On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 11:28:05 -0600, xorbit wrote:

You and others who repeat this oft-heard canard have not the slightest
clue about how science works. Scientists rarely get published by simply
agreeing with some other research, the exceptions being initial
corroborations of new findings. Scientists get published (generally a
prerequisite for being paid) for either building significantly on the
findings of others or successfully refuting them. Those scientists who
successfully refute existing theories or advance new ones are the ones
most research institutions want the most.

The reason most scientists' findings currently corroborate anthropogenic
warming is because that's what the available data says. If there is
yet-undiscovered credible data that contradicts the current theory, it
will be discovered and validated, and a new theory formulated to
incorporate it. That's how science works.

-ts

xorbit xorbit (AT) nospam (DOT) ca said:
Dom Perigon because of those lucrative government grants, while the poor Exxon
executives starve in the street, is just disgusting.

Al Gore is financed by the Communists and invented the Global Warming fairy
tale so he could destroy the SUV and oil industries, creating the collapse of
US government and open the door for him to seize control and execute his
diabolical plan of global socialist world government.

It is the duty of all Conservatives to fight this lie tooth and nail.

ts ts_0053NO (AT) SPAMyahoo (DOT) com said:


From The Guardian, 2/2/07:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/...004399,00.html

Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study

Ian Sample, science correspondent
Friday February 2, 2007
The Guardian

Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby
group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine
a major climate change report due to be published today.

Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an
ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush
administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the
shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC).

__________________________________________________

From The Christian Science Monitor, 1/31/07:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0131/p01s04-uspo.html

Bush administration has suppressed scientists' climate-change work.

xorbit wrote:
That's not true of more than a handful - and if they were funded by oil
companies then you would be right to put your suspicious hat on until
the work was repeated and extended elsewhere. But when you have a large
number of mostly government funded scientists (and government funding
over here is largely decided by how much you publish, not by what's in
it) all saying the same thing, you cannot say that their scientific
integrity is all compromised and remain credible. Publication is, by the
way, dependent on doing something new or different or that goes against
the established work, not by being a sheep - no journal worth reading
would publish a paper that basically consists of "What he said". In
short, your attitude is one of someone who buys the conspiracy theories
peddled by people who are just as selective in their use of evidence as
the scientists whose arguments you impugn.

--
Phil

http://www.usefilm.com/photographer/31307.html

Kilgore Trout trout (AT) midland (DOT) com said:
metallic pellets. You can have a full tank of hydrogen in that form and fire
incendiary bullets into it with no explosive effect whatsoever. Although there
is leakage, there would be leakage with petrol or any other fuel as well.

The only drawback would be the weight of it.

Kilgore Trout trout (AT) midland (DOT) com said:
Why do you ask such stupid questions?

ts wrote:
If you don't understand science, then don't post about it. For your
information, science works by peer review - both in terms of
publications and grant reviews. It is well known that the best way to
get grants and publications is to endorse the position of the people who
are reviewing your work. On the other hand, if your work sets out to
criticize or debunk these people's work, obviously they are not going to
be interested in supporting it. Try reading Thomas Kuhn's "Structure of
Scientific Revolutions" to understand how social factors rather than
evidence often determine the progression of science.

ts wrote:

Not only do I have a clue, but I have been intimately involved.



No, but they get paid by the funding organization to do research that
supports the views of that organization. If they are funded by a group
that stands to profit from a particular result, the researchers better
make sure their results are "right".


Scientists get published (generally a

But they only get funding IF the results they seek are in line with the
views of the funding organizations. Those that refute must get funding
to do the work.

No bucks, no Buck rogers.



How naive....

That's the way it should work, but the big money has changed everything.

Nobody disputes global warming, only the cause. Its so easy to take
atmospheric measurements and deduce that the changes are the cause of
global warming. "There's changes in the atmosphere, therefore it must
be causing the warming."

The earth will warm regardless of what man does. The only question is
whether there's a chance that man might cause a minor change in the
rate. So far, there is NO evidence that suggests it except for a study
where teh formula for computering the impact was changed by the
researchers to match the dewsired results.

Mark mark (AT) eliminatespam (DOT) com said:

"xorbit" <xorbit (AT) nospam (DOT) ca> skrev i melding
news:skqxh.71$HS2.65 (AT) newsfe06 (DOT) lga...
So how come European scientists that are funded by their government, with no
"views of the funding organizations" to consider, end up with the same view
as presented in the present UN document?
Doc