Comment Re:Well done, smart guy (Score 1) 247
You have no idea how bills are passed, do you?
It really shows.
You have no idea how bills are passed, do you?
It really shows.
The temperature last June was -135.4 degrees below 0. Laugh at that. Its just
That was in the year 2000. 15 years later with winters colder than ever we see that his "science" was wrong. The number of people freezing to death has not gone down. The number of snowfalls in Florida has not gone down (it snowed there in January). Now if you still believe in whack-jobs who are doing politics and not science then just keep supporting them and not requiring to disclose where they came across this new-found alien science that no one knows about but the Environmental Quacks and no one can see but them. That is how we wind up with anti-vaxxers and the zealots behind the GMO hysteria.
Ladies and gentlemen, I present the clearest demonstration of the anti-climate-change camp's lack of understanding about the difference between weather and climate and the total lack of understanding of the concept of an average.
Also interesting to note here that according to Slashdot, it's official that Safari is more notable than Chrome.
Must be market share or something.
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.
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.
The use of money is all the advantage there is to having money. -- B. Franklin
