An Inconvenient Ruling for An Inconvenient Truth

[pinhead]

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine "The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine is a non-profit research institute established in 1980 to conduct basic and applied research in subjects immediately applicable to increasing the quality, quantity, and length of human life"

Not an accredited university. Not a scientific journal. Looks like they work out of a barn.

Of the "faculty" members.
Martin Kamen died in 2002
Bruce Merrifield died in 2006
Fred Westall is a biochemist and the others are chemists, physicians and a veterinarian.

Its president Arthur Robinson " an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war.
He publishes a`: "pro-science, pro-technology, pro-free enterprise monthly newsletter packed with information and comment on science, technology and energy and on those who would restrict your access to it."
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...e_and_Medicine

These are the people you are getting your information about the climate on.

Look at http://realclimate.com for the comments of scientists who actually work in the field including climate

Originally Posted by Quagmire

Peer reviewed scientific paper and petition.

[

From this site

http://www.oism.org/

This and other papers are why I'm on the fence.

- Show me other papers you base your conclusions on.

[trilinearmipmap]

One of the problems with peer-reviewed scientific research is the scientists are dependent on grant money. Those honest scientists with the balls to debunk the global warming groupthink quickly find their research funding has dried up.

I do understand science better than most, I also understand the limitations of science and the pressure researchers face to come up with the "right" findings. What I object to is politics interfering with science.

[pinhead]

Originally Posted by trilinearmipmap

One of the problems with peer-reviewed scientific research is the scientists are dependent on grant money.

All research is dependant funding. That source of the funding is usually the University's own research budget, governments, charitable foundations, the military or corporations. The military and corporations are less likely to fund research that is not going to result in some useable product or application. Very rarely will these groups fund pure science for altruistic reasons.

Consider the court case that started this thread. It was started by a headmaster who was funded by "a powerful network of business interests with close links to the fuel and mining lobbies"

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_ne...190770,00.html

Originally Posted by trilinearmipmap

Those honest scientists with the balls to debunk the global warming groupthink quickly find their research funding has dried up.

If you look at the previous post. The scientific method and inductive reasoning searches for the truth whatever that may be. Some conclusions will be unpopular and against popular opinion but opinions have no role in science.

It is through experimentation, collection of data and publication in peer reviewed journals (peers = scientists conducting research in that field) that our body of knowledge increases.

Have you got any names of debunking scientists who have lost funding?

Originally Posted by trilinearmipmap

I do understand science better than most, I also understand the limitations of science and the pressure researchers face to come up with the "right" findings. What I object to is politics interfering with science.

Ignore the politicians and the lobbyists. Don't accept one one side or another says.

Look at the research from the scientists with an open mind and no preconceptions. If you truly understand how science works you'll see that global warming is real.

[andresont]

Originally Posted by trilinearmipmap

One of the problems with peer-reviewed scientific research is the scientists are dependent on grant money. Those honest scientists with the balls to debunk the global warming groupthink quickly find their research funding has dried up.

I do understand science better than most, I also understand the limitations of science and the pressure researchers face to come up with the "right" findings. What I object to is politics interfering with science.

This is so true !

That is exactly why Al Gore fired his chief scientist.
Poor guy had guts to disagree with Al Gore

[woodcarver]

You should have watched Fifth Estate last night !! ALL of the global warming debunkers are paid by the oil companies and encouraged by a lazy uninvestigative press.
With regard to the British judge , if the full report was printed it would show that in fact he said that the movie was mostly accurate and supported by substantial scientific research .
The naysayers have zero credibility and are not supported by ANY current scientific studies ....................

......................Dave

[trilinearmipmap]

The 5th estate is a CBC show. The CBC is the state-funded (read my tax dollars funded) network. I do not appreciate my tax dollars funding the CBC with its inherent left-wing biases.

[midgetwaiter]

Originally Posted by trilinearmipmap

The 5th estate is a CBC show. The CBC is the state-funded (read my tax dollars funded) network. I do not appreciate my tax dollars funding the CBC with its inherent left-wing biases.

I just watched it, it's available on their site. You obviously didn't.

They reported facts.

I guess like Stephen Colbert says "Facts have a known left wing bias."

[trilinearmipmap]

I watched the show last night. I was alarmed by the biases and mistruths in the show.

I am also concerned that my tax dollars pay for a show that is attacking the (Harper) government that I voted for.

The only guy who made any sense at all on that show was the guy at the end who basically said "we should leave politics out of it and just do the science, not everything has to be about politics". My feelings exactly.

[andresont]

Originally Posted by woodcarver

You should have watched Fifth Estate last night !! ALL of the global warming debunkers are paid by the oil companies and encouraged by a lazy uninvestigative press.
With regard to the British judge , if the full report was printed it would show that in fact he said that the movie was mostly accurate and supported by substantial scientific research .
The naysayers have zero credibility and are not supported by ANY current scientific studies ....................

......................Dave

I am not arguing global worming, as I stated before all the planets in our solar system are worming up.
What I am saying is that humans are not the main reason for it.
We can argue until the cosmic cows come home about the reasons and who is paying for what, but why don’t we try to come up with solution rather then feeding our own ego trying to prove our point?

Perhaps alternative energy is a good way to go?


~~~

[Pan]

Originally Posted by andresont

I am not arguing global worming, as I stated before all the planets in our solar system are worming up.
What I am saying is that humans are not the main reason for it.
We can argue until the cosmic cows come home about the reasons and who is paying for what, but why don’t we try to come up with solution rather then feeding our own ego trying to prove our point?

Perhaps alternative energy is a good way to go?


~~~

To fix something you generellay need to know what is causing the problem, you must know how and why something is doing whatever it is it is doing. It would be like taking viagra for a headache....you need to think about things before (as you put it it something about ego's) attack the problem or you could at the least do no good or make it a lot worse. If it is a naturally occuring happenstance that the world is getting warmer, through no fault of our own, then why fix it? it's occuring naturally is it not? If humans are casuing it , we should surely wish to know would we not? The problem with humans are, we are human, no one, not one of us as the intellect to be able to comprehend the nature of even a rock, let alone the universe, which seems to be why everytime we do one thing, we ruin 20 others. Everything is interconnected wether we like it or not, everything effects everything else. Not giving this as a reason to stop doing things, just think about what we are doing...deeply, change on this front would require a serious shift in the way we humans think of ourselves. We look at the world and everything as ours, not as we should just simply the most indusrtious animal on the planet, one of millions and millions of species, not the ONLY one. We need a shift in huiman conciousness or nothig will matter anymore. No not religious.... For example why until modern humans, did only a very few local natives live in arizona? NO WATER. Only enough lived there able to be supported by the little water that was there. Along comes modern humanity and builds cities there, and in Nevada...pump in water casue there is none there, then complains how hard it is to live there. People need some personally accountability as well. Some people, honestly do not have the bloody intellligence to take on such matters, and these are the people we need to worry about, because as long as they have there cell phones, crowded beaches and stupid gadgets THEY are happy, so naturally the world must be going well for everyone. Anyways, my rant is over and i could care less what anyone thinks about it.
I wish more people were capable of having intelligent conversations on certain subject matters ( this is not directed at you btw) I mean in general, as soon as someone hears something they don't like they go into idiot mode, it was like my first year university "survey" courses and all the young kids, all the passion but none of the brains.