Quote:
Originally Posted by oil pan 4
Yes scientists lie.
It's called conflict of interest, you may have heard of this.
When a study is done and the scientists know where the money for the study comes from they find a result favorable to company funding the study at least 2/3 of the time.
Tobacco companies did this.
The worst one were studies paid for by sugar companies on sugar and any adverse health effect, studies funded by big sugar companies found that sugar had no adverse effects in 100% of studies over a 15 year period, which is statistically impossible.
Funding conflict of interest is very well known. I find it surprisingthat people who think they know so much about science have never heard of this.
I drive a leaf. The oil companies can kiss my arse.
The money me and my wife spend on gas had dropped by at least 80%.
|
It's a little more complicated than that.
The way medical companies do it is they do several different studies on the efficacy of their drugs, and pick the one with the most favorable outcome to publish (but all are funded).
It's not the results that get you the money. You get that upfront. Researchers aren't rich, they need funding to carry out their research. And you have to do the work properly or you'll get savaged in the review... if the work is fraudulent, there's always a whole number of other researchers ready to call you out on it to take you down a peg. (remember what I said about conspiracy?)... you can get banned, fined, blacklisted, etcetera.
There will always be studies and papers countering the consensus. Denialists don't necessarily have to pay for them (but mouthpieces do receive a lot of money to do no research at all), they just exaggerate the importance of the outliers while glossing over the consensus.
-
I know quite a few researchers. They're sometimes jobless. They're always scrounging for funding. And they're dead serious about their work. Also, they tend to drive boring cars. Those that actually do drive.
-
If I was getting paid with big conspiracy money, I sure as hell wouldn't live like that. Better to get a BA in PolSci or Business or to go into market research. Because working corporate is oh-so-much more profitable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oil pan 4
https://amp.theguardian.com/environm...climate-denial
Chevron’s lawyer noted that the IPCC states that climate change is caused “largely by economic and population growth,” not fossil fuel extraction.
Can you say case dismissed?
Plus the oil companies didn't burn the vast majority of what they pulled out of the ground, we all did.
|
Gee, I wonder what energy sources are being used by that growing economy and population... (granted, there's also deforestation, over-utilization of resources, etcetera... but that seems like an extreme picking of nits by Chevron).
Also, in about-faces:
https://money.cnn.com/2017/12/12/inv...isk/index.html
https://www.laboratoryequipment.com/...limate-science
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/3...ution-approved
Couldn't fund actual studies to debunk climate change. Simply buried them or ignored them.
All while sending money to "thinktanks" to attack the consensus.
Common story. All too common.