that.
The only weather report I trust is what I see outside.
People are human. Changing hearts and minds on any issue is a difficult proposition even if you can mobilize an army of facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
See, the problem here with "Climate Change" is that the scientists then say things like.. We are still learning how much of a direct impact we are having, so we can't always accurately predict it... or.. Just because it didn't do what we thought it would doesn't mean that we are wrong, the fact that it did SOMETHING proves that we are right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Silvean
That's what the peer review process is for. Either your data speaks for itself or the work will not be published in a journal worth a damn.Quote:
Originally Posted by Silvean