'Science-Speak'

[aerohead]

The following are excerpts from a paper published by G.L. Tyler et al, 18-scientists who were part of the Radio Science Subsystem ( RSS ) experiment aboard the Voyager-2 space probe, published in Science, VOL. 246, 15 December, 1989, ' Voyager Radio Science Observations of Neptune and Triton', 6-pages, 42-references, representing Stanford University, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Cal Tech, and Institute of Space & Astronomical Science, Japan.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've culled the specifics of the text, only wanting to showcase how these scientists present their data, from on-going data reduction and processing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
' Although the reduction and assimilation of data is progressing, the results for the... are not yet understood to our satisfaction. Until further progress is made in this area, we adopt the ... derived through application of this technique of... for use in reducing the ... data.
This result appears to be consistent with the ... inferred from... scans with the ... which may be indicative of... in the ... In general, our ... compare favorably with the ... structure derived from Earth-based observation of...
For... the observed... corresponds closely to the ... rate computed when the specific ... is treated as a ... and ... The same situation is observed on... and provides an important constraint on the ... and ... of this region of the ... However, this initial result should be interpreted with some caution because of the possible influence on the ... of a...'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've personally experienced known propaganda published in this same journal, identified by other scientists in the same field of study, in which the money trail led back to creatures of the fossil-fuel industry. That's for a different thread.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's been a great privilege to be able read these very expensive journals, and experience communications directly from the source.
And after experiencing the real thing, it's helped me develop a 'nose' for biased, prejudiced narratives which actually DO have agendas associated with them. Vested interests whom stand to lose should certain light be shone in certain dark corners. Real conspiracy.
Having even a small exposure to scientific discourse can arm a person with the ability to identify certain 'odors' when reading.

[redpoint5]

"Follow the money" is more apropos to climate catastrophism than Big Oil. You don't have to coerce people into using oil because it's so fundamental to modern living. That's not to say the industry is faultless, but there's way more conspicuous corruption with regards to coercion in the form of "going green".

Politicians don't "follow the science", they follow their constituents interests and are influenced by corporate money. Differently phrased, politicians are influenced by corporations and persuade their constituents to see things their way. People respond to incentive no matter which side of any particular topic they are on, and as such, are susceptible to corruption.

The cancer isn't Big Oils political influence, but corporatism itself. Singling out individual instances is a distraction from solving the fundamental problem at a higher level of analysis.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

"Follow the money" is more apropos to climate catastrophism than Big Oil. You don't have to coerce people into using oil because it's so fundamental to modern living. That's not to say the industry is faultless, but there's way more conspicuous corruption with regards to coercion in the form of "going green".

Politicians don't "follow the science", they follow their constituents interests and are influenced by corporate money. Differently phrased, politicians are influenced by corporations and persuade their constituents to see things their way. People respond to incentive no matter which side of any particular topic they are on, and as such, are susceptible to corruption.

The cancer isn't Big Oils political influence, but corporatism itself. Singling out individual instances is a distraction from solving the fundamental problem at a higher level of analysis.

Please start a dedicated thread for this material. A worthy topic.
I stated that this sort of thing is for a different thread.
It tends to adulterate, and de-focus scientific-level communication premise for the thread.
I only wanted the uninitiated to understand that there is a spectrum of communication fidelity out in the real world, and it's very important that an individual be able to discern the difference between 'fact' and fiction.

[freebeard]

I stated that this sort of thing if[sic] for a different thread.

Truth?