For the sake of argument, let's say that I was a lead researcher on corn production and sustainability, and let's say that my work over the years has concluded that corn production rates in the US are not sustainable because of nutrient exhaustion in soils coupled with pollution. Would I be a bad person to invest in soybeans and rice? Is this not what people do daily on wall street? Why is it fair for one group but not the other?
No, I don't think that. I said I didn't think that. I said I understood how someone COULD think that. How someone could say, "yeah, he has a very serious profit motive." You asked what the agenda was. I'm telling you only what the perception is....how someone could point to profit motive pretty easily if they wanted to.
to be clear here...i'm not arguing that position. i'm not suggesting there's anything evil here about it.
No, what you're arguing is that the potential for a profit motive casts doubt over the research. Ordinarily, this would make sense, except that you're not talking about a cadre of companies with billions upon billions riding on a major shift in policy. In fact, those bajillion dollar companies generally want to maintain the status quo. Somehow, because Al Gore may have a few million invested in alternative energy and some scientists may have bought stock in GAAEX or formed a biofuels company on the side, we're supposed to doubt an arsenal of data? If Gore etc. did not invest in alternative energy, no doubt the climate change denier crowd would use that as another indication that the data was unclear. It's lose-lose. How conveniant. More importantly, I've yet to see someone tell me why cleaning the air, lowering risk of severe climate change, and reducing our dependence on assholes in the middle east for energy is, generically, a bad thing.
Precisely - commerce following science is not the same as commerce manufacturing junk science to support itself. GW is the accepted scientific theory - accordingly it drives a lot of politics. Nothing wrong with that. GW is a real-world problem that should influence politics. GW denialism isn't any pre-existing accepted theory, or any theory at all - y - rather it's a politically-created reactionary movement that manufactures its own version of science to support an industry. The two really aren't the same thing.
I'm not trying to cast doubt on anything. The question was asked, "what agenda would someone have to promote global warming." A possible agenda is what I said. That doesn't mean I believe that's what Gore intended. I don't believe it's logical to suggest that only one side of this argument has a potential profit motive. I'm not accusing either side of cooking the books or falsifying data. I completely agree with your last sentence. They're not bad things at all, an dI believe they're all worth pursuing.
As Sam pointed out, the difference is in the order. One has collected data, and determined a potential commerical effect. The other has a commercial interest to maintain regardless of data, but has manufactured subsequent data to reinforce that position. The denier crowd has no data. They have postulations and policy positions.
When one side's profit motive dwarfs the other by an order of magnitude literally millions of times greater? If you're saying a scientist seeking a $50,000 NOAA grant, and ExxonMobil, seeking to protect a $425 billion annual revenue stream are both equally corrupted by their potential profit motive with the way they would each study global warming - that's simply not a credible statement. I'll say it again, commerce that follows science is not the same thing as commercially-manufactured science to justify commercial existence.
Geez, I surrender. The only reason I dared post in this thread was just to respond to pgabriel's post. I stand by that response...I can understand how someone would PERCEIVE there's an ulterior motive to promoting the position. Again, I'm all for pursuing policies that clean up the earth and reduce dependence on foreign oil.
I find it ironic that those who champion the market critcizie people who advocate the idea of AGW for seeking to make a profit.
Agreed, but I think what the other guys were pointing out was the extreme length to which one would have to go to believe that the scientists have a greater profit motive than the oil industry. It is easier now for deniers to deny (because of the perception you pointed out), but it doesn't make their denials fact- or evidence-based.
Great blog post on the Chronicle. If you're skeptical about AGW, I suggest you read it: http://tinyurl.com/ycplawn Please don't just read the conclusion below, either. Click the link, read the entire article. Thanks in advance. The conclusion:
Do you really believe that the issue of global warming is a left/right political issue? Really? Are you that much of an ideologue?
Here is an article for you in response: You guys can try and spin this until your brains fly out of your ears, but this scandal is a crippling blow to the AGW alarmist movement. It was not going well before these revelations, as demonstrated by Obama's deliberations concerning whether or not he would even bother to attend the Copenhagen conference. As you may recall, this meeting was supposed to be the international signing of the replacement treaty for the Kyoto treaty. Instead, it is just going to be just another worthless photo opportunity. The fat lady is singing guys. Look, here she is now:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece This looks a little weird. Throwing away data to save space? Tapes do not take too much space. The excuse just seems a little lame. If they just scrapped paper and tapes and actually have the same data then that's one thing. If they only have the "homogenized" data saved, then it looks pretty bad. Are there any credible scientists who can comment? I'm not a credible scientist so I wouldn't know whether or not throwing away data is normal procedure. On the other hand - if they really wanted to "falsify" research, couldn't they have just made up the data to fit the theory? It can't be too difficult to generate false data could it? Some of the data was actually paper-based. I was a lazy-ass lab student back in college and made up data all the time.
Eh, at my old law firm we threw out/erased old backup tapes all the time. Oh, and PS, your devotion to that ancient religion will not help you conjure up those stolen data tapes.
Obligatory "That's no Moon..." reference. I don't know if this was standard practice but the loss of data certainly does raise skepticism in regard to this labs findings. What I am wondering though is even if this particular institution behaved unethically or at least sloppy, how much corroboration was there of their original findings? I will agree these recent revelations don't help to advance the theory of man made global warming but I don't believe this institution was the main researchers on this topic and far from the only.
I was in Cincinnati Ohio last week and stopped off at the Creationist Museum. Very friendly people in there, even the police officer out front. A lot of signs saying not to cause trouble or speak to other visitors - clearly they have had problems. I never made it inside - no, not because I said anything, but the fee was a whooping $22 - too much for a quick laugh.
