Whoah!

Thanks for that thread Sardion - I really had no idea that there was such a consistent undermining of science by big corporations. If you fail to declare a conflict of interest in a health-related publication, then there's hell to pay (and even then stuff slips through). I really am open-mouthed about the brazen nature of this propaganda exercise.

TD

Any reputable scientist funded by Exxon will say so when he publishes his research.

And after all, in this wonderful free world of ours, should we only permit funding of research if that research supports what we already think to be true?

Poor Brave New World ....

The real issue here is why are Exxon shareholders not insisting Exxon gets more of a move on with research into alternative energy etc. At the moment Exxon is like an electrical company that is promoting personal cassette players instead of MP3 players ....

Originally posted by Essan
Any reputable scientist funded by Exxon will say so when he publishes his research.

Follow the links posted on the thread that sardion2000 posted above. You will find that these groups are not upfront about where they get their money from. Most of the "about pages" just say they are funded by donations.

First these oil funded groups said Global Warming doesn’t exist.
Then after George Bush said in a speech that GW is happening the groups changed their angle to that it does exist but our actions have nothing to do with it.
Now these oil funded groups say our actions are affecting GW but that it minimal.

The junk science and distortions that these guys spew out don’t stand up to the evidence found by scientists world wide so they are having to constantly change their position.
Their goal is to protect the profits of their financers by confusing the public on GW.
GW is also being used by American politicians as another tool to polarize the American voters.

It really sucks that our future is worth nothing in the name of winning elections and making obscene amounts of money.

Originally posted by Umbrax
Follow the links posted on the thread that sardion2000 posted above. You will find that these groups are not upfront about where they get their money from. Most of the "about pages" just say they are funded by donations.

Are they? That is to say are the oil companies thier only benefacotr, thier primary benefactor, or one of many benefactors? Should a scientists research be dismissed out of hand simply because one of thier benefactors among many was an oil company? At what point in your opinion does a entities funding make the research automatically lack credibillity? 50% of operating budget? 35%? And is it merely the oil companies funding of research you object to or merly thier funding of research in Climatology or do you automatically disregard researchers they have funded in applied materials as well? Finally do you feel the researchers working for institutes funded by environmentalists are any more inherantly credible than those being funded by "big oil" and if so why?


First these oil funded groups said Global Warming doesn’t exist.
Then after George Bush said in a speech that GW is happening the groups changed their angle to that it does exist but our actions have nothing to do with it.
Now these oil funded groups say our actions are affecting GW but that it minimal.

The junk science and distortions that these guys spew out don’t stand up to the evidence found by scientists world wide so they are having to constantly change their position.

First climatologists said the earth was eading into an ice age, the the ozone hole was gonna give polar bears sunburns, the the globe was warming, now its warming in some places and cooling in ohters and may be prone to dramatic shifts. Is this because they are doing junk science or is it because as our understanding of the world matures, our abillity to understand the worlds matures?

Their goal is to protect the profits of their financers by confusing the public on GW.
GW is also being used by American politicians as another tool to polarize the American voters.

It really sucks that our future is worth nothing in the name of winning elections and making obscene amounts of money.

BUt wasn't Bush already obscenly wealthy? Just like most politicans? and really, considering that there still aren't any really viable alternatives to gasoline yet, do thier profits really need that much protecting? Isn't it alos possible that massive curbs on energy consumption would hurt the poor the most? The rich can afford to buy on the black market, the poor can't. Perhaps these scinetists are simply comming from a different perspective, tell me, where Lamerkian evolutionists evil, or did they just disagree?

Originally posted by Umbrax

Originally posted by Essan
Any reputable scientist funded by Exxon will say so when he publishes his research.

Follow the links posted on the thread that sardion2000 posted above. You will find that these groups are not upfront about where they get their money from. Most of the "about pages" just say they are funded by donations.

I'm really referring to specific research papers

Willie Soon, for example, stated in a recent paper:-

"This scientific research was supported by generous grants from the Charles G. Koch
Charitable Foundation, American Petroleum Institute, and Exxon-Mobil
Corporation. The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and
are independent of sources providing support."

Obviously, I'm not saying everyone does that But there are some good, reputable scientists amongsts those whom Exxon funds, and we shouldn't tar all with the same brush

Virtually every major oil corporation has accepted the global warming theory and is working not only to mitigate impacts to the environment, but participating and funding research into ways to further decrease hydrocarbon effects on the environment, with the exception of ONE company...and that's Exxon.

I simply don't understand why they've made this corporate decision, but they have.

Why not accept or reject the scientific information on its merits, regardless of the sponsors? Having 'exxon' as a sponsor, or one of its fronts, doesn't refute the information within the paper, any more than not having it 'green lights' it. OF course, it can be a good wave to 'raise flags of suspicsion', but those should be flapping around anyway!

lmao.. I'm sorry but I'm not suprised at all. Don't you know The Queen of England controls Exxon... it's the double cross right? Yup...

Originally posted by TaupeDragon
I'm not saying otherwise, but I really think the declaration of interests should be *front and centre* on any article,

It does at the end, which is appropriate since the science is what is paramount.

and I also think the *exact* methodology should be put to the ethics panel before the trial commences.

I am a little unclear, what methodology do you mean? That of the experiement and research, or do you mean a methodology for revealing financial backers? As it is, authors are expected to make 'competing interest statements' on their articles. If a person lied, and was found out, then they'd be branded a liar amoung the scientific community, which is a very bad thing, it means you have trouble getting published in high impact journals, that people don't waste their time using your results, and that a lot of people spend a lot of time testing and trying to reduplicate your previous results, and making a big stink about other lies that the author may've made.

Example - and I forget the link, sorry:

Unless you read the article really carefully, it wasn't clear that the 'manufacturer's recommendation' was for a 3-week 'go' with the product, as opposed to only two weeks with the 'dentist made trays'.

Clearly, we have to be careful in accepting information.

So you are comparing something that has had an extra week to get a result.[/quote
"Use product A as per its instructions, get whiter teeth than using Product B, as per its instructions". Pretty good for an advertisement. In a scientific article, it'd be expected to detail those instructions, at least on an issue like 'use for three weeks'.

My point is - they should have compared like with like, and given both products a level playing field.

Indeed.

Yeah, but reading the paper shouldn't require a either a law degree or a mind like James Ellroy.

Unfortunately, the science, especially when we are talking about global warming data and academic research, is complex and difficult. THe papers that are out there are already stripped down and simplified as much as possible, while still being accurate and useful.

You should be able to read without having to worry about the data being skewed to prove a point.

But what do you mean by skewed? Outright manufacture of data? Or making conclusions that aren't supported by the data? Indeed, it can be difficult to detect error. Unfortunately, there's no kind of legislation or rule making that can help that. THe papers submitted to journals are already reviewed by a number of competing researchers in their field of study, there has been a group of people that have looked for just the sorts of things you are concerned about.
This contrasts completely with articles for public consumption, which are essentially a bunch of lies made up by a person, for the sake of brevity and communicability, and then not checked up by anyone.

Yeah....but it comes back to publication bias, doesn't it? Like you say, science is expensive. If Exxon was paying for 'anti-' papers, your literature search is going to be complicated by a disproportionate 'anti' return and risk bias.

Only if there is a cadre of scientists out there that aren't really intersted in doing science, but instead want to make money by peddling lies. THen their lies are reviewed by panels of other scientists who also research the field, looking for mistakes, errors, and fraud. Then its sent back, edited, resubmited, edited again, resubmited, reviewed, perhaps approved, published, and then, everyone that reads those journals reviews the information and makes decisions about its validty, fraud, accuracy, etc, and often tries to reduplicate the exeriments and compare their results.
Also, what is an 'anti' researcher? None of us know whats going on, research has to be done. A person could publish a few dozen papers that end up pulling the rug out from under some major global warming evidences, simply because they're doing a good job and the other evidences didn't work out. Give that researcher money, and he's going to investigate and publish his findings. The only time there's a problem is when the public tries to cut funding for honest researchers who've made unpopular conclusions, and all they have to go to for funding is the oil companies, etc. Thats why funding has to be basic and non-biased.

Probably no way around commercial sponsorship of science and conflicts of interest, but it still irritates me greatly.

Science has lots of safeguards against fraud, editors, peer review panels, and other scientists that are studying the work.