ExxonMobil disinformation on global warming

OfficiousG

ViolentChemistry wrote:

I don't think plants, wildlife or geological structures/formations can sue.

I miss Justice Douglas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_O._Douglas#Trees_Have_Standing

In the landmark environmental law case, SIERRA CLUB v. MORTON, 405 U.S. 727 (1972), Justice Douglas famously, and most colorfully argued that "inanimate objects" should have standing to sue in court:

"Inanimate objects are sometimes parties in litigation. A ship has a legal personality, a fiction found useful for maritime purposes. The corporation sole - a creature of ecclesiastical law - is an acceptable adversary and large fortunes ride on its cases . . . .

"So it should be as respects valleys, alpine meadows, rivers, lakes, estuaries, beaches, ridges, groves of trees, swampland, or even air that feels the destructive pressures of modern technology and modern life. The river, for example, is the living symbol of all the life it sustains or nourishes - fish, aquatic insects, water ouzels, otter, fisher, deer, elk, bear, and all other animals, including man, who are dependent on it or who enjoy it for its sight, its sound, or its life. The river as plaintiff speaks for the ecological unit of life that is part of it."

Savant

There's nothing wrong with funding research which runs contrary to the scientific majority position, as long as it isn't junk science. Junk science being poor research methods, statistical chicanery, etc. Science is not aided by groupthink.

However, it becomes a problem if this is used to poison discourse on the subject. Using research data to mislead the public is a very bad thing, and telling half the truth is often worse than telling none of it at all. Unfortunately, good science is used to mislead the public too, as many of the qualifiers and uncertainties in research disappear when they make their ways to press releases and political statements.

Senjutsu

Savant wrote:

There's nothing wrong with funding research which runs contrary to the scientific majority position,

Strongly disagree. There is always something wrong with making your funding contingent on which position the research turns out to support. If you're making the scientists' income dependent on a particular result, you're encouraging him or her to have priorities that are contrary to proper science.

as long as it isn't junk science. Junk science being poor research methods, statistical chicanery, etc.

All of which is the natural consequence of the above.

Echo

OfficiousG wrote:

I miss Justice Douglas.

Hah. I see the point - a tree is certainly more tangible than a corporate entity.

Salvation122

Casual Eddy wrote:

IShallRiseAgain wrote:

ViolentChemistry wrote:

IShallRiseAgain wrote:

The way I see it combats the fact that people are claiming mankind is responsible for global warming even though there is no evidence of this and it is a natural cycle of the earth.

See? Like I said, total lies about that cancer-shit. I mean come on guys, let's think about this rationally. Who uses their lungs more, smokers, or people who never challenge their lungs at all? Obviously smokers will have the best lungs, and those who get cancer only get it because they were genetically predisposed to it, not because of any voodoo-who-doo "carcinogens" mumbo-jumbo.

No, thats completly different. There is actual facts proving that cigarettes cause cancer. while metrologists just pull man caused global warming out of their asses because it makes people think they are needed.

What? Scientists have recorded a global rise in temp. and I think it's supposed to outpace any natural rise in temp. that has occured before.

Of course, up until about two hundred years ago or so, our temperature records were shit, so we're sort of stretching that.

nexuscrawler

Salvation122 wrote:

Casual Eddy wrote:

IShallRiseAgain wrote:

ViolentChemistry wrote:

IShallRiseAgain wrote:

The way I see it combats the fact that people are claiming mankind is responsible for global warming even though there is no evidence of this and it is a natural cycle of the earth.

See? Like I said, total lies about that cancer-shit. I mean come on guys, let's think about this rationally. Who uses their lungs more, smokers, or people who never challenge their lungs at all? Obviously smokers will have the best lungs, and those who get cancer only get it because they were genetically predisposed to it, not because of any voodoo-who-doo "carcinogens" mumbo-jumbo.

No, thats completly different. There is actual facts proving that cigarettes cause cancer. while metrologists just pull man caused global warming out of their asses because it makes people think they are needed.

What? Scientists have recorded a global rise in temp. and I think it's supposed to outpace any natural rise in temp. that has occured before.

Of course, up until about two hundred years ago or so, our temperature records were shit, so we're sort of stretching that.

ice Core samples give us a pretty accurate picture of past climate changes

Savant

Senjutsu wrote:

Savant wrote:

There's nothing wrong with funding research which runs contrary to the scientific majority position,

Strongly disagree. There is always something wrong with making your funding contingent on which position the research turns out to support. If you're making the scientists' income dependent on a particular result, you're encouraging him or her to have priorities that are contrary to proper science.

as long as it isn't junk science. Junk science being poor research methods, statistical chicanery, etc.

All of which is the natural consequence of the above.

Woah woah woah, when did I suggest that dissenting research be contingent on bullshit? If Exxon is funding junk science, so be it and have at them. But sound research DOES NOT have to conform to the consensus position and its conclusions. It can even start with the hypothesis that the consensus position is wrong, or more often incomplete.

You need to be very careful about what you are attacking here. Dissent needs to be allowed to exist in a scientific debate, even if it isn't accepted as being the best or a viable position until it finds sufficient supporting evidence. I'm not suggesting that every BS practicioner should be given equal time, but silencing and blocking the research of outsiders who aren't cranks will inhibit the advancement of knowledge the few times they turn out to be right.

Senjutsu

Savant wrote:

Senjutsu wrote:

Savant wrote:

There's nothing wrong with funding research which runs contrary to the scientific majority position,

Strongly disagree. There is always something wrong with making your funding contingent on which position the research turns out to support. If you're making the scientists' income dependent on a particular result, you're encouraging him or her to have priorities that are contrary to proper science.

as long as it isn't junk science. Junk science being poor research methods, statistical chicanery, etc.

All of which is the natural consequence of the above.

Woah woah woah, when did I suggest that dissenting research be contingent on bullshit? If Exxon is funding junk science, so be it and have at them. But sound research DOES NOT have to conform to the consensus position and its conclusions. It can even start with the hypothesis that the consensus position is wrong, or more often incomplete.

You need to be very careful about what you are attacking here. Dissent needs to be allowed to exist in a scientific debate, even if it isn't accepted as being the best or a viable position until it finds sufficient supporting evidence. I'm not suggesting that every BS practicioner should be given equal time, but silencing and blocking the research of outsiders who aren't cranks will inhibit the advancement of knowledge the few times they turn out to be right.

I'm merely responding to what you wrote, not lambasting the idea of dissent. Let me spell this out for you:

You said: "There's nothing wrong with funding research which runs contrary to the scientific majority position".

I'm saying: This is not blanketly true, if you are specifically funding it because it runs counter to the consensus.

If you're making a statement about there being nothing wrong with funding research, period, irrespective of its results as long as its methodologies are sound, then hey, we agree. But since you felt the need to single out dissenting research, then you're incorrect. There are circumstance in which funding dissenting research is a bad idea, if it's clear that your motives are for funding it are contingent on it continuing to be dissenting.

Savant

I singled out dissenting research because I have noticed things which could be taken as an attack on specifically dissenting research and not consensus research, even when both types can be sound or unsound. I just want to make sure that the notion that dissenting research is necessarily or is almost assuredly that of crackpots is not accepted. However, there are definitely crackpots and charlatans in that field, which is why other means to judge validity are useful.

I didn't refer to consensus research as that is much more likely to be accepted as truth or a closer approximation of it. Of course there will always be those who are ignorant of science or choose to be so for whatever ends, but they don't factor much into serious scientific debate.

I can see your suggestion that funding of research being dependent upon its outcome is problematic. Exxon shouldn't be given a free pass if they are doing that. However barriers to research and uneven funding aren't just limited to one side, to be clear. There is a much heavier burden of proof on a dissenting position to support itself than one that conforms to the consensus, which makes sense but presents difficulties in advancing knowledge.

mcc

They're not specifically funding "dissenting research" though. They're funding research exclusively which will support or claim a position which is politically convenient for them, whether or not that research is valid or accurate. This is not going to improve the quality level of scientific discourse as a whole, period.

ViolentChemistry

Savant wrote:

I can see your suggestion that funding of research being dependent upon its outcome is problematic. Exxon shouldn't be given a free pass if they are doing that.

Why not? The federal government does, as do dozens of other organizations. It's not exactly an unheard of practice. It's actually popular enough that I can't tell whether or not it's the norm.

Senjutsu

Savant wrote:

I can see your suggestion that funding of research being dependent upon its outcome is problematic. Exxon shouldn't be given a free pass if they are doing that.

There's no real "if" about it.

Savant

Fine, then I am derailing the thread somewhat by talking about dissent rather than junk science. But my first post did refer to poisoning the public debate by spreading half truths, which is very relevant to the Exxon issue. This largely becomes an issue of translating scientific debate into public debate, when in public debate there are very many self interested parties who like shaving off parts of the big picture to their liking.

edit:

Why not? The federal government does, as do dozens of other organizations. It's not exactly an unheard of practice. It's actually popular enough that I can't tell whether or not it's the norm.

They shouldn't be given a free pass about it either. The access to funding problem and influence of politics is not limited to the big corporations or unpopular research, which is what I was hinting at after that quoted section.

CommunistCow

ViolentChemistry wrote:

Savant wrote:

I can see your suggestion that funding of research being dependent upon its outcome is problematic. Exxon shouldn't be given a free pass if they are doing that.

Why not? The federal government does, as do dozens of other organizations. It's not exactly an unheard of practice. It's actually popular enough that I can't tell whether or not it's the norm.

I wasn't aware that this was somewhat wide spread. What are some other examples of this done by the government?
(I am genuinely interested I'm not being sarcastic)

ViolentChemistry

CommunistCow wrote:

ViolentChemistry wrote:

Savant wrote:

I can see your suggestion that funding of research being dependent upon its outcome is problematic. Exxon shouldn't be given a free pass if they are doing that.

Why not? The federal government does, as do dozens of other organizations. It's not exactly an unheard of practice. It's actually popular enough that I can't tell whether or not it's the norm.

I wasn't aware that this was somewhat wide spread. What are some other examples of this done by the government?
(I am genuinely interested I'm not being sarcastic)

One I used in a speech last semester, the federal government will drop all funding for any research organisation who publish any documents that display condom use in a positive light or even mention them for any reason except to emphasize the failure-rate. Passed as part of a welfare bill.

CommunistCow

awesome I wonder if they tried to off anyone at CNN for that poll that showed 95% of americans have premarital sex.