{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Modificato da Le Dustin xddddd:
4/25/2014 10:51:47 PM
14
Is a study on climate change valid if it was funded by oil companies?
[url=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/]"Dark Money" Funds Climate Change Denial Effort[/url]
[quote]A Drexel University study finds that a large slice of donations to organizations that deny global warming are funneled through third-party pass-through organizations that conceal the original funder.
The largest, most-consistent money fueling the climate denial movement are a number of well-funded conservative foundations built with so-called "dark money," or concealed donations, according to an analysis released Friday afternoon.[/quote]
[url=http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/] THE KOCH BROTHERS: FUNDING $67,042,064 TO GROUPS DENYING CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE SINCE 1997.[/url]
[quote]Billionaire oilman David Koch used to joke that Koch Industries was "the biggest company you've never heard of." Now the shroud of secrecy has thankfully been lifted, revealing the $67 million that he and his brother Charles have quietly funneled to climate-denial front groups that are working to delay policies and regulations aimed at stopping global warming, most of which are part of the State Policy Network.[/quote]
[url=http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Study-Finds-Just-90-Companies-Responsible-for-Current-Climate-Change-Crisis.html]Study Finds Just 90 Companies Responsible for Current Climate Change Crisis[/url]
[quote]A new study set to be published in the journal Climate Change, has determined that just 90 companies are responsible for the current climate change crisis, producing nearly two-thirds of all greenhouse gas emissions since the beginning of the industrial age around the middle of the eighteenth century.
Richard Heede, a climate researcher and author, said that “there are thousands of oil, gas and coal producers in the world. But the decision makers, the CEOs, or the ministers of coal and oil if you narrow it down to just one person, they could all fit on a Greyhound bus or two.”[/quote]
-
It all comes down to the data.
-
Probably trying to cover their ass, lets get real here. Their a corporation and their main goal is to make money...their going to do whatever it takes to make their name look good
-
1 RispondiIn theory it shouldn't matter as long as the methodology is robust, the data collection was unbiased (as little as possible, if any it is declared), and the conclusions are sound and humility is shown in reference to the hypothesis. Typically you'll see papers with a section toward the end where researchers will declare any financial backing or conflicts of interest arising from the research (PLOS is one journal that I think has a mandatory field for this). tl;dr don't dismiss something just because the source may be biased.
-
The study is accurate However, the facts they disclose to the public and their wording might be bias
-
Sure. They may be biased, but so are all other funders who try to prove climate change is the end of the world. As long as there are hard facts, and the data is sound to prove their side, I think it's just as reliable as any other.
-
4 RisposteCan you ever make a thread that doesn't have to do with fucking climate change?
-
Any study funded by a company or conglomerate of any kind that can benefit in any way financially or otherwise is biased and should not be trusted. And this happens daily.
-
Probably not, but honestly, you have problems like this with almost all studies. Researchers want to push more significant results, because it garners more attention. Scientists will often goof up the research a little in ways like this. It's dishonest, but by closely reading their methods (as long as they did not lie) can help you find out whether or not their methods were faulty. (I am a researcher)
-
Where's the "conditional" option?
-
2 RisposteBack in the 1990s, tobacco companies hired scientists to misinform the public about the health consequences of their products. Today, fossil fuel and car companies are engaging in the same behavior. While the link between smoking and cancer became readily apparent to the public, I'm afraid that the effects of climate change, while visible even today, are not nearly as dramatic as the millions of people who died (and are still dying) from smoking cigarettes. When science conflicts with corporate interests, it takes an extraordinary amount of effort to educate the public and implement responsible measures to prevent harm.
-
2 Rispostelolno That'd be like McDonalds researching whether or not their food is bad for you. Climate studies should be done by people who have spent their entire lives in the field, not by a few guys hired by a big oil company.
-
lolno. That'd be like Answers in Genesis putting out papers purporting to disprove evolution.
-
Who do you guys think voted yes?
-
The last time major corporations funded research on it after the Climategate scandal, the study ended up showing it was a real thing anyways. >.<
