Comment Re:Attack the messenger... (Score 1) 394
Prove that he didnt.
Look at his paper and also at the sup for his paper. Is it in there?
Proof.
Next question?
Prove that he didnt.
Look at his paper and also at the sup for his paper. Is it in there?
Proof.
Next question?
In which case their funding source is the program grant that keeps them employed and pays his rent.
You realize the actual problem here is that he did not list those sources of funding. How do you and your idiot friends get modded up when the flipping summary tells you your wrong.
Reading comprehension. Practice it.
That is my point.
My point; that was it.
Point. Mine. Made.
>The letters come after evidence emerged over the weekend that Wei-Hock Soon, known as Willie, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, had failed to disclose the industry funding for his academic work. The documents also included correspondence between Dr. Soon and the companies who funded his work in which he referred to his papers and testimony as "deliverables." Soon accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers.
> At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work. "What it shows is the continuation of a long-term campaign by specific fossil-fuel companies and interests to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change," says Kert Davies.
Err, you're making my point for me? Thanks?
I assume you didn't understand my comment. You also forgot to log in.
And yet they have synthesized it and are putting it through trials for approval. I presume that means they expect it to be profitable. Many modern antibiotics are discovered and produced in much the same way as penicillin was except we have much more advanced technology. There are indications of whole new grove of low hanging fruit from soil bacteria.
Meanwhile, the early research in new drugs is frequently publicly funded at universities.
You seem to have missed my point. Growing penicillin is not difficult, and synthesising amoxicillin is also not that difficult. The research and money necessary to synthesise and test modern antibiotics is orders of magnitude bigger than the drugs of old for all manner of reasons.
Brilacidin *might* be profitable - it's not approved yet and it could still fail to make it to market. The vast majority of drugs never make it to market yet they costs millions in development anyway. It's an extremely expensive and difficult business with a high failure rate.
If his papers are fine then why did he not disclose his funding source?
If you are intelligent why is it that you buy into the implied lie that Soon's funding is Koch? That's just what the left is implying, they aren't saying it outright because it's not at all the case - only that Soon a while ago did accept some funding from Koch, not involved at all in this study.
Yet you bought that line, you made the leap they wanted you to make because you want to believe SO BADLY.
Think for yourself man and shrug off the nose ring!
Where did I say that I thought his funding was from Koch?
I said that he did not disclose his funding source and that makes it suspect.
Given the level of your argument though, it seems you're not interested in discussing it. You also forgot to log in. If you forgot your password then you can reset it by email.
So he works for free?
Must be nice.
Do you have any problem with investigating *all* scientists working on climate, or only on one side of the issue?
No, where did I say that I did?
Scientists are routinely investigated. Not just climate scientists but all scientists of all disciplines - it's part of the process. Accounting for the money used to fund your research is a major part of modern science and it is carefully tracked and audited, as are the sources used by groups and individuals.
It is your responsibility to disclose them in your published work, but that doesn't mean that people aren't also going to check if you don't - that's exactly why this story exists and why it is important. He didn't do so and an investigation caught it. This sort of financial scrutiny of scientists is not uncommon, and it happens to *all* scientists, even ones who don't work on climate science.
And if they don't list someone... there wasn't any support from said someone. Right. Scientists are just as prone to foibles, including hucksterism, as anyone. To believe otherwise is naive at best.
Well obviously, that's what the story is about after all, but in general these things don't happen - there's plenty of scrutiny of scientists from all sides as it is, especially in hot-button political topics like atmospheric science.
I can think of a zillion loopholes by which this will be evaded.
Is there a definition of what is THE internet? surely comcast can create a parallel construction and sell however they wish like a private toll road. It could have discrete points where it could tap into the "real" internet. Thus amazon or netflix or whomever could connect into this autobahn on the goes-into side and pop out into "the" internet at some Comcast hub in the customers town.
Picture it like FED Ex, transporting a package 90% of the way, then mailing it. the postoffice might not charge differently for different customers and Fed Ex might not either (or they could) but only customers with valuable deliveries would be willing to pay the cost of the combined service, which would be dominated by the Fed Ex high speed service.
That's effectively what companies like Akamai sell already and those are not part of the discussion of Net Neutrality.
It might be easy to regulate comcast if comcast is the parent company of both halves of this real and shadow internet. But if these services are split into two companies then what? Even if the shadow company is privately held by comcast this is going to be hard to regulate.
Eventually the shadow compaines won't even bother with their own hardware. They will lease a certain number of dedicated switches from Comcast for their own uses. these will be cut out of the real internet.
An alternative way around this is by selectively enforcing the tragedy of the commons. In principle Netflix could prioritize its packets on a neutral interenet by emitting 100 times as many packets where each packet is sent 100 times. the receiver ignores all but the first one of the redundant packets. This of course would be retaliated by others now squeezed out doing the same thing resulting in 100x the traffic for the same data and no gain for anyone. COmcast would come down hard on these miscreants but would it be selective?
As you decrease unnecessary color those colors that exist become much more visible from far away (i.e. at small sizes). Think about a match sized fire in a completely dark room or a single drop of red paint on a giant white wall. Decreasing distracting information increases the information density you can absorb.
I haven't seen an increase in screen sizes over the last few years. Moreover screen sizes as people migrate to smaller form factors like tablet style laptops are quite likely to go down not up. And you add in things like 2-3 pixels repeated a 5-10x across the screen x 1/2 dozen of these type of wastes and you are in the 100 pixels of waste. That can be something like 15% wasted space.
That shutting down funding of a contrary point of view is not exactly scientific best practice.
Who said anything about shutting it down?
All they want is for him to disclose who is funding him, as is standard practice in science.
Clearly they are not very good at their jobs because the source of funding is irrelevant. Unless you are accusing them of outright fraud, what matters is the research itself, it's replication and peer review.
Right, but the rule for publishing is that you disclose who paid for your research. If you don't do that then people aren't going to take the research seriously. Your funding source is most certainly not irrelevant at all. It doesn't mean that you automatically dismiss any work that us funded by an organisation you don't like, or who you assume has an agenda - you look at the research itself - but if you don't disclose then you're nowhere.
Soon's paper was fine. No lies, no fabricated data... And he attempts to explain the obvious elephant in the room: Why Climate Models Run Hot, which they obviously do.
Read more...
http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...
Billions and billions of dollars have been squandered on this boondoggle. No wonder so many people don't accountability.
Your source is suspect there, I'm afraid.
If his papers are fine then why did he not disclose his funding source? That's rule one about publishing your work. To not do so is very sketchy.
After any salary raise, you will have less money at the end of the month than you did before.
