Comment Re:Canada (Score 4, Funny) 253
I miss the good old days, when you knew to blame everything on the Axis of Evil, and you could solve all our problems by bombing Iraq.
I miss the good old days, when you knew to blame everything on the Axis of Evil, and you could solve all our problems by bombing Iraq.
It's to help decide "whether" to bomb someone.
Space heaters are fire hazards.
I think the PIAP activists have started eliminating the competition.
actually, one word is impossible due to the lameness filter
Maybe we can get the FCC to take that on next!
Up with service! Down with monopolies! Up with net neutrality! Down with regulation! Up with Pluto! Down with Kim Dotcom!
Wait a minute - Today's stories leave me feeling edgy and confused.
What jurisdiction does the IAU have outside this solar system anyway?
What jurisdiction do they have anywhere?
And to warp up, what makes money from the fossil fuel industry so dirty when its tied to papers that disagree with AGW but clean as white snow when its given to the AGW camp side? Because I'm sure you know that there is just as much, if not more money given by big energy to the AGW camp, from Shell, to Exxon, Koch and others.
I know - I mentioned this specifically earlier in the comments.
I have been funded by exactly that sort of money, in fact, in past research, although I am currently funded via a large general programme grant.
You're inferring that I think "oil money" is dirty. All I'm saying is that not disclosing your funding source *regardless of what your science says* is suspect.
He worked, as did his co-authors, on this paper on his own time.
As was disclosed.
Given the nature of the material in it, that is a very convenient dodge, and is certainly an unusual way to go about it.
There's obviously nothing wrong with that (assuming that your other funding sources can pay your bills), but it's not typical. Whether it is suspicious or not, it looks suspicious.
Is that why there are so many medical studies showing that smoking pot does not have short-term harmful effects? Standard? Sure. Ethical? My ass.
There are lots of papers that say that, just as there are many that say the opposite. It's not at all settled.
They all should disclose who is funding them though, as is typical.
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.
"Ninety percent of baseball is half mental." -- Yogi Berra
