ADVERTISEMENT

Big Alcohol trying to rig scientific data

A

anon_xl72qcu5isp39

Heisman Candidate
Sep 7, 2008
11,031
4,355
113
syskatine said:
Not a big surprise.

The National Institutes of Health has terminated a controversial $100-million study on the health effects of daily drinking that was largely funded by the alcohol industry. The announcement comes after internal NIH investigations found evidence of scientific bias, policy violations, and inappropriate engagement with industry representatives.
Click to expand...

You mean independent scientists recognized where their money was coming from and interpreted the results in the funding team's favor? Thank God this never happens with the climate change studies.

Justin
 
  • Like
Reactions: CBradSmith, Bitter Creek, Ostatedchi and 2 others
aix_xpert said:
You mean independent scientists recognized where their money was coming from and interpreted the results in the funding team's favor? Thank God this never happens with the climate change studies.

Justin
Click to expand...
Sssshhhhhhh. sys thinks that climate scientists always do their job out of the goodness of their heart, not for money. He doesn't know how the grant application process works. You should let him have his ignorance on this subject. He's got too much Trump on his plate right now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CBradSmith
aix_xpert said:
You mean independent scientists recognized where their money was coming from and interpreted the results in the funding team's favor? Thank God this never happens with the climate change studies.

Justin
Click to expand...

Great point. So what scientists do you trust?
 
syskatine said:
Great point. So what scientists do you trust?
Click to expand...
Not sure. I certainly take all studies with a grain of salt. I tend to put more faith in studies in which the financial incentives (including the continuation of more studies) do not align with the funders or the researchers. For example, we discount this study because of its funding ties to the alcohol industry. Would we have discountinued this study it if the $15.4 million in pledges from InBev had come from MADD instead?
 
aix_xpert said:
You mean independent scientists recognized where their money was coming from and interpreted the results in the funding team's favor? Thank God this never happens with the climate change studies.

Justin
Click to expand...

Thank God this never happens with oil/gas “scientists”

Oh wait - they’re paid to interpret the bad news as positive spinned propaganda lol
 
CSCOTTOSUPOKES said:
Thank God this never happens with oil/gas “scientists”

Oh wait - they’re paid to interpret the bad news as positive spinned propaganda lol
Click to expand...
Welcome to "climate science" in inverse, paid to interpret no news and "good" news as negative spinned, hysterical propoganda

Have we gotten the animal-made climate emergency thing figured out yet? I picked up my 5,000 rounds of .223 on Saturday so I'm ready to do my part. Since you're the expert I'm counting on you. And so are more than 60,000,000 human lives...
 
CSCOTTOSUPOKES said:
Thank God this never happens with oil/gas “scientists”

Oh wait - they’re paid to interpret the bad news as positive spinned propaganda lol
Click to expand...

I can't count the times I've heard cons on here raise hell about government and academia conflicts of interest in scientific studies (climate and sugar mainly) but never a peep against the industries that lie their ass off in their pseudo-science for obvious financial reasons. Like, if a private company does it that's just good business.

I'm not saying Air did that, but there's definitely some messaging being reflected on here to discredit science that might impact corporate bottom lines. If you ask them for examples of climate scientists engaging in conflicted science, they'll be here all day. Ask them for examples of private industry engaging in conflicted science and it will draw a personal attack or re-stated conclusion.
 
Exxon knew about climate change and global warming decades ago...and then (for profit reasons) switched their stance lol.
 
CSCOTTOSUPOKES said:
#facts for ya...

https://insideclimatenews.org/content/Exxon-The-Road-Not-Taken
Click to expand...


The article starts off with the story that one of their scientists made a prediction in the 70s and they didn’t fully act on it. How damning. Any idea whether any or all of that scientist’s predictions came true? What would have been the resulting impact if they had stopped producing fossil fuels as compared to them continuing to make them? I also saw that they cut funding into the study in the 80s. The shame! I wonder if they cut any other funding into any other research? Last but not least, how did their in-house studies turn out and should they follow every prediction that scientists make?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Medic007
Bitter Creek said:
The article starts off with the story that one of their scientists made a prediction in the 70s and they didn’t fully act on it. How damning. Any idea whether any or all of that scientist’s predictions came true? What would have been the resulting impact if they had stopped producing fossil fuels as compared to them continuing to make them? I also saw that they cut funding into the study in the 80s. The shame! I wonder if they cut any other funding into any other research? Last but not least, how did their in-house studies turn out and should they follow every prediction that scientists make?
Click to expand...

They cut funding into the study because they didn’t like the facts lol. Their original in-house studies verified climate change and global warming. Profit motivation changed everything.
 
Bitter Creek said:
Projections are not facts

I have no doubt that they are profit driven. My company is too and takes a fairly non-objective view to everything that might affect it.
Click to expand...

graph_grid.png
 
syskatine said:
I can't count the times I've heard cons on here raise hell about government and academia conflicts of interest in scientific studies (climate and sugar mainly) but never a peep against the industries that lie their ass off in their pseudo-science for obvious financial reasons. Like, if a private company does it that's just good business.

I'm not saying Air did that, but there's definitely some messaging being reflected on here to discredit science that might impact corporate bottom lines. If you ask them for examples of climate scientists engaging in conflicted science, they'll be here all day. Ask them for examples of private industry engaging in conflicted science and it will draw a personal attack or re-stated conclusion.
Click to expand...

I've never stated that business funded research doesn't generally align to the business' bottom lines. Nor have I ever stated (or even implied) that such research should be taken as factual. My only point is that scientists are just as needy of validation, support and funding as anyone else is, and thus are just as prone to bias in their results (consciously or unconsciously). Yet, many of you who are quick to criticize scientists for taking money from 'dubious' resources (as seen by the OP), are the first to show off a climate study funded by organizations who benefit from such studies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CBradSmith and Bitter Creek
Bitter Creek said:
Is that what Exon projected?
Click to expand...

“At a meeting in Exxon Corporation's headquarters, a senior company scientist named James F. Black addressed an audience of powerful oilmen. Speaking without a text as he flipped through detailed slides, Black delivered a sobering message: carbon dioxide from the world's use of fossil fuels would warm the planet and could eventually endanger humanity.

"In the first place, there is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels," Black told Exxon's Management Committee, according to a written version he recorded later.

It was July 1977 when Exxon's leaders received this blunt assessment, well before most of the world had heard of the looming climate crisis.

A year later, Black, a top technical expert in Exxon's Research & Engineering division, took an updated version of his presentation to a broader audience. He warned Exxon scientists and managers that independent researchers estimated a doubling of the carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration in the atmosphere would increase average global temperatures by 2 to 3 degrees Celsius (4 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit), and as much as 10 degrees Celsius (18 degrees Fahrenheit) at the poles. Rainfall might get heavier in some regions, and other places might turn to desert.”
 
CSCOTTOSUPOKES said:
“At a meeting in Exxon Corporation's headquarters, a senior company scientist named James F. Black addressed an audience of powerful oilmen. Speaking without a text as he flipped through detailed slides, Black delivered a sobering message: carbon dioxide from the world's use of fossil fuels would warm the planet and could eventually endanger humanity.

"In the first place, there is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels," Black told Exxon's Management Committee, according to a written version he recorded later.

It was July 1977 when Exxon's leaders received this blunt assessment, well before most of the world had heard of the looming climate crisis.

A year later, Black, a top technical expert in Exxon's Research & Engineering division, took an updated version of his presentation to a broader audience. He warned Exxon scientists and managers that independent researchers estimated a doubling of the carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration in the atmosphere would increase average global temperatures by 2 to 3 degrees Celsius (4 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit), and as much as 10 degrees Celsius (18 degrees Fahrenheit) at the poles. Rainfall might get heavier in some regions, and other places might turn to desert.”
Click to expand...

I read the article that you posted. I was asking if the graph that you posted was what Exon's guy projected.
 
CSCOTTOSUPOKES said:
“

"In the first place, there is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels," Black told Exxon's Management Committee, according to a written version he recorded later.
Click to expand...

I find it amazing that in 1977 there was general scientific agreement of this, yet Time magazine was warning of us the impending global famine caused by global cooling. Sounds like the story above is a bit revisionist in the "written version he recorded later".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bitter Creek and Medic007
You must log in or register to reply here.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back