tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3288462925756379716.post7254721389660443108..comments2013-01-03T05:53:29.294-08:00Comments on Left Right Across and Hold: Who's Kidding Who?Bernardo de la Pazhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13311733730523945450noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3288462925756379716.post-15146854980859217502010-11-30T13:42:39.607-08:002010-11-30T13:42:39.607-08:00I will respond in a separate post. I will say this...I will respond in a separate post. I will say this for now...<br /><br />True peer-review scientific inquiry *requires* an effort to DISPROVE a theory (not find a way to support it). You appear to operating from the position that the funding source for the research drives the 'scientific' results produced. Thus, if the provider of the funding desires a specific result, it'll be found by the 'research' it is supporting. This violates the principles of scientific integrity, a very serious allegation that should be dealt with harshly. <br /><br />However, Let's (temporarily) assume that allegation is True for AGW research.<br /><br />FACT: There is a LOT more money being spent by government-backed organizations than by private groups, e.g., oil & energy producers. And so, we must assume that the vast, vast sums of money being spent by government organizations will ALSO influence the results of THOSE research efforts. The sword cuts both ways...<br /> <br />The science behind legitimate research will stand up to an unbiased, logical review of the *DATA* (not unprovable opinions) REGARDLESS of who paid for it. <br /><br />Q: If you found an indirectly associated, non-tobacco organization with a clear vested interest in the process, i.e., medical and pharma groups, who generated reports SUPPORTING the position of tobacco companies, should that research be discarded SOLELY because the researchers were supported by a group that had a vested interest in the outcome? Of course not.<br /><br />I personally do not consider the source of the funding as relevant to the scientific integrity of the research, UNLESS the *results* of the research can be proven to be falsified. <br /><br />This entire discussion leads to tail-chasing... The research itself - on both sides - stands up under close scientific evaluation or it doesn't. Our personal preferences for a particular outcome should remain that way: personal. Period.<br /><br />More to come.<br /><br />- SteveSteve Greenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11281228341784551551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3288462925756379716.post-69624880327854658092010-11-28T20:28:53.911-08:002010-11-28T20:28:53.911-08:00Chris wrote in the main essay, "And here'...Chris wrote in the main essay, "And here's the real kicker: amazingly, some of the same 'scientific consultants' who worked on behalf of the tobacco companies to discredit the scientific consensus on tobacco smoke, are today involved in an effort to discredit the consensus on climate change."<br /><br />I believe you might like the following:<br /><br />"For those who are interested, here is a list in alphabetical order of 32 organizations involved in both the denial campaign surrounding tobacco and that surrounding Anthropogenic Global Warming. I also researched the organizations to see which would appear to be libertarian, including a source for each."<br /><br />Blowing Smoke: 32 Organizations...<br />http://climate-guardian.agilityhoster.com/smokeTimothy Chasehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16400529485899488733noreply@blogger.com