A Corporate War Against a Scientist, and How He Fought Back

AthanasiusKircher writes "Environmental and health concerns about atrazine — one of the most commonly used herbicides in the U.S. — have been voiced for years, leading to an EU ban and multiple investigations by the EPA. Tyrone Hayes, a Berkeley professor who has spearheaded research on the topic, began to display signs of apparent paranoia over a decade ago. He noticed strangers following him to conferences around the world, taking notes and asking questions aimed to make him look foolish. He worried that someone was reading his email, and attacks against his reputation seemed to be everywhere; search engines even displayed ad hits like 'Tyrone Hayes Not Credible' when his name was searched for. But he wasn't paranoid: documents released after a lawsuit from Midwestern towns against Syngenta, the manufacturer of atrazine, showed a coordinated smear campaign. Syngenta's public relations team had a list of ways to defend its product, topped by 'discredit Hayes.' Its internal list of methods: 'have his work audited by 3rd party,' 'ask journals to retract,' 'set trap to entice him to sue,' 'investigate funding,' 'investigate wife,' etc. A recent New Yorker article chronicles this war against Hayes, but also his decision to go on the offensive and strike back. He took on the role of activist against atrazine, giving over 50 public talks on the subject each year, and even taunting Syngenta with profanity-laced emails, often delivered in a rapping 'gangsta' style. The story brings up important questions for science and its public persona: How do scientists fight a PR war against corporations with unlimited pockets? How far should they go?"

Comments

Sounds like he was enjoying himself!

[Threni]

Go for it! Or ignore it. Your call. If they're not breaking the law, what are you going to do? "Asking questions to make him look foolish" only gets you so far, especially if you just don't answer them, or refer to your previous answer, etc.

Re:Sounds like he was enjoying himself!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. You read all the articles and links quickly. Amazing how quickly you cam to know how he responded or what was asked.

Re:Sounds like he was enjoying himself!

[Anonymous Coward]

1 reply beneath your current threshold.

Re:Sounds like he was enjoying himself!

[Anonymous Coward]

He's from Berkeley. That's all I need to know that he's a crackpot full of shit.

Re:Sounds like he was enjoying himself!

[mysidia]

Go for it! Or ignore it. Your call. If they're not breaking the law, what are you going to do?

Using corporate resources specifically to attempt to attack or discredit the character, or interfere with the business of an individual should be made actionable.

Damage by a corporation to an individual's peace of mind should be assigned statutory damages based on the greater of $10 Milliion, and 5 to 10% of the perpetrating company's annual revenues.

Re:Sounds like he was enjoying himself!

[Threni]

> Damage by a corporation to an individual's peace of mind should be assigned statutory damages based on the
> greater of $10 Milliion, and 5 to 10% of the perpetrating company's annual revenues.

I had to work late last week - I missed EastEnders. Where's my yacht?

Re:Sounds like he was enjoying himself!

[AK Marc]

damages based on the greater of $10 Milliion, and 5 to 10% of the perpetrating company's annual revenues.

We'll have shell companies created with zero revenue acting as harassing entities. So if you find them out and sue and win, you'll get no damages, other than the $10,000,000 awarded, and they'll just close the doors if it looks like that would happen.

Re:Sounds like he was enjoying himself!

[davecb]

If you once get past the shock of being attacked without a good reason, it feels good to fight back. You know that your opponents have consciously taken up the role of the bad buy, and you're fighting the good fight.

I've only had that feeling twice in my whole life, but it's seriously cool.

Re:Sounds like he was enjoying himself!

[Anonymous Coward]

That knife cuts both ways - doesn't it?

Re:Sounds like he was enjoying himself!

[AK Marc]

Not when those with the money make all the rules. Then the knife only cuts one way. People like Donald Trump argue that students shouldn't be able to wipe out student loans with a bankruptcy, while he's declared bankruptcy 5 or more times.

Re:Sounds like he was enjoying himself!

[Anonymous Coward]

Using corporate resources specifically to attempt to attack or discredit the character, or interfere with the business of an individual should be made actionable.

Why?

Seriously, post some kind of logic to back up your position. Should we also make it "actionable" to attempt to discredit a company by an individual? How about one individual against another? Sorry, I prefer my speech to be unregulated. As long as they aren't lying about anything, I see no reason to make them stop.

Re:Sounds like he was enjoying himself!

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends on what you risk losing by fighting or risk losing by not fighting, so you need to pick your fights. I've seen a couple times colleagues got into some fight for more personal reasons or feelings. It is sad to see things go downhill when they make a mistake when too concerned with feeling good instead of the big picture, or because they mistakenly made the assumption " your opponents have consciously taken up the role of the bad buy." Even if their original science still stands solid, the opponents try to make the fight about other things, and now have some actual ammo to fight with once the scientist is caught saying the wrong thing or making things personal. Even if the opponents have made dozens of mistakes and the majority of their attacks are not scientific in nature, it is an asymmetric fight that expects the scientist to not make a single mistake.

Doesn't have to be a big corporation either, it can be a single person with a pet theory and too much free time, or some small company that is trying to defend a borderline scam. I guess it might depend on your field, but I've never had research that runs afoul of big corporate interests, but have had to deal with the obsession of a couple crackpots, and legal issues from a one person business selling a single (non-functioning...) product.

Re:Sounds like he was enjoying himself!

[Anonymous Coward]

Please read the original story and comment. If you are going to attack some based on observed reproducible facts no one will cry foul. The problem is Syngenta was they deliberately with malice of forethought LIED about a person and their work.

Re:Sounds like he was enjoying himself!

[Bing Tsher E]

Any of those students can declare bankruptcy in the way Trump did, by fumbling around in business. There's no reason student loans/mortgages/business loans/etc. should all be treated the same.

Re:Sounds like he was enjoying himself!

[Bing Tsher E]

That is already actionable without need for any new laws.

Re:Sounds like he was enjoying himself!

[mysidia]

We'll have shell companies created with zero revenue acting as harassing entities. So if you find them out and sue and win, you'll get no damages

It's called a company intentionally undercapitalized, and it's a cause of action for the judge to pierce the corporate veil, and hold the company's shareholder's liable in proportion to their percentage of beneficial ownership, AND base the 5 to 10% penalty on the owners' assets.

Re: Sounds like he was enjoying himself!

[Anonymous Coward]

US Tax payers weren't on the hook for any loans that Trump filed for bankruptcy protection. Then the IRS, government guns, and human cages are used to forceably extract the money loaned - a different level of collections mechanism is called for.

Re: Sounds like he was enjoying himself!

[AK Marc]

US tax payers aren't on the hook for most of the loans that students have. It's not just government loans that are "protected". "Smart" students would get as many of those credit cards offered like candy they can, advance or buy stuff to sell (gift cards, iTunes cards), and declare bankruptcy the moment they graduate.

There's nothing stopping you from borrowing for other reasons, using the cash to pay off loans, then bankrupting youself out of the new debt. That would be the appropriate civil disobediance for the non-dischargeable loans.

Re: Sounds like he was enjoying himself!

[drfred79]

Wrong. One of the unmentioned portions of the popular affordable care act essentially nationalized all future student loans. The issue isn't the students burdening themselves with unconscionable debt it's the government controlling both sides of the transaction. Democrats embolden teacher's unions to push expenses higher then government loans students dangerously high amounts of money. This reduces the graduates ability to progress in life and creates subservience. No wonder the government passed bills disallowing student debt in bankruptcy.

Re: Sounds like he was enjoying himself!

[AK Marc]

The non-dischargability of loans pre-dates the ACA, so your assertion that they are linked, and pointing them all to Democrats, when it was the Republicans who removed the dischargability seems odd to me. Are you sure you have your facts straight? Or did you align your recollection to justify your politicla stance?

Re: Sounds like he was enjoying himself!

[mysidia]

US tax payers aren't on the hook for most of the loans that students have. It's not just government loans that are "protected".

No..... however... the banks did award the students lower interest rates, than they might otherwise would have; if these loans could be discharged in bankruptcy. In many cases the US government did guarantee these loans or subsidize a portion.

Personally: I think instead of guaranteeing loans, the government should set a statutory limit to the highest rate of interest that banks may charge for student loans . E.g. Under no circumstances may a loan written for X years, exceed in interest the average government bond rates for a similar duration bond at the time of loan origination PLUS an allowed profit margin.

Standard and penalty rates on revolving credit should also be capped. If the short term interest rates are 1%, for example: 7% might be the highest interest rate a credit card company would be allowed to charge, and an effective rate of 12% might be the highest penalty rate they would be allowed to apply for portions of balance in default. Overlimit fees, overdraft fees, and other penalties: should be likewise capped and restricted by statute to 1% of the total outstanding delinquent payments.

There's nothing stopping you from borrowing for other reasons, using the cash to pay off loans, then bankrupting youself out of the new debt. That would be the appropriate civil disobediance for the non-dischargeable loans.

This is also highly dishonest behavior, that would constitute criminal fraud if the student planned on doing it all along, and the bankruptcy will eliminate the student's chance of getting more credit maybe, renting an apartment, buying a cell phone, they may never be able to buy a home (except paying cash), and it may render them permanently ineligible for certain jobs, for 7 years at least

Since bankruptcies are public record, they will show up on a background check, and a number of the negative consequences can be lifelong.

Re: Sounds like he was enjoying himself!

[AK Marc]

Since bankruptcies are public record, they will show up on a background check, and a number of the negative consequences can be lifelong.

They don't seem to have hurt those with 5+, like Donald Trump and others.

Personally I think that there should be a return of the WPA. How many city halls were built under that, giving jobs to people that needed/wanted them, and gave us results around for almost 100 years? Instead, our modern idea of a bailout is to pay a private company to do something they would have done anyway. Paying a real estate developer to build a building, or paying a telco to pay cables. That's not stimulus, that's welfare for the rich.

Want to saddle a student with a lifetime of debt? Give them a job, so they at least have a chance to pay it off.

Re:Sounds like he was enjoying himself!

[Vitriol Angst]

That's because Trump has spent a lot of money on his "Platinum Douche Card." Hypocrisy has it's privileges.

Re: Sounds like he was enjoying himself!

[IP_Troll]

Actually, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act, the law which makes federally backed student loans not dischargeable through chapter 13 or 7 bankruptcy, was first conceived in 1997 and muddled around congress until 2004. Then chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa submitted it in its current form, with strong support from Republican House Majority Leader Tom DeLay from Texas. President George W. Bush signed the bill into law on April 20, 2005.

Re:Sounds like he was enjoying himself!

[AK Marc]

Could you find any ruling that having sufficient capital for operations, but not when sued, results in such an act? Yes, small businesses are often under-capitalized, and have the owners held responsible, but that's only when the owner does a P&L balance sheet, but not a cashflow, and finds that it's "profitable" and incorrectly assumes that profit means more cash at the end of the year, and goes out of business with a profitable company that can't meet debt payments. That's either fraud or negligence. And what I found on intentional undercapitalization only counts when you (essentially) commit fraud by asking for credit you wouldn't reasonably have expected to pay off.

But being sued isn't asking for credit. You didn't intentionally defraud a creditor, so that doesn't meet the stated legal standard for what you describe to have happen. So long as the company was properly funded and founded as a licensed "private investigation" service, with the ability to meet all obligations thereof, I do not see that as underfunding the company. At best, it would be underinsured. I wonder what the rates would be for liability insurance in that case? $10,000,000 judgement + 10% revenue would round to $10,000,000 I've had a $1,000,000 policy for just a few hundred dollars a year.

Re:Sounds like he was enjoying himself!

[Anonymous Coward]

I had to work late last week - I missed EastEnders. Where's my yacht?

Have you tried reaching deep into your asshole to see if it was delivered there and you just didn't notice?

Re:Sounds like he was enjoying himself!

[sjames]

It may be construed differently if you form a company with the intent that it does something that will cause it to lose a lawsuit. You are deliberately incurring a liability you can't cover. That is quite distinct from the more usual case where the liability was unexpected.

Re:Sounds like he was enjoying himself!

[Anonymous Coward]

We'll have shell companies created with zero revenue acting as harassing entities.

Or "zombie" companies resurrected to attack the living, a la SCO.

Re: Sounds like he was enjoying himself!

[Anonymous Coward]

... interest rate a credit card company would be allowed to charge ...

Bad idea. The government tends to regulate home loans for 2 reasons: Mortgages are secured debt and credit cards aren't. That means when bankruptcy occurs, the bank will break even on a mortgage (unless the entire economy collapses) but lose everything on a credit card. The government wants people to have a large asset. This provides leverage during their wild youth, stability during child-rearing years, then finance during their retirement. Giving people the chance to buy the latest iShiny is a lower priority for banks and governments.

Allowing the banks to do as they please on luxury goods means the government can set price caps on essentials services such as mortgages and ATM fees while the bank offsets the loss by increasing the revenue from credit cards and corporate loans.

Re:Sounds like he was enjoying himself!

[ShieldW0lf]

I think he should have run amok and killed them, for the benefit of all mankind. He found an evil monster who poisons people and they tried to destroy him. He's obligated to kill them, as far as I'm concerned, and you're all obligated to help him now that you're aware.

Re:Sounds like he was enjoying himself!

[AK Marc]

So you just have a good reason to form it as a separate company. I'm sure a pile of lawyers could work it out. Get insurance. Shouldn't be that much, and should prove you intended to cover the liability.

Re: Sounds like he was enjoying himself!

[Moral Judgement]

Personally I think instead of guaranteeing loans the government should guarantee education. How on earth is federally subsidizing loans a free market alternative to simply paying for education in the first place? The lending agencies (and the private universities) have cost of capital, the government (as sole issuer of a fiat currency) doesn't. Instead of paying X on education, we're paying 1.2X on loans, with .1X going to the owners of the Universities and lending organisations each. It's dumb.

Re: Sounds like he was enjoying himself!

[Argos]

Because welfare for people is socialism and welfare for corporations is free market.

Re:Sounds like he was enjoying himself!

[sjames]

Of course, you might find the insurance company coming after you then. They don't pay if you intended to incur the liability when you bought the insurance.

Expecting to get away with insurance fraud is not something a judge will consider to be good faith.

Re:Sounds like he was enjoying himself!

[flyneye]

Absolutely, go for it, make it public,write all the newsclowns with a form letter, make a video and plaster it all over youtube and every other service, send editorials to all the big papers, especially call in the local media so your home town gets a clue. Be controversial, dont pull punches, go for the throat, do everything in language accessable by all. Continue to hammer them like Snowden, in fact copy his methods as closely as possible and ride his wave, just look at his popularity. Show the public the damage, rub the corporations nose in it, embarrass them at every turn. Belittle their methods and paint their dishonesty on the wall for all to see. Demoralize and humiliate them, attack and name stockholders, name names and blame blames. Air their personal lives if you can weave it in. Involve the public, give addresses so the activists will bother them too. Fighting back can be fun, just think of everything that would work against them in any capacity and use it like a shotgun load. Troll their asses brother, flame on!
If they are already gunning for you like they are, you have nothing to lose and everything to gain. Start an ear collection.

Re:Sounds like he was enjoying himself!

[davecb]

Whereas my experiences were with opponents blatant enough that even the victims knew that it wasn't their fault.

The one in the public record was an employer which we and the Ministry of Labour forced into receivership for non-payment of wages. As it happens, the original investors were able to take the company out of receivership and turn it around under new management.

Other cases are more problematic, but when you have nothing to lose and the other person announces their name is Snidely Whiplash, it makes sense to fight back.

Re:Sounds like he was enjoying himself!

[mysidia]

Seriously, post some kind of logic to back up your position. Should we also make it "actionable" to attempt to discredit a company by an individual?

No. We're talking specifically about abuse by a corporate entity, or by an entity paying multiple other people to assist in the act of maliciously attempting to discredit. Companies already have plenty of highly-effective legal avenues to retaliate against an individual.

How about one individual against another?

If one of the individuals is highly resourced and hiring third parties or pooling money to explicitly personally discredit the other individual, then yes.

Sorry, I prefer my speech to be unregulated. As long as they aren't lying about anything, I see no reason to make them stop.

I am not talking about regulating speech. I am talking about restricting the use of financial resources; units of government-produced currency units to facilitate maliciously discrediting a person. Shareholders of corporations are allowed to pool assets and receive limited liability for the public benefit.

Using those resources to maliciously target an individual, is an abuse of the public trust.

Re:Sounds like he was enjoying himself!

[microbox]

Exactly. The individuals involved should come under heavy sanction. Corporations themselves are just pieces of worthless paper.

Re: Sounds like he was enjoying himself!

[Richard_at_work]

US tax payers aren't on the hook for most of the loans that students have. It's not just government loans that are "protected". "Smart" students would get as many of those credit cards offered like candy they can, advance or buy stuff to sell (gift cards, iTunes cards), and declare bankruptcy the moment they graduate.

There's nothing stopping you from borrowing for other reasons, using the cash to pay off loans, then bankrupting youself out of the new debt. That would be the appropriate civil disobediance for the non-dischargeable loans.

Uhm, everything you had just described is an open and shut case of fraud, pure and simple.

Civil disobedience? Hope you like jail time...

Re: Sounds like he was enjoying himself!

[risom]

Most other developed countries have equal or higher teacher's salaries and don't have a student debt problem at all. That pretty much falsifies you view on the topic (and would have been trivial for you to find out for yourself).

Re: Sounds like he was enjoying himself!

[Ex-MislTech]

I know the CCC was more popular at the time then the WPA due to
the WPA doing some "artsy" projects. I guess it was the marketing...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

Re: Sounds like he was enjoying himself!

[Ex-MislTech]

The merger of government and corporate power is fascism per Mussolini, and
I'd say he might know a thing or two about it while he was around.

We have not had a free market in the US for a very long time if at all.

The monopolies and cartels crush any competition they consider a real threat
if they do not sell out a price considered reasonable by the Robber Barons.

Re: Sounds like he was enjoying himself!

[roccomaglio]

This looks like this bill was was bipartisan legislation. "The bill passed by large margins, 302-126 in the House[14] and 74-25 in the Senate,[15] and was signed into law by President Bush.[16][17]". You can read more at wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B....

Re:Sounds like he was enjoying himself!

[Miseph]

Don't forget all of the hard work he put into being born extremely wealthy in the first place. That's a pretty significant accomplishment.

Re:Sounds like he was enjoying himself!

[Anonymous Coward]

Donald Trump Quote: "If you owe the Bank $50, that is your problem. If you owe the Bank $50 Million, that is the Banks problem."
That explains it right there.

Re:Sounds like he was enjoying himself!

[Anonymous Coward]

Toxic Sludge is Good for You.

Re: Sounds like he was enjoying himself!

[Anonymous Coward]

Using that logic, every bill ever passed is bipartisan legislation.

Re:Sounds like he was enjoying himself!

[Anonymous Coward]

sounds like he was a pussy, and unable to remove the life blood from those who would attack him and poison us all.

death is the only solution

Re: Sounds like he was enjoying himself!

[AK Marc]

The WPA is more popular now because, aside from some roads in some national parks, the CCC's work was temporary and mostly gone, while much of the WPA's work remains. Also, over 50 years, the New Deal was devalued as a term, leading to, at least when I was in school, the WPA being considered synonymous with the New Deal. As if the CCC was a subset of the WPA, not a sister program. The WPA's works are much more visible. I've seen piles of town halls in small towns with WPA plaques on them, but I can't recall having ever seen a CCC work. The artsy part of the WPA may have made it less of a political win, but it seems to be the one that stood the test of time.

Re: Sounds like he was enjoying himself!

[AK Marc]

Getting a cash advance on a credit card is fraud? Who was defrauded, and what was the deception told to gain the money?

Re:Sounds like he was enjoying himself!

[AK Marc]

If you were planning on never incurring the liability, why have insurance? People don't insure cars they don't have.

Re:Sounds like he was enjoying himself!

[sjames]

You insure where liability is possible but not deliberate. If you drive a car, there is a possibility of an unplanned liability. That is perfectly fine. But if you decide to trench someone's yard and get caught your insurance won't pay and a judge WILL find you responsible for the property damage.

If you insure an old car explicitly so you can go trench a few yards, you might find yourself facing a few charges.

Re: Sounds like he was enjoying himself!

[jmcvetta]

pointing them all to Democrats, when it was the Republicans who removed the dischargability

Both Centrist parties strongly support the indenture of students from working- and middle-class families.

Re: Sounds like he was enjoying himself!

[AK Marc]

Yes, so attacks against one party are usually silly. Rarely is an argument not valid against both.

Re:Sounds like he was enjoying himself!

[Anonymous Coward]

You aren't helping him. You aren't even trying to look for ways to help him.

Re: Sounds like he was enjoying himself!

[Richard_at_work]

Doing it with the intent to never repay it is fraud, cut and dried, open and shut.

Intention is key, and intention is what commonly governs the difference between an accidental action and a criminal one.

Re: Sounds like he was enjoying himself!

[AK Marc]

So you make a couple payments before bankruptcy. They'd never be able to prove the intent. "I was a poor college student, and they told me 'cheap credit', but those slick professional salesmen tricked me into it." I paid off my other debt, but the rates on the credit card were higher, so I couldn't pay that off. When the intro rate expired, it went to 20%."

Re: Sounds like he was enjoying himself!

[Bing Tsher E]

So the issue for you is not that it's fraud. It's whether It can be detected as fraudulent. I see.

Re: Sounds like he was enjoying himself!

[drfred79]

Wow you guys are really adamant that the chicken came first when it takes both environments to create government subservience. I took two seconds to lay out the two criteria that have caused this mess and I apologize for inversing the former and latter, but geese, this has happened in the past too. I get a couple people who disagree with me stating the exact same facts saying the same things.

And this is why that rule for the EPA was bogus

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a certain apparent nobility to it on the surface, it's the right thing to do...but wait, who benefits from pushing it?

Who wants the EPA to do nothing at all? Who wants there to be no EPA at all?

Why?

Oh, come on.

[Daniel Dvorkin]

This is just the free market fighting back against heavy-handed socialist regulation. We should all cheer a scrappy little company like Syngenta for their struggle for liberty against Hayes, who like all government "scientists" is just a shill for the multibillion-dollar environmental lobby.

Re:Oh, come on.

[NapalmV]

I was expecting this to be moderated +5, Funny instead of Insightful.... The jesters please come out now!

Re:Oh, come on.

[OhPlz]

How much did the regulations enforced by the Mines and Minerals Service do to prevent the British Petroleum disaster in the gulf?

Re:Oh, come on.

[afxgrin]

Wow interesting how you slanted this as him being some government scientist shill. He was originally asked by Syngenta to do the study as an employee of the University of Berkeley. There's a lot of other things that raises eyebrows with this guy but attacking him as a government scientist is just flat out wrong in this case.

Re:Oh, come on.

[Daniel Dvorkin]

I thought I was being obviously over-the-top, but Poe's Law strikes again; it's impossible to satirize people who actually think that way.

Re:Oh, come on.

[ColdWetDog]

Fortunately, the humorists have temporarily achieved the upper hand. It is an unfortunate side effect of the moderation system where 'Funny' points don't give you extra karma leading to well meaning moderators to attach a different mod type to to the post.

That's fine. We know that. I just wonder what happens when a Slashdot naive person looks at these posts and gets a well, different, view of us.

Re:Oh, come on.

[jklovanc]

That is funny because it is so inaccurate;
1. Hayes is not a government scientist. In fact the EPA disagrees with him completely.
2. The fight is not against regulation but against statements being put out by Hayes
3. The environmental lobby has nothing to do with it. Hayes's quest for fame by bringing down a big corp might be.

Re:Oh, come on.

[Anonymous Coward]

How much did the regulations not enforced by the Mines and Minerals Service do to not prevent the British Petroleum disaster in the Gulf of Mexico?

Re:Oh, come on.

[Anonymous Coward]

it's impossible to satirize people who actually think that way.

Oh, you're wrong. In fact the possibilities for the sport of trolling are nearly unlimited. I bet that, despite your and my posts, you could still get 10-20 responses out of them.

Re:Oh, come on.

[Anonymous Coward]

?SYNTAX ERROR

READY
_

Re:Oh, come on.

[AK Marc]

You can troll them, but not satirize them. There is no concept far enough over the top to be a satire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A... was satire because there was a strong anti-poor movement, but they weren't proposing soylent green or selling your children into slavery, so a satire was possible.

But there do exist people with so radical of thoughts that it would be impossible to satirize them in the same way.

Re: Oh, come on.

[drfred79]

I know it was satire and it's actually uncommon for progressives/environmentalists to understand the other side's argument to provide such accurate satire but unfortunately I think you raised some inconvenient questions. How much was he receiving per speaking event? What is the annual revenue of this company compared to UK Berkeley ' s Taxpayer budget? Kinda makes me wonder who is the wolf?

Re:Oh, come on.

[rtb61]

How much did the habit of fining the shareholders of a company for the criminal actions of the companies executives do to prevent the British Petroleum disaster in the gulf? You can bet your bottom dollar if they started sending corporate executives to jail for life when their decisions illegally kill people a whole bunch of disasters would be avoided. Time to stop fining the shareholders and start holding the psychopathic killer executives responsible for their actions.

Re:Oh, come on.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is just the free market fighting back against heavy-handed socialist regulation. We should all cheer a scrappy little company like Syngenta for their struggle for liberty against Hayes, who like all government "scientists" is just a shill for the multibillion-dollar environmental lobby.

FTFY.

Re:Oh, come on.

[dbIII]

Hayes's quest for fame by bringing down a big corp might be.

Once they start writing memos like "investigate his wife" it's probably not about fame anymore. If it was me it would be about making sure that whoever drafted that memo doesn't get a chance to work again without adult supervision.

Re:Oh, come on.

[Anonymous Coward]

... just the free market ...

Everyone kneel before the free market: Its glorious wisdom puts a dollar value on your daughter. Please publish her name and phone number here.

Re:Oh, come on.

[Luckyo]

Oh, (s)he's working with adult supervision as we speak and was working with one when writing that memo. World of adults is full of vindictive, utterly unethical assholes.

Re:Oh, come on.

[dywolf]

Timeline:
Company has a pesticide, second in use only to Monsanto's roundup.
Concerns begin to grow about the chemicals effect
Scientist is hired by company to join panel of scientists evaluating chemical
Scientist notes that frogs are being born hermaphroditic, or with multiple (excess) malformes testes.
Scientist begins to feel uncofortable, held back, and pressured at company
Scientist leaves, returns to university lab, and replicates experiment, getting same results
Scientists presents findings to company again
Company disputes findings as flawed, by using flawed arguments
Scientist is warned to be paranoid because giant companies with billions in revenue have no problem squashing annoying bugs (pun intended)
Company begins smear campaign against inconvenient scientist, buying search terms, following him, harassing him
EPA holds hearings
17+ studies are presented.
12 from the company, all show no effect on frogs
Scientist presents his fidnings, showing effects on frogs
Other independent scientists present findings, corroborating the scientists findings
Company settles class lawsuit, where details about its smear campaign come out

Sorry, there's more here than just someone trying to get famous.
Essentially ANY STUDY done by a company with a financial stake in the result, showing the outcome the comapny favors must be considered suspect.

Logically, it isnt automatically (100% certainty) invalid...but historically they have consistently been invalid more often than not,as companies attempt to buy out the scientists and fund fraudulent studies. Tobacco is the most famous example.

And btw, when the hearings were over? The EPA proposed further study must be done...and told the company with a finanical stake in the outcome to do it.

Re:Oh, come on.

[jklovanc]

There are lots of statements in that post with absolutely no documents corroborating it. Why should I believe anything you write without references.

Essentially ANY STUDY done by a company with a financial stake in the result, showing the outcome the comapny favors must be considered suspect.

Sure, which is why you have those studies peer reviewed by independent scientists.

And btw, when the hearings were over? The EPA proposed further study must be done...

Every new chemical has long term studies.

Re:Oh, come on.

[dbIII]

I was under the impression that people would fill in the word "responsible" themselves without spoon feeding.
You knew what I meant so why bother with the "correction"? Same reason I got modded down on six completely unrelated posts, some from several days before, just after I had annoyed you last time? I suggest you try acting like an adult yourself.

Re:Oh, come on.

[Luckyo]

Would you mind defining "responsible adult"? Because it seems that in the modern world, the most celebrated adults are the ones that are least "responsible" in the actual meaning of the world - taking responsibility for their actions.

Instead nowadays we celebrate those who successfully push the responsibility on others while taking benefits to themselves.

Re:Oh, come on.

[dbIII]

It's a very common phrase so I was just using it's colloquial usage. I'm sure you already knew what I meant so do not need to play the stupid "personal definition" game.

Re:Oh, come on.

[Luckyo]

Which was my point. Most people who fall under the definition would in fact do the very thing you seem to claim they wouldn't. If given a task of using all means to discredit the single person, examining his entire life, including that of his close family looking for potential dirt is what "responsible adult" would do.

Re:Oh, come on.

[dbIII]

Which was my point

Then why bother posting?
Let me guess - you just wanted to annoy the person that made you angry before.

Re:Oh, come on.

[Luckyo]

To point out the absurdity of your claim. No other reason. If you are annoyed when the obvious absurdity of your comment is pointed out to you, perhaps you should not make absurd public statements?

Re:Oh, come on.

[dbIII]

No - you are clearly just pissed off from the previous exchange. Grow up little troll.

Re:Oh, come on.

[dywolf]

Congratulations.
You're an idiot.

1) every statement came from the source article, which you apaprently didnt even bother to read.
2) you left out the 2nd part of that comment, the idea that the studies arent automatically invalid. which is the point: they arent automatically invalid, but because the company's future depends on the outcome, a favorable outcome should be suspect. which is precisely why peer review and corroboration are so important.
3) you missed the point of the last statement. Yes, more long term studies need to be done. But the point was the EPA told the company with a financial stake in the outcomes to do it. THAT IS THE POINT. the EPA effectively straddled the fence, making a weak gesture that wont offend the giant company. they should have directed an independent lab to do the study.

Dice war against Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Dice trying to decimate with Beta.

How do we fight back against Beta?

[Anonymous Coward]

We boycott Slashdot.

Slashcott: February 10-February 17.

Re:How do we fight back against Beta?

[AmiMoJo]

The Slashdot boycott starts in an hour in the UK. Seems like posts about it are being modded off-topic now, which is a shame because the beta site is very much still alive and very much still awful. The classic site is still slated to go away at some point, and the basic design of the beta site isn't going to change.

It's not like we haven't been saying that the beta site is a disaster for months. The goal is to keep the classic site around forever. We are not saying it shouldn't change or be improved, just that the beta isn't an acceptable alternative and that our concerns have not been addressed.

Re:How do we fight back against Beta?

[Anonymous Coward]

Meh. Fuck Slashdot. It quit being news for nerds years ago. Now it's all just jews and socialists. But I repeat myself. Let Slashdot crash and burn.

Re:How do we fight back against Beta?

[Anonymous Coward]

the beta site is very much still alive and very much still awful.

For all the technical knowledge here, I don't know why there hasn't been a Chrome plugin to make Beta look like Classic, or some such. Anyway, for myself, some random AC, I find Beta looks pretty good if you set the text size to 75% of normal.

Re:How do we fight back against Beta?

[sqrt(2)]

It's clear that they have no intention of backing down or addressing user concerns. The only question now is, what site will we all move to after Beta stops being optional?

I'm doing the Slashcott, too, but I don't have any delusions that it'll get them to adopt the only course of action that would be acceptable: abandon the Beta site, keep "classic" Slashdot, issue an apology, and never try this shit again.

Dice doesn't care. They bought Slashdot for the name and the traffic. They'll end up ruining the former and driving away the latter.

Re:How do we fight back against Beta?

[lexman098]

Look man, I hate the beta in its current form as much as the next guy. I was going to participate in the boycott, but they did respond in a positive way to user feedback. Classic will still be available for the foreseeable future, and that's good enough for me. When they fix the comments system in beta I'll be fine moving there as well. Nothing lasts forever. Be happy they're not forcing shitty beta on you now, and enjoy slashdot as you always have.

Re:How do we fight back against Beta?

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep it up. The dumbfucks will burn all their mod points on the "beta" posts, so we'll actually get some decent moderation around here again.

Seriously. If you don't like seeing the Beta posts, or want to express your opinion, then make a post saying "Hey, I actually LIKE the beta". The moderation is not supposed to be used as a "like/hate" button.

Re:How do we fight back against Beta?

[shutdown -p now]

The moderation is not supposed to be used as a "like/hate" button.

Right now, posting "I actually LIKE beta" would very quickly demonstrate that the above, good intentioned as it may be, is rather divorced from reality.

Re:How do we fight back against Beta?

[Pseudonym]

It was already 10 February in Australia when you posted this, you insensitive clod.

Re:How do we fight back against Beta?

[Anonymous Coward]

How on earth is, well we will push back the raping of your eyes, a positive feedback? Fuck DICE.

Re:How do we fight back against Beta?

[Anonymous Coward]

I moderate all Beta-posts as either off topic, troll or flamebait depending on the wording used. Since they are exactly that - it's prudent moderating.

Usually I only mod posts up, very seldom down, but all this Beta-craptalk is ruining my Slashdot.

Nerd war goes on

[Anonymous Coward]

After visiting this site regularly, nearly daily, since 1998, here is the last thing I will see before joining the Slashcott in less than ten minutes. I want this post to serve as testimony of what this site has become, and a warning of what it will become in the next weeks and months.

Fuck you, DICE.

Your user account has been banned from Slashdot

Due to questionable activity from this user account, it has been temporarily disabled. Actions that would cause this ban are posting comments designed to intentionally break comment rendering for other users, or running some sort of script or program that loaded an unacceptable number of pages in a short time frame.

If you feel that this is unwarranted, feel free to include your UID (XXXXX) in the subject of an email, and we will examine why there is a ban. If you fail to include the UID (again, in the subject!), then your message will be deleted and ignored. I mean come on, we're good, we're not psychic. Send your email to banned@slashdot.org
.

FUCK BETA

Stop disrupting Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

with all these posts talking about the articles.

Let's do this!

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck Beta. Boycott Slashdot!

Same for investigative reporters

[Anonymous Coward]

Look up Paulette Cooper and the abuse she suffered at th ecult of Scientology. *They* were faking bomb threats from Paulette!!!

Correction: Practically unlimited pockets

[Anonymous Coward]

This is /. and we at least pretend to insist on mathematical accuracy around here.

Re:Correction: Practically unlimited pockets

[Anonymous Coward]

This is /. and we at least pretend to insist on mathematical accuracy around here.

Given that corporations don't actually have "pockets" (unless they manufacture clothing), I'd say you missed the point that this is just a metaphor.

Unless you're one of those wackos who believes that corporations are actually people -- with, you know, pockets and clothing and rights and stuff....

Fight with numbers

[halcyon1234]

Every single scientist should fight it. Make them execute every single scummy plan they have on the books. If hundreds of thousands of scientists fight back, you'll see just how "unlimited" corp's pockets actually are. When the majority revolts, the corporate overlords quickly discover pushing their agenda gets costly and isn't worth it anymore...

Re:Fight with numbers

[Jane Q. Public]

Part of the problem is that publicly-funded science hasn't necessarily been public-access anymore.

What good is it to be an activist when your research shows something bad, when the journal you published it in copyrighted and paywalled it, and the public has no ready access?

Obviously, some research should be classified. But that's such a minuscule percentage that it is hardly worth considering. Other than that tiny amount, publicly funded research should be public. Period.

Re:Fight with numbers

[TapeCutter]

The history of human progress during the 20th century clearly demonstrates that copyrighted journals do not impead the flow of scientific information to the public, quite the opposite in fact. For example there's a mountain of easily accesible and very credible information about AGW from just about every scientific institution you can care to name, but some people still quote Anthony Watts as a credible source on the subject.

Re:Fight with numbers

[sociocapitalist]

Every single scientist should fight it. Make them execute every single scummy plan they have on the books. If hundreds of thousands of scientists fight back, you'll see just how "unlimited" corp's pockets actually are. When the majority revolts, the corporate overlords quickly discover pushing their agenda gets costly and isn't worth it anymore...

Depends on how many of those scientists can be bought, perhaps with funding for their projects for example.

Re:Fight with numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha, Jane Q, you really don't know much about how scientific research is conducted do you. Research is more free now than it ever was, and even though the journals are fighting, they are losing. Slowly... but they are losing.

On another note, you a perfect dunning kruger exemplar.

Re:Fight with numbers

[microbox]

Part of the problem is that publicly-funded science hasn't necessarily been public-access anymore.

Publically funded research has never been public-access in the sense you mean. Journals have a strangle hold, and it is difficult to pry loose the death grip. JSTOR was -- in its day -- a revolutionary step towards better public access, but with the rise of the internet, it's obvious that this is not enough. There are strong moves towards open access journals in academia (seriously, academics have no love of the journals, which are leeches), but the incentive structures that advance academic careers are a big problem. A cultural change needs to occur in how academics are assessed by their university administration in order to break the stranglehold. Furthermore, funding agencies are using their clout to change the situation as well.

In short, the situation today is far freer than even the near past, and the trajectory is against pay-walls -- so the sentiment that things were good in the past and bad now completely and utterly back to front.

Re:Fight with numbers

[MobyDisk]

when the journal you published it in copyrighted and paywalled it, and the public has no ready access?

That is public access. Any member of the public can obtain it by simply buying the article, or a subscription. "Public access" doesn't always mean "must provide everyone a free copy."

Re:Fight with numbers

[Jane Q. Public]

I didn't say that copyrights, per se, have been the culprit. But paywalls demonstrably are.

Further, I wasn't necessarily referring to the "20th Century". The problem that most people have remarked on seems to be more of a phenomenon of the last decade or so.

"For example there's a mountain of easily accesible and very credible information about AGW from just about every scientific institution you can care to name, but some people still quote Anthony Watts as a credible source on the subject."

What matters is not the source, but the validity of the science the source is reporting on. This obsession with who the source is undermines real science. Shooting the messenger is not a valid scientific argument.

Having said that, I am NOT claiming Watts is a wonderfully reliable source. His experiments attempting to refute Pierre Latour, for example, were miserable failures, and Watts didn't seem to understand why. However, most of what he reports on isn't his own work. And in that respect, he is no more or less reliable than just about any other news source you might pick. For example, I'd definitely rate him as less biased than realclimate.org, and vastly less biased than MSNBC.

Re:Fight with numbers

[Jane Q. Public]

"Publically funded research has never been public-access in the sense you mean."

I am aware of this. But the problem is more widely recognized than before.

The fact that it wasn't that way in the past is not an argument against change. As a taxpayer, it makes me angry. If I've paid for it, it should not be held hostage in corporate (publisher) vaults, so to speak. Other than things classified for genuine national security reasons, publicly funded research should be public.

"A cultural change needs to occur in how academics are assessed by their university administration in order to break the stranglehold."

I agree, and I agree that the situation is looking up. We still have a way to go, though.

Re:Fight with numbers

[Jane Q. Public]

"Public access" doesn't always mean "must provide everyone a free copy."

No, but it should. That's the point.

If the public paid for it, the public should have open access to it. There is no valid societal or ethical reason private publishers should have a stranglehold on publicly-funded research.

Re:Fight with numbers

[riverat1]

Having said that, I am NOT claiming Watts is a wonderfully reliable source ... I'd definitely rate him as less biased than realclimate.org, ...

ROTFL - I'm blowing mod points but I can't let that ridiculous statement stand. The only bias I've seen at Real Climate is for good science and they've got the data to back it up. The guys running it are among the leading scientists in the field. I guess that might seem biased to someone who is already biased against what their science says but in the end the real world will tell you what they got right and what they got wrong. So far they're doing pretty good.

Re:Fight with numbers

[Jane Q. Public]

"The only bias I've seen at Real Climate is for good science and they've got the data to back it up."

What data is that? You mean like HadCRUT and GISS? Don't make me laugh.

If you don't start paying attention to both "sides" of the debate, you're going to end up looking pretty foolish.

Re:Fight with numbers

[riverat1]

Well, you made me laugh. When the independent Berkeley Earth Science Temperature project found essentially the same temperature trends as HadCRUT, GISS and NOAA I think the accuracy of them was pretty much confirmed. Even if you just take the raw unadjusted temperature data you don't get substantially different results.

I do pay attention to the climate debate but I've seen very little good science coming from the climate contrarian side. One example of that is Anthony Watts bringing a lot of attention to the urban heat island effect. I'm glad he did. It caused scientists to examine their methods for dealing with it more closely but in the end it just increased the confidence that they were dealing with it well.

Re:Fight with numbers

[Jane Q. Public]

"It caused scientists to examine their methods for dealing with it more closely but in the end it just increased the confidence that they were dealing with it well."

Really? Well, I'll give you one good example that says otherwise. From Steve Goddard, just yesterday. The funny thing is people suspected the following kind of B.S. when Hadley Centre said it didn't have its intermediate results anymore... it had just been tossed out with other "obsolete data". While the following is just one example, it is hardly isolated. Isn't it a bit funny that in California, the mountain weather instruments are in general no longer being used for the "raw data", but almost all of it now comes from the warmer lowlands? Etc. The point being what every scientist knows: if you cherry-pick your data, you can show almost anything you want.

Then, there is the strange phenomenon of the GISS "historical data" mysteriously changing over time. And many, many other anomalies that people are just now beginning to look into. Expect some results announced in March. But back to the example I wanted to show you: Fort Collins, CO.

In 1961 they moved their weather instruments to a new location. It is important to note that this is all from the official records. Here is a chart of 90-plus degree days for each recent year. Official data. No fudging. You can look it up yourself.

Note that in 2002, they built a parking lot around the weather station, which had previously been in farmland. And not just a little single-lane road or anything of that nature. It is now surrounded by asphalt. Look at the number of 90-degree days since then! Gee, what a coincidence. But this is one source of official climate data.

And lest you say "a little asphalt doesn't make a difference", here, take a look at it, straight from Google Maps. Well... so the University (on that info page linked to above), said that rather than move their station again, they'd take care to "buffer" it from the hot surroundings. Well done, CSU! Right?

So here is their "buffer". (Again, straight rom Google Maps, and these pictures by the way are very recent copyright.) A rock garden, of all things, with a few flowers and a couple of tiny shrugs.

No sane person would call this an effective "buffer". But CSU pretends it is.

As I say: just one example. But it is one of very, very many. And by the way, speaking of "dealing with it": when Mann and CRU were the subject of 5 "independent" investigations, while they might have been absolved of scientific malpractice, all 5 reports criticized their methods in one form or another.

So don't try to give me this guff about "responsible methods". I have seen too many examples of exactly the opposite. If cases like this (of which, I repeat, a great many have been found) constitute responsible methods, then no wonder the world is shown to be warming. And no wonder an increasing percentage of the people are ignoring this "data".

Re:Fight with numbers

[Jane Q. Public]

s/shrugs/shrubs

Re:Fight with numbers

[Jane Q. Public]

"I do pay attention to the climate debate but I've seen very little good science coming from the climate contrarian side."

Then you haven't REALLY been paying attention.

Try these on for size, just as an example. Hardly new.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/20...

http://www.principia-scientifi...

If you can successfully rebut Latour, I'd be happy to buy you a drink.

Re:Fight with numbers

[MobyDisk]

No, but it should. That's the point. If the public paid for it, the public should have open access to it.

No, that isn't the point. The point is to have good peer-reviewed science that is available to anyone for a nominal fee. You seem to be confusing "open access" with "free as in beer."

There is no valid societal or ethical reason private publishers should have a stranglehold on publicly-funded research.

There is no strangle hold. That is a slashdot-ism. It costs journals money to review articles and publish them. Paying $15 for a scientific journal article isn't a strangle hold.

Re:Fight with numbers

[Jane Q. Public]

"No, that isn't the point. The point is to have good peer-reviewed science that is available to anyone for a nominal fee. You seem to be confusing "open access" with "free as in beer.""

Just no. I'm not the one missing the point here. Apparently what I was saying went right over your head.

If the taxpayers funded the research -- i.e., PAID for it -- then they should not have to pay another fee to see the results. Nominal or otherwise. They paid for it. It BELONGS to them, by every ethical standard that exists.

There is nothing "free" about it. They already paid for it. So they should get it. Period.

"There is no strangle hold. That is a slashdot-ism. It costs journals money to review articles and publish them. Paying $15 for a scientific journal article isn't a strangle hold."

"Slash-dotism" my ass. If you think publishers of science journals haven't had a "stranglehold" on the publishing of peer-reviewed papers, then you just don't know very much about it. Further, I am aware that journals spend money on their publishing business. But that has NOTHING to do with the subject at hand.

That's changing now -- as it should -- but change has been slow. And yes: for a taxpayer to have to pay $15 to get access to research that taxpayer funded in the first place is an abomination. That is an unethical situation and there is no reason it has to continue to exist.

Re:Fight with numbers

[riverat1]

In 2010 a study was published [PDF] that compared the temperature trends of Watt's surfacestations.org lists of well and poorly sited weather stations. It found that the the poorly sited stations actually had a cooling bias on the warming trend compared to the well sited stations. To me that means the UHI effect is well compensated for and perhaps a bit overcompensated for.

Remember also that we're not so much interested in the absolute temperature but how temperature is changing over time. It seems plausible to me that a well sited station and a nearby poorly sited station would show similar temperature trends even if the poorly sited stations reads 5 degrees higher because of the UHI effect.

Re:Fight with numbers

[riverat1]

Dr. Roy Spencer is one climate contrarian I have some respect for. He has scientific credentials and is one of the principals in the UAH satellite temperature record. Unfortunately despite his training he hasn't been able to find a major chink in the armor of global warming.

I have read both of those before and Latour is full of it. While it's true that the net energy flow is always toward the cooler object his hypothesis that a warmer object reflects the IR radiation of a cooler object doesn't hold water. It the hotter plate reflects the cooler object's IR then that IR heads back to the cooler plate but since it's already at the temperature the IR was emitted at it can't absorb it either so what happens to the IR? Conservation of energy says it doesn't just disappear. Is it stuck in limbo between the two plates? No, the hotter plate absorbs the IR from the cooler plate and gets enough hotter that the total IR emitted is equal to the input from the electric heater plus the cooler plate.

I don't imagine that will satisfy you but that's the way I see it.

Re:Fight with numbers

[Jane Q. Public]

"I have read both of those before and Latour is full of it. While it's true that the net energy flow is always toward the cooler object his hypothesis that a warmer object reflects the IR radiation of a cooler object doesn't hold water."

Then either you haven't actually read it, or didn't understand it.

He is referring to NET effects. Regardless of whether a warmer object might absorb radiation at a cooler radiative temperature, if that happens then it emits it right back out... the NET effect being as if it hadn't absorbed any at all.

And you can say this "doesn't hold water" all you want. But you're wrong, because it's fundamental to the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which states that NET energy transfer is ALWAYS from warmer to cooler.

Simply saying he's wrong won't wash. Where is the error in his math?

You're doing the same thing Spencer did. Arguing about what you think would happen based on your mental model of the circumstances.

But that isn't science, and that doesn't refute Latour and his math. Jesus, man. This guy designed heat transfer control systems for NASA. Do you really think he's going to make that kind of mistake?

Re:Fight with numbers

[riverat1]

So when the hotter plate absorbs and emits the IR right back out isn't it still emitting all of the energy provided by the electric heater too? The net effect is that the plate appears (and becomes) hotter since there is more radiation coming off of it, that provided by the electric heater and that re-emitted radiation from the cooler plate.

Re:Fight with numbers

[Jane Q. Public]

Just look up the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Wikipedia has a pretty good explanation.

Regardless of whether a hotter radiator actually absorbs and re-emits, or reflects, or transfers, incoming cooler radiation, the NET effect is the same: it isn't retained by the hotter body.

When one body is hotter than another, NET heat flow is always in one direction.

Re:Fight with numbers

[riverat1]

I don't see that the Stefan-Boltzmann law contradicts what I have said. Yes the NET heat flow is always in one direction. But the gross heat flow goes both ways. The heat produced by the electric element in the first plate remains the same but in addition to that the plate has to emit or reflect the IR coming from the cooler plate. The Wikipedia page on S-B states:

Specifically, the Stefan–Boltzmann law states that the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body across all wavelengths per unit time (also known as the black-body radiant exitance or emissive power), j^{{\star }}, is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body's thermodynamic temperature T:

        j^{{\star }}=\sigma T^{{4}}

If the energy radiated from a surface increases (electric heater plus received IR) the thermodynamic temperature has to have increased. It's the only variable on the right.

(Note: For those who don't know "{{ }}" is superscript, "\star" is * and "\sigma" is a lower case sigma.)

Re:Fight with numbers

[Jane Q. Public]

"I don't see that the Stefan-Boltzmann law contradicts what I have said. Yes the NET heat flow is always in one direction. "

Then what's the argument? That was my only point. The net heat flow is always from warmer (thermodynamic temperature) to colder.

Always. Period.

Therefore, in Spencer's thought experiment, the passive body that is inserted into the system cannot make the source warmer than it already is.

That is Latour's whole point. With which you have just said you agree.

Re:Fight with numbers

[Jane Q. Public]

("Source" = the sole heat source as in the thought experiment being discussed.)

Re:Fight with numbers

[riverat1]

Latour is wrong. Period.

If the heated plate is radiating 100 Joules then you insert the passive plate and once it reaches equilibrium it is radiating 10 Joules back toward the heated plate. What happens to that 10 Joules being radiated back? It gets absorbed by the original plate (or reflected if you like) which means it's radiating 110 Joules to maintain equilibrium. By S-B it is radiating more so the temperature has to increase.

It would be a relatively easy experiment to set up and run. I wish someone with access to the right equipment would test it just to shoot Latour down for good.

Re:Fight with numbers

[Jane Q. Public]

"If the heated plate is radiating 100 Joules then you insert the passive plate and once it reaches equilibrium it is radiating 10 Joules back toward the heated plate. What happens to that 10 Joules being radiated back?"

You tell me. But since it is radiating back at a cooler thermodynamic temperature, it won't be absorbed by the source. At equilibrium, if it is any distance at all from the (only) heat source, it does not absorb all the radiation from the source so it will not be as hot as that source. (And if there is no distance from the passive plate to the source, it is no longer a separate body... it become part of the source mass, which is an entirely different scenario.)

Since the passive plate MUST BE cooler than the source, there will be no net heat transfer from the plate to the source. Even if the plate were as warm as the source, there would still be no net transfer because T - T0 = 0.

Q.E.D.

I am aware that seems counter-intuitive to many people. But that's what the math says.

Re:Fight with numbers

[riverat1]

I told you what I think happens to that 10 Joules. By the first law of thermodynamics it doesn't just disappear so what happens to it?

Re:Fight with numbers

[Jane Q. Public]

"I told you what I think happens to that 10 Joules. By the first law of thermodynamics it doesn't just disappear so what happens to it?"

Yes, I know you told me but that doesn't happen. It would be a violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics.

If T is the source and T0 is the other plate, then the cooler plate absorbs some radiative heat from the source... so far fine. Let the system reach equilibrium, with the source radiatively emitting its constant 100 W/m^2, right? Just so we have a known starting point. (The units we are working with are irradiance (in), or radiative emittance (out), which are W/m^2, not Joules.) We know thermal equilibrium does exist and that real-world systems eventually reach equilibrium.

So we're saying that the plate has absorbed some heat from the source. Enough to emit 10 W/m^2 itself. Also just fine.

But remember we are at equilibrium. If the source (which is the ONLY source in our system, remember) absorbs then re-emits 10 W/m^2 to make a total of 110 W/m^2, it is going to heat the plate to an even warmer temperature. And the plate would then kick that back to the source making it warmer yet. And so on.

The system would never reach equilibrium, but would continue warming to infinity (if such a thing as infinite temperature existed). It would soon destroy itself from all this extra energy that is coming from nowhere.

That is why NET heat transfer is always only from hot to cold. Anything else leads to violations of basic physical laws.

Re:Fight with numbers

[riverat1]

Of course it would reach equilibrium. Since the heated plate heats up even more because of the return IR it emits that added IR in all directions so not all of that 10 W/m^2 is returned to the passive plate and the passive plate has the same thing happen returning even less of the increase. Eventually that peters out to zero and a new equilibrium is reached.

Here's another way to look at it. You've got a certain amount of energy going into the system and when it reaches equilibrium an equal amount of energy leaving through the walls of the vacuum chamber. When you insert the passive plate the system eventually reaches equilibrium again with the same amount of energy entering and exiting the system. But because the passive plate is cooler than heated plate it's sends less IR toward the side of the chamber it's facing.. In order to reach equilibrium more radiation has to be emitted by the parts of the system that are not shaded by the passive plate which means they have to heat up.

Imagine if the heated plate were totally transparent to the IR emitted by the passive plate. Then if you measured the thermodynamic temperature from the side opposite the passive plate you would see 100 W/m^2 from the heated plate plus 10 W/m^2 from the passive plate for a total of 110 W/m^2. Isn't that by definition an increase in temperature by S-B?

Phoronix also going beta

[Anonymous Coward]

Time For Feedback On A New Phoronix Design

The sky's the limit.....

[rts008]

The story brings up important questions for science and its public persona: How do scientists fight a PR war against corporations with unlimited pockets? How far should they go?"

How far? The full distance.
Anything less, and it shows you don't really care in the long run.(all within the limits of sane and just laws, that is-in the presence of insane, or unjust laws, then no restrictions...you have nothing else to lose)

Re:The sky's the limit.....

[jader3rd]

How far? The full distance. Anything less, and it shows you don't really care in the long run.

Is there anything wrong with having the correct knowledge, and not really caring?

Re:The sky's the limit.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Anything less, and it shows you don't really care in the long run.(all within the limits of sane and just laws, that is-in the presence of insane, or unjust laws, then no restrictions...you have nothing else to lose)

At some point you can run into conflicts with other priorities in life. Do you want to sacrifice future research possibilities and results by spending more time doing PR than research work? Do you want to have yourself and family make sacrifices so you can go a route that risks your career, and more directly their safety in some of the nastier fights?

Re:The sky's the limit.....

[microbox]

Yeah, other people should fight societies battles for you. And academics don't have enough to do anyway.

Re:The sky's the limit.....

[rts008]

No, not at all.

But then your not in the fight anyway.

You are only going to be in the fight if you care.

If you don't care, then why even get into the fight?

What's your point here?

Re:The sky's the limit.....

[jader3rd]

You are only going to be in the fight if you care.

My point is that the statement "The full distance. Anything less, and it shows you don't really care in the long run." is a bit extreme, and has an attacking point of view to it. Just because you think that everyone should be extremists about everything, doesn't mean that you have the right to gloat over everyone who don't feel like they need to be extreme in all cases.

I can really care about a lot of things, but just not have enough time in the day to fight the full distance for all of them. My lack of resources, time and money, shouldn't be a reflections about what I really care about.

Re:The sky's the limit.....

[rts008]

Yeah, other people should fight societies battles for you.

No, they should fight their own battles, just as I fight my own.
If multiple individuals find themselves on the same side of a fight, then it's usually more advantageous to join forces for the battle.

Where did you get the idea I think everyone should fight my battles for me?

There was no 'implied meaning', 'deeper underlying meaning', or anything to see by 'reading between the lines' with my comment.

My intended meaning was exactly what I wrote.

Let me try again:
Your level of willingness to fight something is a measure of how much you care about that something.

Seriously, learn to read(or listen) without so much personal bias and assumptions....it can be enlightening.

And academics don't have enough to do anyway.

IIRC, I never made a statement regarding 'acedemics' having too much, or too little time.

Where I work, the professors(and associated faculty and staff) seem to put in 'over and above the call of duty' amounts of time and effort on the job. I see it every working day and night. (a state university 'Microbiology and Microgenetics' research labs building)

The admin workers/university management staff will run you over getting out the door at scheduled quitting time, though!(by some quirk, the Business Admin dept. and the Dean of 'Arts and Sciences'[and staff] are in the same building)

So again, I have to ask what your point is?

Harrison Ford IS Prof. Tyrone Hayes

[Anonymous Coward]

Oops, I guess Ford already made that film once (fictional though).

How about Russell Crowe as a professor who loses his beautiful mind and begins to see the world as a big plot against him....?

Re:Harrison Ford IS Prof. Tyrone Hayes

[NapalmV]

How about "Michael Clayton"?

Re:Harrison Ford IS Prof. Tyrone Hayes

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh... "But he wasn't paranoid: documents released after a lawsuit from Midwestern towns against Syngenta, the manufacturer of atrazine, showed a coordinated smear campaign. Syngenta's public relations team had a list of ways to defend its product, topped by 'discredit Hayes.' Its internal list of methods: 'have his work audited by 3rd party,' 'ask journals to retract,' 'set trap to entice him to sue,' 'investigate funding,' 'investigate wife,' etc."

The guy is crazy

[Anonymous Coward]

In 2013, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its independent Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) examined all available studies on atrazine and concluded that "atrazine does not adversely affect amphibian gonadal development based on a review of laboratory and field studies."

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/atrazine/atrazine_update.htm

Re:The guy is crazy

[Anonymous Coward]

In 2013, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its independent Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) examined all available studies on atrazine and concluded that "atrazine does not adversely affect amphibian gonadal development based on a review of laboratory and field studies."

Yeah, except... from TFA:

By that point, there were seventy-five published studies on the subject, but the E.P.A. excluded the majority of them from consideration, because they did not meet the requirements for quality that the agency had set in 2003. The conclusion was based largely on a set of studies funded by Syngenta and led by Werner Kloas, a professor of endocrinology at Humboldt University, in Berlin. One of the co-authors was Alan Hosmer, a Syngenta scientist whose job, according to a 2004 performance evaluation, included "atrazine defence" and "influencing EPA."

After the hearing, two of the independent experts who had served on the E.P.A.'s scientific advisory panel, along with fifteen other scientists, wrote a paper (not yet published) complaining that the agency had repeatedly ignored the panel's recommendations and that it placed "human health and the environment at the mercy of industry." "The EPA works with industry to set up the methodology for such studies with the outcome often that industry is the only institution that can afford to conduct the research," they wrote. The Kloas study was the most comprehensive of its kind: its researchers had been scrutinized by an outside auditor, and their raw data turned over to the E.P.A. But the scientists wrote that one set of studies on a single species was "not a sufficient edifice on which to build a regulary assessment." Citing a paper by Hayes, who had done an analysis of sixteen atrazine studies, they wrote that "the single best predictor of whether or not the herbicide atrazine had a significant effect in a study was the funding source."

Re:The guy is crazy

[NapalmV]

What's next? EPA reading the next page on Steve Milloy's JunkScience website and deciding that DDT ain't bad either?

Re:The guy is crazy

[anagama]

You might be interested in Last Call at The Oasis: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt20...

It streams on Netflix.

Hayes was one of the interviewees in that documentary. He shows off some of the mutant frogs too.

Re:The guy is crazy

[WaffleMonster]

In 2013, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its independent Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) examined all available studies on atrazine and concluded that "atrazine does not adversely affect amphibian gonadal development based on a review of laboratory and field studies."

It's called regulatory capture motha f**kers.

Re:The guy is crazy

[Anonymous Coward]

You should see how aspartame got approved.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9-aleeQ2ho

Youtube Video:
The American Parasite - 250 Million Americans Infected

(note: I do not endorse and I am not affiliated with and have never used or tried and do not know anything about any products being sold by this Youtube video, just found the history of aspartame interesting).

There is no rage like nerd rage!

[Anonymous Coward]

Last comment before the boycott. Just logged out and intended to close the /. tab for the week. Hey, logging out redirected me to the BETA, adding insult to injury. So one more "Fuck BETA!!!11!!!ONE" post before I go.

I hope when I come back in one week there is a post from Dice telling us they were wrong and that they will never do this again and will add Unicode and LaTeX to Slashdot Classic to make up. If not: see you on Usenet comp.misc or Soylentnews.org.

No sex with Beta for the next week

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck Beta. Sorry, I'm boycotting sex with Beta this week. Maybe next week.

Re: Sounds like he was enj FUCK BETA

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck it right in the butt!

The new Slashdot.

[Anonymous Coward]

It must have blackjack, hookers and ponies. Or I'm not going there.

Re:The new Slashdot.

[NapalmV]

I've heard something about forex, drag queens and gay stallions. Would that work for you Sir?

The beta is as horrifying as people are saying.

[rcharbon]

My first look at the beta, cause I'm always logged in. It's as horrifying as people are saying. So much air, so little content.

Re:The beta is as horrifying as people are saying.

[Anonymous Coward]

Dice intends to cater to the vapid airhead crowd that drives ad revenues. Not to people who are expecting content.

Re:The beta is as horrifying as people are saying.

[Arker]

It's not one of those things that looks ugly but works fine, either. Those are fine. We get used to those.

That thing looks fugly and does NOT work. At all. By design, it seems.

I've been a regular here since '97 and I am really going to miss this place.

sdfasdf

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

The correct place is to battle it out in scientific journals. Corporations should not be doing this, but legion are the talking heads and book promoters tearing down things from GM food to Olestra to any number of other things with little or no science backing them.

Re: sdfasdf

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not a scientific battle, it's a PR one. More people watch Fox News than read scientific journals. Battle won.

Re:sdfasdf

[microbox]

Corporations are also assaulting the scientific journal business as well -- esp. big pharma and the oil industry. A few hundred thousand goes a long way when it comes to buying "academia"

Corporate war against Nerds and how they fought

[oRCAD Monkey]

3000000 nerds had favourite community forum.

Sometimes argue but most time very happy.

Forum website bought by Dice.

Change forum into website for Pointy Haired Bosses, called Beta Slashdot.

Dice think " Make more money this way"

Now Nerds very sad. sad sad sad

Please Please Mr. Dice, give back forum to Nerds.

Then Nerds happy again.

3000000 Nerds that are unhappy with you is not good.

Re:Corporate war against Nerds and how they fought

[Bing Tsher E]

3000000 Nerds that are unhappy with you is not good.

We'll shoot capacitors and power resistors (the big ceramic ones) at you with our homemade slingshots.

Being a scientist does not mean he is right.

[jklovanc]

Lets look at the tactics that were listed .

have his work audited by 3rd party,

Seems like a valid scientific tactic to see if his stidies are valid

ask journals to retract

If statements are inaccurate retraction may be warranted

set trap to entice him to sue

The company would like to sue but eve if they were proven right in court the company would come off as the bad guy.

investigate funding

is he being funded by a competitor to make our pesticide look bad? Does he have a financial based bias?

investigate wife

maybe his wife has a bias and is influencing him.

The main point is that none of these things has anything to do with following him or reading his emails. I like the quote about "asking questions to make him look foolish". Was one of those questions "What scientific studies done by people other than you back up your claims"?

The knee jerk reaction of "big companies bad, individuals good" is not always accurate.

Re:Being a scientist does not mean he is right.

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you fucking kidding me? Are you a shill or just stupid?

Re:Being a scientist does not mean he is right.

[Anonymous Coward]

The main point is that none of these things has anything to do with following him or reading his emails.

Well, there is actually evidence presented in TFA that people were following him, that scientists, journalists, etc. who were "friendly" to Syngenta were badgering him... and pieces critical of him in the media may have been drafted or written by Syngenta PR, but were published in the media by 3rd parties. (There are notes from PR worrying that some of the actions and coverage were getting too extreme, so they might not truly seem "independent.")

The knee jerk reaction of "big companies bad, individuals good" is not always accurate.

The knee jerk reaction of "I read the summary, but it didn't have all the details, but I assume it must be wrong" even without reading TFA is not always accurate.

Re:Being a scientist does not mean he is right.

[AK Marc]

The knee jerk reaction of "big companies bad, individuals good" is not always accurate.

But it's more likely true than not.

Re:Being a scientist does not mean he is right.

[Anonymous Coward]

It still sounds like a bunch of ad hominem tactics, perfectly valid scientific tactics.

How far should they go?

[Ralph Spoilsport]

As far as it takes to smash capitalism and see the parasites hang.

Re:How far should they go?

[Bing Tsher E]

"Go Big Red! Smash State!"

Rah-rah.

Don't forget to register for your sophomore semester next year.

Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

When ubiquitous omnipotent 3D printing comes to the home (and really, all you need is ONE of these printers to start the revolution: print copies of itself!), all these corporate shenanigans will collapse into dust. When no one will buy anything anymore from any corporation, the SPECIES SHALL BE FREE!!!

Re:Simple

[Bing Tsher E]

Right. We can all print new 3D printers, so we'll only need the one to get started. Plus, the filament that the 3D printers use is extruded from unicorn's butts.

Profanity

[NapalmV]

Judging by the amount of profanity in the posts related to a certain Beta, I would had expected that a profanity slinging scientist would be Slashdot's hero of the day....

Re:Profanity

[Anonymous Coward]

Judging by the amount of profanity in the posts related to a certain Beta, I would had expected that a profanity slinging scientist would be Slashdot's hero of the day....

i isn't excited by heroes who feed trolls and ramble on about how great they are.

What a waste of time.. However some was quite funny the bit about using weeds to help grow his crop was clever and amusing. i am appalled that every time i try and use a lowercase i this damn machine converts it to uppercase. STOP!!!! i'm looking at you MsSpellCheckingFacility.exe

How a reputable company responds.

[Etherwalk]

Are you fucking kidding me? Are you a shill or just stupid?

Neither. I am guesing (s)he is an IP lawyer. Used to thinking about how the company can get its way within the bounds of the law rather than asking whether things like investigating a scientist's wife in the hope of discrediting his research should be permissible in a civilized society. Maybe she does have a bias--maybe she got dumped by your company's CEO. But there's a big difference between *knowing* she has a bias and trying to cook one up.

The company's POV may be valid, but not all of the actions it intended in support of them--whether legal or not--are moral.

The real issue is that any reputable company in response to science that is bad for their products should be saying "this science showed that maybe there's a problem here, we'd better make sure we're not hurting our customers or their neighbors, let's do some research and legitimately see what the deal is." Resorting to discrediting the other guy should only come up, maybe, when and if you've established that his research is wrong, that the product is safe, that the guy's data is wrong, and that he's basically a crackpot. Unfortunately economic incentives make most people feel free to allow their product to poison or even murder despite the science. (See, e.g., cigarettes.) This is actually a good reason for broad diversification--the smaller a percentage of revenue is dependent on one product, the more willing a company is to do the right thing when one product proves unsafe.

Re: How a reputable company responds.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, ffs, would you go read the New Yorker article, please. Your guesses are based on your biases.

Re:How a reputable company responds.

[Anonymous Coward]

... feel free to allow their product to poison or even murder ...

Yeah, like cars kill people and so do guns. Now, the push to ban guns is ever-present because their common purpose is murdering people. Yet handguns, whose only purpose is killing people and is in fact responsible for the majority of gun-based deaths receive very little attention. No-one is going to ban cars because that's not their purpose and car-based deaths are an unwelcome side-effect.

The problem isn't that cigarette companies sold poisonous status symbols: Although the morality of a company and government that allow this is questionable, it is also a slippery slope. Chocolate and chips/crisps/french fries are extremely fattening: Should the government ban these for the public good? No, the real problem is the cigarette companies discredited the health research and simply lied about the dangers of their product. Look at how the mobile phone manufacturers handled accusations of phones causing brain cancer. They didn't agree with the research but published risk mitigation strategies for concerned customers: Not allowing the phone to touch the head and using accessories to achieve the same goal such as wired or low-power blue-tooth hands-free kits.

The cigarette companies were in more of a quandary because nicotine is the main ingredient of tobacco. If that is removed the cigarette companies lose their addicts. Like whiskey and beer, cigarettes were used to sell an image yet distilleries didn't rely on addicts to increase their revenue. Alcohol-based marketing got involved in their customer's lives, the same as coca-cola marketing, while cigarette companies pushed the same tired message of "we're cool". Cigarette companies in essence didn't want to work for their customers, they were addicted to the convenience of nicotine addicts and the risks to their customers were immaterial.

He needs an Erin Brokovich to help

[mrflash818]

He needs an Erin Brokovich to help!

Re:He needs an Erin Brokovich to help

[Gramie2]

Ummm, Erin Brockovich doesn't have a very good record as far as using real science to help people fight against polluters. Check http://www.quackwatch.org/01Qu..., for example.

Fight on!

[DaMattster]

He's got my support!

Go as FAR as needed... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

I''ve dealt with that type of CRAP for years (here & elsewhere) & had the same type of shit leveled against me (especially online)

So - How'd I beat it? Facts, & truth. They'll always come out in the wash & DESTROY idiots from "KORPORATE AMERIKA" (not that they care: The "fearless leaders" of those entities are sociopathic lunatics who will not only attack a guy like him, but poison anyone in their way too, ala atrazine).

E.G. #1 of 2: They tried calling some of my work in programs a "virus" & I tore apart Computer Associates for it on the advice of an attorney. They had to down it to "NO THREAT". Their CRONY, this fat crap from country boy land Nebraska, Thor Schmuck, tried the same to me for them... in the end? The FAT SHIT lost, bad.

E.G. #2 of 2 - Same occurred with my "APK Hosts File Engine" in 2012, delaying its release by 4 months (& yes, I pursued it with the assistance of folks in the security community who work for malwarebytes & we got Comodo, McAfee/Intel, Symantec, ClamAV, Avira + others to COMPLETELY RESCIND IT (I told them, right off the bat, I was using an exe compressor in 64-bit they didn't understand, & they stepped my app thru a debugger & I turned up fine, as I said I would).

Same shit goes on here with trolls *trying* to "put down" that application of mine - not a SINGLE ONE has ever disproven my points on it enumerated here in hosts giving users added speed, security, reliiability, & even anonymity -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...

APK

P.S.=> A nice side-effect is that a single line entry added to your hosts file gets you around the BETA (being forced down our throats here, mandatory javascript & all + cookies) -> http://games.slashdot.org/comm... - ... apk

Re:Go as FAR as needed... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

The corporate idiots downmodded apk! We see his post anyway idiots.

How can you tell, anymore?....

[rts008]

I thought I was being obviously over-the-top,...

Unfortunately, you did not get TO the top, much less 'over the top'.

No insult meant for you, that is just the sorry state of reality. It's appalling, but true.

I myself was tempted to reply to your earlier comment, thinking you were serious. I'm glad I decided not to bother.

Re:How can you tell, anymore?....

[Daniel Dvorkin]

No insult meant for you, that is just the sorry state of reality. It's appalling, but true.

Yeah, I know. [sigh]

The knee jerk reaction...

[mevets]

There are the good few (companies) that spoil it for the rotten masses, but they are so rare as to seldom garner a mention.
I would expect that a good company would immediately fire the author of this snivelling little shit strategy, not implement it.

Fight back

[nurb432]

And you will never work again in any related industry.

Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

I still work in the field of computing after I kicked the SHIT out of some "big names" (that staff fucking AMATEURS apparently) that I've absolutely KNOCKED THE SHIT ouf of http://science.slashdot.org/co...

APK

P.S.=> Do you *think* that bullshit you spouted actually SCARES anyone that knows they're right, AND knows more than their undereducated dunderhead deceitful sociopath attacker do BY FAR in said "related industry"? Hell no... I AM PROOF! apk

Re:Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Gee Corporate sociopaths resort to all they understand: Downmods to hide truth yet again.

Just pour some in the Sygenta Board Coffee pots

[Anonymous Coward]

Then we'll see how *safe* it is.

Anyway

[rduke15]

Tyrone Hayes [...] began to display signs of apparent paranoia over a decade ago. [...] But he wasn't paranoid

“Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you”
        -- Joseph Heller (?)

“Paranoia is just having the right information.”
        -- William S. Burroughs

Re:Anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

Tyrone Hayes [...] began to display signs of apparent paranoia over a decade ago. [...] But he wasn't paranoid

“Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you”

The problem with this theory is that he really is paranoid; it's just that his symptoms have been exacerbated by the harassment of the evil corporation. Just because they're after you doesn't mean you're not paranoid. I mean, look at the things he complains about: They sent people to sit in his talks! Those people asked mean questions! They thought his studies were flawed, so they paid other people to do better studies! In my field, if somebody isn't asking dickish questions at your talk, they probably all fell asleep.

Sounds like

[dale.furno]

Sounds like, we should take a page from this guys book and say FUck Beta!

Re:Anyway - proverbs for paranoids #4

[Anonymous Coward]

if they can get you asking the wrong questions they don't have to worry about the answers - thomas pynchon

Re:Fight with numbers does not work fast enough

[Anonymous Coward]

Every single scientist should fight it. Make them execute every single scummy plan they have on the books. If hundreds of thousands of scientists fight back, you'll see just how "unlimited" corp's pockets actually are.

1. Global Warming "debate"
2. Evolution "is just a theory"

Talking about realities does not make you come out on top. Even more so with these companies that do not give a shit about the environment as long as they get to sell their crap for the duration of the patent. They only need to distort reality for as long as they are making money on stuff they make and not on new stuff they do not make (yet).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

In 1978 the United States banned the use of CFCs such as Freon in aerosol cans, the beginning of a long series of regulatory actions against their use. The critical DuPont manufacturing patent for Freon ("Process for Fluorinating Halohydrocarbons", U.S. Patent #3258500) was set to expire in 1979. In conjunction with other industrial peers DuPont sponsored efforts such as the "Alliance for Responsible CFC Policy" to question anti-CFC science, but in a turnabout in 1986 DuPont, with new patents in hand, publicly condemned CFCs.[9] DuPont representatives appeared before the Montreal Protocol urging that CFCs be banned worldwide and stated that their new HCFCs would meet the worldwide demand for refrigerants.[9]

Companies do not give a shit about regulation, or future damage caused by their products. They only care about next quarter numbers. This is why it is extremely important for regulatory agencies to be impartial and outside of any industry. The role of the government is to have LONG TIME HORIZON.

Yes, I'm looking at you, Prime Minister of Canada Steven Harper.

http://news.ca.msn.com/canada/...

Case and point is CFCs. If they weren't banned because of "questionable science', today we would have no ozone left, UV index of 60+, and no ozone for at least another century. Because of regulation, we "only" have UV index of 10+ (instead of 5 or so) and ozone layer will recover for our grandchildren, maybe.

Funny, but compared to what?

[dumky2]

That'd be good anti-free-market humor if those types of problems weren't worse, way worse, with people who get in the way of governments, such as whisteblowers.

What can this company do to this guy who has some results the company doesn't like? Some things may not be pleasant, but overall, not that much.
What can the government do to whisteblowers who has evidence that the government (or that cronies of those in power) wants to hide? It turns out, quite a bit.
So, comparatively speaking, I will take the free-market smear, thank you very much.

Re:Funny, but compared to what?

[dryeo]

So you'd rather get on the bad side of the Mafia or perhaps the Mexican drug cartels?

Re: Funny, but compared to what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Got it Syngenta == Mafia. Cute ;)

This is Just the Socialism/Environmentalism Ven Di

[Anonymous Coward]

Corporate and corporation's are two different words. I wish the author wasn't purposely illiterate and just ignorant.

No limit except one's willingness to escalate.

[Anonymous Coward]

"How do scientists fight a PR war against corporations with unlimited pockets? How far should they go?"

Corporations acting immorally negate any moral limits one might otherwise have acting against them.

If you are innocent and someone tries to ruin your life there is no reason other than your personal "outcome calculation" not to do them hurt.

Corporations can take any loss, but people fear pain. If a corporation loses against you, your human enemies within lose nothing. If you take your fight to your enemies directly, you can take from them things no lawsuit can ever get back.

LOL! They did it again... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

Deceits are ALL "business dolts" understand when they're cornered -> http://science.slashdot.org/co...

Everyone sees it anyhow!

Yes - they're SO stupid they don't even understand the population here, which definitely surf well below the default moderation threshold of 1 iirc, & see all posts.

That's the type running the USA, frat boys, cliques, & "strength in numbers" groups... stupid shits. They think "a lone wolf is easy prey"... oh, really? Funny - I show exactly the opposite on my programs being attacked every time in what I posted.

I kick the CRAP out of them, every time. Truth is anybody's ally on this note, & though the justice system is largely how much cash you have to do what you do in poker - bust their leg out once, & then LEAN on them till they break.

Not this boy, no way. I can't LIVE with myself knowing I just "knuckled under" without a fight... & I never, EVER lose. City governments tried me there once too. Everyone I knew said "you'll lose"... yea? Funny, I collected a SHITLOAD of money on that too.

APK

P.S.=> Folks - when you're RIGHT, absolutely completely right? Fight back, & win... there IS no substitute... apk

Re: Fight with numbers does not work fast enough

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever ask yourself if you might, possibly, have a cultists mentality? Ever question your own arrogance when many, many PHD's in meteorology and 17 years of data contradict every global warming model? How about the fact that the hole in the ozone was discovered on the first ever reading. We have no empirical evidence that ever In history there wasn't one. Until, it disappeared faster than can be accredited to any policy changes, Hey genius, ever ask yourself why 90% of CFC releases were in the northern hemisphere but there was only a hole over the South Pole?

That's fine: I'll just DRAG it into view now

[Anonymous Coward]

I know what the guy in the article's going thru http://science.slashdot.org/co... & all I can say to him is "Beat their ASSES, there is NO substitute..."

Want to know WHY the USA is crumbling? History. Scumbags will do what the OTHER guy won't. This extends from street level criminals all the way up to our "fine corporate leadership" (I've worked alongside CEO's etc. & they are STUPID as shit most of the time - it's sad when a man running a computer company doesn't even UNDERSTAND his product, much less his customers)

"Fraternal Organizations" (like the masons, or other "religious cults", use your imagination there folks) work like packs of rats... ganging up on decent people. That works, until they run into a HIGHLY MOTIVATED PERSON like the guy in the article (or myself in the 2 scenarios I've gone thru).
My hats off to the man in the article... he is truly winning. People, normal people today, are WELL aware of the under educated dolts running us, & don't like the results. The internet makes it IMPOSSIBLE for them to buy up all media outlets to fabricate untruths as truth is largely why.

APK

P.S.=> In any event - I've thought LONG & HARD about why our nation is in such deep shit. It's like anything else really - shit flows downwards, from the top & when the top is bullshitters FULL OF SHIT & bad leaders? This IS exactly what you get (same with the Roman Empire)... apk

Everyone likes free speech until it tastes bad, th

[Anonymous Coward]

The Supreme Court made it clear... The recourse to free speech is more free speech. Funny how everyone assumes that the avalanche of existing research is immediately dismissed by the crowd, but one rapping attack dog. He was using PR rhetoric against the company but we are all shocked that the company would use the same tools against him? And this isn't David and Goliath. He was leveraging Berkley - that is the Goliath in this scenario, not Syngenta. PR battle, which have you heard of? Which do you blindly trust? Find any prejudice there? Being comfortable with your prejudice doesn't make it any less so.

Ok boys - let's experiment here

[Anonymous Coward]

Want to keep downmodding my posts? You'll run dry of modpoints before I let you idiots hide this http://science.slashdot.org/co...

* :)

Face facts: You can *try* to ban me out (you've tried before & failed), but now you've made it personal, & I will keep bumping that up yet again.

Go for it chumps. I'll outlast you & laugh, with ease, & once you "run outta modpoints gas"? I'll still be standing laughing at your intellectually limited & dull brains.

APK

P.S.=> Whoever's downmodding my posts is in for a BIG surprise, since there IS no banning me out (like the fine leadership around here has been doing regarding the BETA stuff, to others-> & also THIS lunacy outta EA http://games.slashdot.org/stor... - pitiful. Idiots @ the top/the wheel of a ship that are BLIND & limited, don;'t realize how much destruction they do to themselves with stupidity like all of what's noted here in THIS article... apk

Slashdot banning folks now too?

[Anonymous Coward]

We see that you're resorting to the only thing your dim brains of "leadership" understand http://linux.slashdot.org/comm... banning people.

(This place is going to shit, point-blank: When you have to censor others exposing your crap? You're destroying yourselves... period)

Honestly: Did you *think* folks here don't see your antics, downmodding posts unjustifiably, OR banning others like in the link above? You tried that on me too, but, here I am!

APK

P.S.=> IF it's NOT the moderators (I suspect it is after that link above), then this is going to be CAKE to outlast the moron downmodding my posts (& I can keep this up forever)... apk

The End of Science in the US

[darkfuture]

There seems to be a huge lack of objectivity in science in the US today. Without government support for objective science, it all become politicized. When business runs science, it is just propaganda. Eventually people will become less healthy as the environment dies.
Everything in the US seems to be about ideology now. Fact do not matter, reality does not matter. It seems that nobody cares about reality, just ideology. Even on slashdot, ideology arguements abound.
The trouble, the ideologues can never see factual reality, they are blind to reason.

A business that makes a profit, while destroying the environment is just a wealth transfer vehicle. In economic terms that is a transfer of wealth to a few private hands from the people of the country. It would be cheaper overall just to tax the poor and hand the money to the rich, that way you would save the environment.

Re:The End of Science in the US

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow... if the Politicians in the Government aren't the ones funding the science - it becomes politicized. Did I miss a sarcasm tag?
Guess how fast grants dry up for a Phd Meteorologist that concludes that, though CO2 emissions have continued to escalate for the last 17 years, contrary to every computer model, average global temperatures have not.

The story here is that the EPA, (your non politicized science hero) is ignoring science and the Gangster Rapper has the real facts. Hummm. Which is funny, because the EPA refused to provide reproducible scientific data to justify it's positions. Slashdot almost thought that a law requiring them to verify their science would be embraced, until someone noticed that a Republican has submitted the law.

I know, like so many other things, what you really want is one set of rules for when Democrats are in power and another set for Republicans. People who love Communism always hold it in higher esteem than Democracy - it never changes. As people age, they learn more, they grow up, the have a deeper understanding of the broader society and history and - then they change their voter registrations to Republican. Happens every generation. Don't get mad, someday you will grow up to.

Re: Fight with numbers does not work fast enough

[Anonymous Coward]

nice troll.

CAPTCHA: lunatic

lol

Time for a bit of "Name & Shame"

[Anonymous Coward]

THIS is "positive" -> http://science.slashdot.org/co...

Looks like business marketing droid idiots resorting to the ONLY thing they understand to me (just like this article material shows, which we ALL know goes on as long as we have leaders in business or politics (corporate puppets put iin place by big money) that are undereducated cretins... & trust me, MOST are (frat boys part of some fraternal organization or religious cult usually that operate in packs/cliques). I've worked alongside many for decades in this field, & can honestly say that much. They don't understand the products they peddle (ala "I don't have to know how to do that- I hire someone who does" - DUMB! It opens the door for error without checking by TRUE 'superiors', not the owners relative or fellow mason etc.).

Wonder WHY the USA is going down? Look up (to our FINE leaders (not) at the top of things... it tells you everything along with history (roman empire & corruption + sloth). The "infamous they" often say, "If you don't know history, you're bound to repeat it"... they WHY ON EARTH are they repeating the mistake of the Roman Empire?

APK

P.S.=> All I can say to ANY of our "fearless leaders" in business/politics is just what those schmucks do to YOU as an employee: LOOK @ YOUR RESULTS.... bad! apk

Re:Time for a bit of "Name & Shame"

[Anonymous Coward]

) )
Hey, nice to see you again APK!

How do you fight back against bogus bans?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is "the NEW slashdot" (banning dissenters) http://linux.slashdot.org/comm...

* Do you LIKE what you see there? I don't... they're downmodding my posts like mad, & I am ONLY telling it how it is, using concrete, verifiable & UNDENIABLE proofs as always.

APK

P.S.=> It's ludicrous: They're pulling a "Windows 8" with this 'beta' site - NOBODY WANTS IT, except the marketing droids for tracking (mandatory javascript? Are they OUT OF THEIR F'ing MINDS? It's the #1 malware delivery system out there, bar-none... & they want YOU to have to use it? Hell - advertizers don't give a shit who pays them (which IS why I can literally put up DOZENS of examples of adbanners bearning hostile code in them no less))... they're truly "losing it" & feel sorry for the staff here actually, having to kowtow to those SCUMBAGS, to keep a job... apk

Was this "reputable" from /.? No

[Anonymous Coward]

This is "the NEW slashdot" (banning dissenters) http://linux.slashdot.org/comm...

REAL "REPUTABLE" there, eh? Not!

* Do you LIKE what you see there? I don't... they're downmodding my posts like mad, & I am ONLY telling it how it is, using concrete, verifiable & UNDENIABLE proofs as always.

APK

P.S.=> It's ludicrous: They're pulling a "Windows 8" with this 'beta' site: Mr.Ballmer MUIST be the new CEO here, lol, but hey - NOBODY WANTS IT, except the marketing droids for tracking (mandatory javascript? Are they OUT OF THEIR F'ing MINDS? It's the #1 malware delivery system out there, bar-none... & they want YOU to have to use it? Hell - advertizers don't give a shit who pays them (which IS why I can literally put up DOZENS of examples of adbanners bearning hostile code in them no less))... they're truly "losing it" & feel sorry for the staff here actually, having to kowtow to those SCUMBAGS, to keep a job... apk

No, THIS is the new slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

This is "the NEW slashdot" (banning dissenters) http://linux.slashdot.org/comm...

REAL "REPUTABLE" there, eh? Not!

* Do you LIKE what you see there? I don't... they're downmodding my posts like mad, & I am ONLY telling it how it is, using concrete, verifiable & UNDENIABLE proofs as always.

APK

P.S.=> It's ludicrous: They're pulling a "Windows 8" with this 'beta' site: Mr.Ballmer MUIST be the new CEO here, lol, but hey - NOBODY WANTS IT, except the marketing droids for tracking (mandatory javascript? Are they OUT OF THEIR F'ing MINDS? It's the #1 malware delivery system out there, bar-none... & they want YOU to have to use it? Hell - advertizers don't give a shit who pays them (which IS why I can literally put up DOZENS of examples of adbanners bearning hostile code in them no less))... they're truly "losing it" & feel sorry for the staff here actually, having to kowtow to those SCUMBAGS, to keep a job... apk

tortious interference

[Anonymous Coward]

It is. It's called tortious interference.

Of course, he would need to prove to a court that he isn't full of shit...

Re:US

[Anonymous Coward]

Corporation are considered people under the US LAW

Slashcott!

[LaminatorX]

This site used to be great. Even in it's latter days, it's been good. That is poised to change. Before long, it will be mediocre, and ordinary.

I didn't see a problem when Dice Holdings initially bought Slashdot. I figured there would be efforts to drive nerd traffic towards their job listings and such. That was fine. We all need jobs.

Things have changed now. Beyond the shifts in story choices, the slashvertisements, and so on, something fundamental has changed: Slashdot's owners do not appreciate it.

Their recent financials show that they have written its value as an asset down to zero. They have legally claimed it to be worthless. That is at the root of what is happening now. They want to fundamentally change the nature of this site in order to remake it into something with big growth potential.

Beta is just the latest symptom of this disease. It will not be the last. In striving to make it into a site that will bring them a growing user base and growing revenue per user, they have shown a willingness to dumb down the interface in the name of making it more accessible to newcomers, to cast aside essential elements of decade-spanning community culture, and to plow ahead with changes in the face of overwhelmingly negative user feedback.

This is not going to change. This will not go away. I will not support it.

I will be gone for this entire week, in protest. While away, I will work to create a new community where things can be run with quality user discussions as the paramount objective.

Be seeing you.

Re:As a Republican

[Anonymous Coward]

This is exactly the reason I choose not to vote for mitt romney, the scum are the money changers

Yes, they were

[Anonymous Coward]

The lenders to Trump *for sure* wrote those loans off as bad debt/business losses when he defaulted and went bankrupt on them. That got the lenders some very big tax benefits. Which were paid by *ta daa* the US taxpayers!

Re: Yes, they were

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. People think write-offs are some magical thing that makes you richer. This is a fallacy.

Writing off bad debt doesn't give you a tax benefit. It just means you don't pay taxes on that money you never got back.

It's always better (financially) to make money and pay taxes on it than not to make the money in the first place. It's like any expense.

Spoken as a small business owner.

Re: Yes, they were

[NemosomeN]

I've always been baffled at why people believe this. If this were the case, nobody would have insurance, and people would be burning down their own businesses, because tadaa! write-off! It just makes no sense, but people take it as gospel.

I have to have a subject in a reply???

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no malice aforethought in libel/slander. You're mixing crime and tort. I understand where you're going with this though. People do have a right of assembly, and so they can form a "company". A company may be fake legally, existing to do nothing that it claims it will do. That isn't fraud. Fraud is very specific legally. What could be done is a complaint to the state in which the company was incorporated (if it was), and then demanding that the articles of incorporation be taken away (if existing), but that still wouldn't stop the same people from forming another group under another name without formal incorporation whose sole purpose is to discredit someone. Consider the number of political groups that exist and serve a primary function of discrediting politicians.

Criminal

[Anonymous Coward]

What the company did is at least in my country a criminal act and punisheable.

This is a case for law enforcement.

Absolutely agreed, 110%

[Anonymous Coward]

They're ALL fillthy pieces of shit, every one of them. Look @ any major corporations "campaign contributions" & you figure it out, fast (it's public record) - they BACK BOTH SIDES (there is no 2 sides, just same one owned by same puppet masters), hedging their bets...

All so they can CONTINUE their outrageous charade of "2 parties"... what amazes me MOST? People FALL FOR THE SHIT! Even when it's AT OUR EXPENSE for Pete's sake!

* Scumbags, the WORLD over, play good folks against 1 another... why? Keep 'em divided, fighting amongst themselves, so they won't wise up to that bullshit!

(You have NO IDEA how much I absolutely HONESTLY truly HATE those scumbags... no idea!)

APK

P.S.=> Jig is up, FINALLY though I hope - too many people are dead up WISED up, like you have... apk

Atrazine

[Viceroy Potatohead]

I used to farm... A bit of information that's kind of interesting about atrazine. Locally, at least, it was only ever used on corn, and would pretty much wipe anything else out. It's residual effects are pretty striking, and if we sprayed it on a field of corn, then corn would be the only thing that would grow on the field the next year as well. Anecdotally, I've known some farmers who could only grow corn for *five years* on land that had been sprayed too heavily. It pretty much made the ground sterile for anything else.

I'm off to boycott... FUCK BETA

Re:Atrazine

[Anonymous Coward]

That shit isn't free! Why the hell did you spray that much? Mother of god! We wick beans because we're cheap, but good god, we've never sprayed enough to affect next year's crop.

Re:US

[Plunky]

and yet, corporations can be owned by people, and other corporations.

actually, I think it is the latter, that engenders a whole lot of mischief and should be disallowed.

was it justified?

[stenvar]

How do scientists fight a PR war against corporations with unlimited pockets? How far should they go?

Perhaps the first question to ask is whether his "PR war" is justified. The EPA (under Clinton) and APVMA (Australia's equivalent) decided there was no evidence atrazine was harmful, and several studies failed to reproduce his results.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...

So, the flipside of that question is: what should companies do against persistent but scientifically baseless attacks? Almost anything they can do can be twisted around to make them look even more manipulative and guilty.

Re:was it justified?

[Anonymous Coward]

What should companies do against persistent but scientifically baseless attacks? Almost anything they can do can be twisted around to make them look even more manipulative and guilty.

Here's a good 2-step plan:

1) Stop using your money to buy influence; it makes you look manipulative and guilty.

2) Lobby for the government to fund scientists at a level where studies can be done on your products without you having to bias them by paying for them yourself

Bonus points) Lobby for the government to make buying influence illegal

Triple score if you get your own lobbying agency outlawed.

Re:was it justified?

[hey!]

Perhaps the first question to ask is whether his "PR war" is justified.

Actually, you're confusing the issue. It's fine to debate the environmental impact of atrazine, but that's not the question at hand. The issue is *the ground rules of a fair and civilized debate*.

I can't punch you in the mouth to shut you up, just because you're wrong. A civilized debate allows the wrong side to make its case without harassment, because freedom to have only "correct" opinions is no freedom at all.

So, the flipside of that question is: what should companies do against persistent but scientifically baseless attacks? Almost anything they can do can be twisted around to make them look even more manipulative and guilty.

Seriously, you don't know the answer to this question? You can't see a more appropriate response than a campaign of dirty tricks and character assassination? Well, lets start with what they shouldn't do if they want to avoid looking manipulative and guilty: they should't harass people and invade their privacy.

Re:was it justified?

[stenvar]

You can't see a more appropriate response than a campaign of dirty tricks and character assassination? Well, lets start with what they shouldn't do if they want to avoid looking manipulative and guilty: they should't harass people and invade their privacy.

No, actually I can't see a more appropriate response. After the EPA and other agencies looked at his data and rejected it, the scientific debate was over. If Hayes wanted to make more contributions as a scientist, the only way to do it would have been to produce more scientific results.

Instead of producing more scientificdata to convince others, Hayes apparently went on a personal crusade and PR campaign. At that point, Hayes ceased to be a scientist and started being an activist without sufficient scientific data to back up his claims. At that point, his character and motivations became valid issues; he might well have had a financial motive for hurting the company, or a personality problem.

It's not a pretty situation, and the company could probably have handled it better. But it doesn't fit the narrative of innocent scientist being hounded by big, bad company. This is not a "corporate war against a scientist".

Re:was it justified?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you fucking retarded? Lets find out...

"1) Stop using your money to buy influence; it makes you look manipulative and guilty."

Ok, fair enough...

"2) Lobby for the government to fund scientists at a level where studies can be done on your products without you having to bias them by paying for them yourself"

Because of your rule #1, they cant lobby the govt. What the fuck do you think lobbying is if not spending money to buy influence?

Also, your #2 is effectively saying they should lobby the govt for corporate welfare. No, we taxpayers should not foot the bill to pay for studies of private companies products, fuck that.

"Bonus points) Lobby for the government to make buying influence illegal"

This makes absolutely no sense. Buy influence in order to make buying influence illegal??

Youre a fucking idiot.

Re:was it justified?

[LaughingVulcan]

No, actually I can't see a more appropriate response. After the EPA and other agencies looked at his data and rejected it, the scientific debate was over. If Hayes wanted to make more contributions as a scientist, the only way to do it would have been to produce more scientific results.

Not speaking to Hayes per se, but I'm sure that the Roman Catholic church considered Copernicus and Galileo's debate over after publishing their decrees. How lucky we are that the universe continued to be the way it is instead of the way people thought about it. There certainly is some point where scientific debate ends, but not when Authority Says It Does. That really is the province of organized religion and politics, friend, not science.

Re:was it justified?

[Anonymous Coward]

If Hayes wanted to make more contributions as a scientist, the only way to do it would have been to produce more scientific results.

Sometimes things in science are this straightforward, that whoever it is important to convince will be convinced by just giving them more or improved data. But unfortunately, way too often this isn't how out in many real world situations. The next best thing is to have some work rejected and be told a specific threshold that needs to be met for them to be convinced, although this it might turn out they will just move the goal posts, or that pick a goal that is difficult or impossible to obtain, regardless of the truth and certainty of current results, or pick a goal that is inconsistent with thresholds needed for other results on other policies. Other times you end up with things rejected for arbitrary or vague reasons, some of which show clear misunderstanding of already existing work (or suggest willful ignorance...). At some point, you have a situation where it becomes clear more research will not change things.

Re:was it justified?

[stenvar]

There certainly is some point where scientific debate ends, but not when Authority Says It Does.

You're absolutely right. And scientific debate continues by scientists reproducing experiments and contributing more and more scientific results. That's what proved Galileo right, and what failed to happen in Hayes' case. Instead, Hayes hung up his scientific hat and became an activist, and that is not part of "scientific debate".

I'm sorry you don't understand the difference, "friend".

Re:was it justified?

[Anonymous Coward]

At some point, you have a situation where it becomes clear more research will not change things.

And I didn't say that there was anything wrong with him becoming an activist. Good for him! Many scientists have chosen to become activists. But he has to accept that in that case, he isn't acting as a scientist anymore, he is an activist with insufficient scientific data to make his case, and people are going to treat him accordingly. In different words, as far as the rest of the world is concerned, he's now roughly in the same category as an anti-vaccine crusader, an AIDS denialist, or someone arguing for intelligent design; that still doesn't mean he's wrong, just that other people understandably treat him differently from a scientist arguing a scientific case.

Have a look at another Berkeley activist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is peanuts compared to the defense industry buying itself a whole government to discredit peacemongers. I mean, terrorist sympathisants. How is the U.S. supposed to sustain, Imean, end terrorism without continuously raining death from the skies on Yemen and Pakistani civilians, I mean, enemy combattants?

Recruit the CoS

[Anonymous Coward]

The Church of Scientology knows all the counter moves against these greedy companies like stalking the CEO and his family, discrediting company science division with hecklers and trolls and getting strangers following the corporate security and public relations.
During normal times the Evil is fought by the Good, but in times like these, another kind of Evil is needed.

Unfortunately nothing new here

[gnalre]

This is nothing new. When big business and science collide, big business know no bounds as to what they will do to protect there profit margin

Examples include

Industry attacks against Clair Patterson from the leaded fuel industry.
The tobacco lobby against health professionals
The CFC industry against climate scientists

They continue today with attacks against climate scientists from big oil and coal concerns.

The worry is that the public seem more minded to side with the vested interests against the scientific voice and the fact that many of the attacks come from scientists working within the industry showing a severe lack of morality by the people in those areas. All industry seem to have to do is raise the spectre of potential economic harm and the public go along with them.

You mean like the dropped regulation

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like the dropped regulation in the USA about failsafes and backup processes on the drill casing head that exists elsewhere in the world, but the USA government didn't have? The regulation that would have stopped that event?

Yes, lack of regulation caused the problems there. The regulations were insufficient. Yet you want to pretend that if they're insufficient, they should be removed entirely?!?

And that stalker is just walking around.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, right.

Information - Slashdot Beta

[Anonymous Coward]

Just think:

In the effort to monetize their "Audience", how far will Slashdot's new ownership go?

Every post is recorded, every user known. Even those from otherwise anonymous posts.

A wealth of information in the form of options is locked away in the Slashvaults.

How could it be used to hurt you and who would be willing to pay for it?

This site is already dead.

Business as Usual, historically speaking.

[Medievalist]

The USA has always had megacorps that were willing to attack scientists in order to keep on poisoning the people of the USA.

See, for example, how Kehoe, Kettering and Midgely (working for GM, DuPont and the Ethyl Corporation) attacked the reputations and careers of whistle-blowing scientists (like Patterson, Landrigan and Needleman) in order to hide the horrific effects of lead poisoning. The high toxicity of lead was known in the 19th century, and well quantified by the mid-1930s, but hidden from the US public until the 1970s by a concerted corporate disinformation campaign.

In just the last century, we increased our exposure to lead in the environment by 625 times and the effects are going to last for several more generations at least. This poisoning of generations of children, with literally many millions of victims, was done to maximize corporate profits for America's ruling class. And in today's political climate - with Reagan corporatist Obama actually considered to be left-wing or even socialist - you can expect this sort of behavior will continue.

So you are saying

[turkeyfish]

that some of the world's most eminent mathematicians and scientists are crackpots simply because they have been from Berkeley. No wonder you post as an Anonymous Coward.

Exacty

[turkeyfish]

Corporations should have the right to spew as much toxic pesticide into the environment as they want.

By then

[turkeyfish]

the Earth will have overheated and so thoroughly polluted with toxic pesticides that life will become impossible.

Nice

[Anonymous Coward]

Was this in in country where they believe in unhindered free market. This is good example why totally free market will newer work in reality. Money has no moral, only greed. And human life and suffering is cheap when there is greedy people wanting more money...

Corporations flood journals with misinformation AL

[ToddInSF]

Seriously, the faith people have in the journals is simply idiotic.

"Science" and "scientists" have always, and will always be for sale. I have more respect for an honest whore than I do most corporate "scientists".

A paid shill calls Hayes a "junk scientist"

[Anonymous Coward]

From the article:

"Steven Milloy, a freelance science columnist who runs a nonprofit organization to which Syngenta has given tens of thousands of dollars, wrote an article for Fox News titled "Freaky-Frog Fraud," ... Milloy characterized Hayes as a "junk scientist" and dismissed his "lame" conclusions as "just another of Hayes' tricks.”"

I'd like to point out that Steven Milloy is also a climate change "skeptic" who calls Climatology "junk science".
Makes you wonder how much Milloy is getting "funded" by the Fossil Fuel industry for his "skepticism" on that topic too!

leave it to the experts

[Khashishi]

I do not have the expertise to make a reasoned judgement here, and I'm gonna assume most of you don't either. When media tries to do science, it's a dangerous thing. It could go either way, with cigarette companies paying doctors to promote their products, and rogue doctors raising doubt in things like vaccines.

There does seem to be some institutional failure in place---Why does it sound like all the studies on Atrazine are funded by Syngenta? On the one hand, companies should be the ones to pay the bill for research to prove their products are safe. But, it does seem that conflict of interest is an ingrained part of the system.

Re: Fight with numbers does not work fast enough

[riverat1]

The CFC issue was about far more than the ozone hole over Antarctica (which is still there BTW, it's just not getting worse any more). There was ozone depletion going on globally as well and ozone's role in blocking UVB radiation is important to all life on Earth.