"the other side does it too" is hardly exonerating from the standpoint of science and professional ethics
actually, the non-disclosure is the bigger issue.
"the other side does it too" is hardly exonerating from the standpoint of science and professional ethics
Darrin's delivery boy is paid by BigCorp to lie, IPCC science delivery boys are paid to do science.
As long as your work is sound, it doesn't matter who signs your paycheck. Evil "for profit" BigCarbon sponsors a LOT of climate change research, conferences, etc.
Can you list any scientists who got paid by BigCarbon/BigCorp whose "sound work" confirmed AGW?![]()
I already did
![]()
![]()
![]()
Link?
Just like cigarette companies sponsored a lot of cancer research?
(shrug)
Getting to the actual people involved is what the internet is for. I have, during the run of this thread, actually contacted one of the scientists involved in some study or another to ask a question and gotten an actual answer.
How exactly is getting to the best information possible a big thing?
I'm not the one making a claim sport-o.
Your claim, your burden.
I will ask again, how was posting a summary unethical?
and after they confirmed AGW, they continued to receive $$$ from BigCarbon/BigCorp?
There's no need to "confirm" AGW. No one denies the A or the G or the W. The "denial" is about the immediate need to "take action", or else climategeddon.
BS, the key denier points are:
1. global warming is not caused by man
2. global warming is natural
3. global warming has paused, so back off, cool it.
4. global warming can't be affected by man one way or the other, so do nothing (and above: emissions regulations, no carbon tax, don't touch BigCarbon/BigCorp profits)
5, AGW is a hoax
6. AGW is world-wide conspiracy.
7. don't call it AGW, call it the harmless sounding "climate change" euphemistic "issue"
Only double digit midgets believe that.
Oops...
My apologies to the little people. I didn't mean to offend you...
Are you saying none of it is natural?
We are still asking for a reliable explanation and model that will hold for the next 20 years.
Who is saying that? Link please.
Of course we play a role. We just aren't 100% of the changes.
My God, you have one active imagination!
You right wingers are so misinformed.
I've heard every one of those 7 points repeatedly, and most of them right here from You People.
Well, your paraphrasing is definately inaccurate.
Are you being intellectually dishonest, or is it stupid ignorance?
I suspect the latter.
I've talked about "the pause", or hiatus, which is even acknowledged by the IPCC.
Regardless of who signs the paycheck, professional ethics requires disclosure of possible conflicts of interest.
If your work is sound, why would you be furtive about who paid for it?
Oh well, at least he didn't have to resign amid sexual harassment allegations. That's what happened to the head of the IPCC today.
Good question. The answer:
"Because your work might attract a bit more skepticism and scrutiny, or the people paying for it, asked that they not be named as funding sources"
Pretty much.
I could comb through the last few hundred pages and find rather specific examples. WC is fond of the conspiracy angle and Darrin parrots it endlessly as well.
liar
From a few years back: http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post5414665
No conspiracy here.
Last edited by DarrinS; 02-24-2015 at 01:42 PM.
The CRU has taken in millions from "BigOil". FYI.
for sure you can deflect what you can't rebut, that hasn't changed.
There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)