Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Offered Cash to Dispute Climate Study
w1z4rd writes "According to an article in the Guardian, scientists and economists have been offered large bribes by a lobbying group funded by ExxonMobil. The offers were extended by the American Enterprise Institute group, which apparently has numerous ties to the Bush administration. Couched in terms of an offer to write 'dissenting papers' against the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, several scientists contacted for the article refused the offers on conflict of interest grounds."
We've never gotten so much Bush in all of our lives. Bush is somehow tied to everything. In college, it was Bush motivated me to sacrifice my morals. Bush often made us all do things we wouldn't normally have done.
Oh, the Bush administration. What was I thinking?!
(Seriously... This is such flamebait)
My ZooLoo
What's Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, Iraqi Minister of Information is up to these days?
I'm sure he's looking for work.
What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
Micheal Savage, a radio talk show host here in the USA, was explaining to his millions of listeners yesterday that the so-called global warming trend is nothing but a natural cycle that occurs through the grace of God from time to time, and that it's sheer impudence to imply that mere man can cause such a global condition. He also went on to say that several thousand ducks waiting outside his SF bungalow upon his return from a trip to Florida were a sign from God. So who ya going to believe?
I guess they took the expression, "the marketplace of ideas" a bit too literally.
"You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
Won't change anything, and at least you can buy a nice winter coat.
There are several shortcomings in your post.
The problem is, the FUD-nitpick attack really has no defense.
To wit, regarding your post:
You should have used a comma after the first "Now".
The article summary did not propose criminal sanctions against the actors it describes. Nobody is planning to cry "bloody murder", so your estimate of the number wanting to do this ("we all") is evidently inaccurate.
You describe "one company" as hoping for shortcomings and inaccuracies in the report, but the probable truth is that, while only one company was mentioned in the summary, several companies are hoping this. Your transparent attempt to minimize the scale of those who hope for inaccuracies and shortcomings has failed, and casts doubt on your credibility.
It is unfortunate that your central point, which certainly sounds reasonable and plausible, is marred by this lack of attention to detail. Plausibility and reasonableness are not enough to sustain your argument. In the absence of irrefutable data, and in light of your somewhat slipshot presentation, we cannot cry "bloody murder", but must admit that these scientists may, in fact, have been asked to lie, as you have failed to prove otherwise. Your conclusion is much too hasty, and more research is required before any adjustment can be made to the assertion that Exxon is evil.
2*3*3*3*3*11*251
Well, God, obviously. He told me that he sent those ducks just to fuck with Micheal Savage. We had a good laugh. Then God asked if I wanted to strip down to our underwear and, you know, wrestle a bit so I told him I had to leave 'cause I had work in the morning. He always gets like that when he drinks.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
It is cowardly, and a betrayal of whatever it means to be a Jew, to act as a white man
-James Baldwin
A new study shows there may be a conflict of interest amongst some climate scientists.
The study, done over the course of the last 60 years, shows some startling conclusions:
- many climate scientists are employed by public universities, which themselves are funded by governments
- the employment of many climate scientists is contingent upon publication in referreed journals. Those journals themselves are paneled by other government-employed climate scientists
- a key finding of climate science research is that climate scientists should have more say in public policy
- another key finding of climate science research is that considerably more government money needs to be spent doing climate science research at institutions that pay climate scientists with government money
Some nerve ExxonMobil has in paying people to do research.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.