Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,796 Year: 4,053/9,624 Month: 924/974 Week: 251/286 Day: 12/46 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Global warming - fact or conspiracy?
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 111 (325362)
06-23-2006 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by rgb
06-23-2006 1:40 PM


Re: Dad was right it was always global warming
Well, it is not an ad hominem when the phenomenon in question (the bias of scientific research when funded by those who have a vested interest in a particular result) has been demonstrated.
Scientific research funded by tobacco companies showed no link between cigarette smoking and lung disease despite the fact that we all recognized that there is a scientifically demonstrated link.
Scientific research funded by chemical companies found no reason to believe that CFCs would contribute to ozone depletion.
Scientific research funded by oil companies found no link between public health and leaded gasoline.
And so forth.
So, if doubts about the anthropogenic contributions to global climate change are mostly confined to industry sponsored scientists, then a suspicion about a connection is not unwarranted.
Edited by Chiroptera, : typo

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by rgb, posted 06-23-2006 1:40 PM rgb has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by rgb, posted 06-23-2006 1:59 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 111 (325394)
06-23-2006 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by rgb
06-23-2006 1:59 PM


Re: Dad was right it was always global warming
quote:
Yes, there might be enough to warrent suspicion there, but such an attack to invalidate your opposition is not a noble way to do it!
Who is making an attack? I am simply pointing out the well-known and verified phenomenon that organizations with a vested interest in a particular conclusion have been able to produce scientific studies that have reached their desired conclusions. I am simply pointing out that this has occurred even when it has become clear (and was clear at the time) that the opposite conclusions were being reached in the scientific community at large. And I am simply pointing out that the research produced by the vested interests were often not up the standards considered acceptable in the field.
In the case of tobacco use, the overwhelming evidence acquired by researchers with no clear reasons to be biased in one way or the other showed that smoking was strongly linked to lung disease. The vast amount of contrary evidence were acquired by research funded by those who clearly would benefit from the conclusion that there was no such link.
This phenomenon has occurred in quite a lot of issues where the personal interest of a few powerful entities favored a certain conclusion.
Most people do not own electron microscopes, radiotelescopes, or have the means (or training) to conduct properly controlled randomly sample opinion surveys, nor the training to evaluate the methodologies involved in the data collection, the interpretation of the data according the various competing theories, or the logical inferences made from the data and the interpretations. So most people are unable to properly evaluate the competing claims if different researchers come to opposite conclusions. If the person is unable to take the time to obtain a PhD in the field and spend years acquiring actual practical experience in conducting research in that field, then it is entirely acceptable to evaluate the claims using what knowledge she has, including an understanding of how clearly biased scientific results have been used in the past.

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by rgb, posted 06-23-2006 1:59 PM rgb has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by rgb, posted 06-23-2006 3:09 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024