Global Warming: "Pseudoscientific Fraud"

[Indy Coug]

No but I'm willing to learn

[Topper]

Are you drunk? Serious question.

With stupid questions like these you wonder why people try to be more outrageous than you. People lie constantly. The only truth is that people lie.

I am more lucid than you because I believe that science is a valid method but that people conform even in science. They are no more honest than the rest of society which is rampant with dishonesty. The only truth is the vileness of humanity.

[Jeff Lebowski]

People lie constantly. The only truth is that people lie.

The only truth is the vileness of humanity.

Uh... sure. That sounds like a perfectly rational way to approach things.

[Pelado]

People lie constantly. The only truth is that people lie.

[YOUTUBE]rWu0N0qPeME[/YOUTUBE]

[byu71]

Uh... sure. That sounds like a perfectly rational way to approach things.

Wow, this is really low for even you attacking someone who doesn't happen to follow your PC interpretation of things. Isn't calling somone dumb enough?

[Jeff Lebowski]

I will give you an area where scientists are being dishonest: hydraulic fracturing. The antis manipulate the data and supply biased results to somebody like Cuomo all the while ignoring those who have studied for the past forty years.

Fracking has nothing to do with the topic of the discussion. Anthropogenic global warming is a physical phenomenon that can be expressed as a hypothesis and tested in a systematic way. Whether or not fracking is safe is a policy issue, not a physical phenomenon. It depends entirely on the level of risk one wants to accept and on the manner in which the fracking is done. One can make a case for or against fracking that relies in part on scientific concepts and data, but there is no scientific consensus against fracking. And none of this supports your hairbrained AGW global conspiracy theory.

FWIW, I think Cuomo made a dumb policy decision.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Wow, this is really low for even you attacking someone who doesn't happen to follow your PC interpretation of things. Isn't calling somone dumb enough?

Ha. This has nothing to do with political correctness, old timer.

[byu71]

Ha. This has nothing to do with political correctness, old timer.

Ha yourself. Some guy on CNN said climate change (global warming) is politically correct.

[cowboy]

Sustainability is a hot topic in all fields right now, and for good reason. Get one of those grants and prove that organic farming is non-sustainable. If you have solid data and solid science, your argument will carry the day in the long run. Or perhaps some of that grant money could be used to develop the science to where organic farming is more economical and efficient than it is now.

And this is my point. The feds have determined that organic and natural are the only paths to sustainability, so that's where the RFA's are directed. Sure, organic is sustainable, but it's also a great way to starve a billion people. On the other hand, GMO plants and feed additives that improve efficiency are also sustainable, and they increase our productivity, but you're not going to find an RFA that gives priority to funding research in those areas because they aren't natural. I'm not saying this necessarily applies to Climate Change funding, but there is no doubt that the federal funding agencies are biased, and in some cases just as biased as any corporate stakeholder.

The first rule of managing a conflict of interest is full disclosure. Sounds like he violated that rule. Hidden monetary support is the ultimate no-no. Yes, it is possible his work could be valid, but those conflicts should have been addressed right up front.

I'm not defending his ethics, just pointing out that his ethical shortcomings don't automatically invalidate his findings.

lol. meanwhile, cowboy is shocked that hypotheses like these are not rewarded with research grants.

I'm not sure if your hyperbole is a poor attempt at humor or just a cheap shot, but I will politely thank you to refrain from misrepresenting me in the future.

[Jeff Lebowski]

And this is my point. The feds have determined that organic and natural are the only paths to sustainability, so that's where the RFA's are directed. Sure, organic is sustainable, but it's also a great way to starve a billion people. On the other hand, GMO plants and feed additives that improve efficiency are also sustainable, and they increase our productivity, but you're not going to find an RFA that gives priority to funding research in those areas because they aren't natural. I'm not saying this necessarily applies to Climate Change funding, but there is no doubt that the federal funding agencies are biased, and in some cases just as biased as any corporate stakeholder.

Again, no person or agency is 100% free from bias (including you and me). Nobody has ever claimed that. But nothing that you have described points to a global conspiracy over a fundamental science question. It sounds like there is a multi-year initiative in that particular agency to provide funding to develop improvements in sustainable agriculture and it sounds like you are of the opinion that it will ultimately be a waste of money. Reasonable people could disagree on that point. Furthermore, we aren't talking about a basic science question here. We are talking about trying to improve technology in a particular sector.

Sustainability as a general principle is a very good thing to invest in. Here is an excellent example:

http://news.science360.gov/obj/video/5f4640b4-c192-4071-abc4-5a1b98b441b7/water-grid-energy-efficient-sustainable

80% of the cost of water treatment involves moving the water to and from the treatment plant. Developing small scale treatment systems could make a huge difference in how efficiently we use our water supply.

[ERCougar]

I'm not defending his ethics, just pointing out that his ethical shortcomings don't automatically invalidate his findings.

I don't really want to dive into this whole argument again, but I have to nitpick here. Yes, actually it does invalidate his findings. This is not a small oversight or mistake--it's a huge breach of ethics, the same kind of breach, incidentally, that invalidated Wakefield's research on the MMR-autism link.

Failure to disclose destroys trust, and in Wakefield's case, killed thousands of kids. If you're not willing to follow basic rules of ethics in the obvious spots, then who knows what you did in the areas of the research where breaches are not so obvious? Bad research is worse than no research, so there's no choice but to completely throw it out.

[cowboy]

I don't really want to dive into this whole argument again, but I have to nitpick here. Yes, actually it does invalidate his findings. This is not a small oversight or mistake--it's a huge breach of ethics, the same kind of breach, incidentally, that invalidated Wakefield's research on the MMR-autism link.

Failure to disclose destroys trust, and in Wakefield's case, killed thousands of kids. If you're not willing to follow basic rules of ethics in the obvious spots, then who knows what you did in the areas of the research where breaches are not so obvious? Bad research is worse than no research, so there's no choice but to completely throw it out.

If we're nitpicking, the bolded portion is false. Wakefield didn't just fail to disclose, his entire work was fraudulent. Fraudulent findings, not failure to disclose, is the reason people stopped vaccinating their kids. But that was my point: a failure to disclose funding, while a major no-no, does not necessarily mean that the results are fraudulent if the study is statistically valid and can be replicated.

[Jeff Lebowski]

If we're nitpicking, the bolded portion is false. Wakefield didn't just fail to disclose, his entire work was fraudulent. Fraudulent findings, not failure to disclose, is the reason people stopped vaccinating their kids. But that was my point: a failure to disclose funding, while a major no-no, does not necessarily mean that the results are fraudulent if the study is statistically valid and can be replicated.

Yes. Not only did Wakefield take money, but he faked data. Worst case scenario.

But in the recent case, the fact that he hid the conflict puts all of his research in doubt. If you taking $1.2M through back channels, there is a really high probability that your work is fraudulent. People don't give you millions in secret money for no reason.

[ERCougar]

If we're nitpicking, the bolded portion is false. Wakefield didn't just fail to disclose, his entire work was fraudulent. Fraudulent findings, not failure to disclose, is the reason people stopped vaccinating their kids. But that was my point: a failure to disclose funding, while a major no-no, does not necessarily mean that the results are fraudulent if the study is statistically valid and can be replicated.

Sure, if it can be repeated. But until then, the individual study should have zero weight. It's such an enormous breach that you simply can't trust any of the thousand places where other breaches can occur without such easy detection. Remember the omnipresent bias that affects every scientist? This is a huge check against it, and it was disregarded. So...we disregard the study.

In other words, it's invalid.

EDIT: See JL's response. Agreed. I'm slow.

[USUC]

I don't really want to dive into this whole argument again, but I have to nitpick here. Yes, actually it does invalidate his findings. This is not a small oversight or mistake--it's a huge breach of ethics, the same kind of breach, incidentally, that invalidated Wakefield's research on the MMR-autism link.

Failure to disclose destroys trust, and in Wakefield's case, killed thousands of kids. If you're not willing to follow basic rules of ethics in the obvious spots, then who knows what you did in the areas of the research where breaches are not so obvious? Bad research is worse than no research, so there's no choice but to completely throw it out.

I see your point but Wakerfield's issue was not just conflict of interest, the manipulation of data was the main issue. Ethics are a major issue for Wei-Hock Soon to be sure and everything he has done will probably be sees as meaningless now. But Cowboy's main point about public funding obviously has some truth.

This climate change debate is kind of a non issue anyway, isn't it? Humans will not take the economic hit that is required to make a meaningful impact on carbon emissions. So either some technology comes and saves mankind from itself or mankind adapts.