First, you're wrong. Flat wrong. People in the pharmaceutical industry conduct the double blind trials - do you think they get marine biologists to conduct a pharma trial? Of course not -- it's the pharma industry. Wtf are you even trying to say? Who would be independent enough?
And exactly how would they conduct an independent trial like this fantasy of yours? Find an earth and jack up the carbon? How would this independent testing work?
So is there a climate scientist that is independent enough for you? If so, where do they come from?
If only I WAS wrong, you'd be right. I've mostly gathered that discussion with you is much like arguing with a toddler as to why I won't buy them a toy, so I'll be brief. If you can't figure it out from there, your problem not mine.
Yep big pharma does conduct double blind studies, and plenty of other types of studies. The problems are usually not in the method but what is reported and how. The FDA reviews the research, but the FDA review is only as good as the data given.
Big pharma loves to recoup their R&D expense AND make large profits from drugs they bring to the market. It might be shocking to you (but it shouldn't be unless you are the most sheltered human on the planet) that a drug manufacturer might just fudge some data about their prospective product's efficacy to get it to market. Strangely enough, even the FDA isn't immune to lobbying either as sad as that is.
Both of these issues have reared their ugly heads in the past and they will likely continue to be a problem in the future. A grand example of both in regards to a single product occurred with the drug combo fenfluramine and phentermine, popularly known as fen-phen. To provide a very brief summary (since you do have internet access), concerns were brought up about a similar drug causing lung damage. A Wyeth official sounded off his concerns about the fen-phen data only reporting 4 cases of pulmonary hypertension in their study and not the 41 that were actually observed. Strangely that was not known by the government until AFTER disaster had occurred. Knowing what Wyeth already knew and trying to preempt the possibility of fen-phen being taken off the market, they presented a "safer" alternative dexfenfluramine (Redux) to the FDA. The chief medical officer ruled that dexfenfluramine could only be marketed with a black box warning regarding pulmonary hypertension as evidence of fen-phen's problems began to surface. Interestingly, somebody in the FDA administration signed off on it without the black box warning. The drug carried the warning in other countries.
Independent medical research linked fen-phen to primary pulmonary hypertension and fen-phen was removed from the market by the FDA. The lawsuits were HUGE.
So, although you were correct about the research methods, you completely missed the point that data can be manipulated to be self serving and the motivation almost always involves money, prestige, or a combination. Hopefully you aren't naive enough to disagree with that fact.
In regards to climate research, again I point to politicization and profiteering as my main points of skepticism. Google Carbon Credit Exchange if you'd like to see a very glaring money grubbing scheme by some of the most notable proponents of man-made climate change.
To answer your last question AGAIN, when the evidence is irrefutable that people are causing climate change and that the man-made climate change is destructive to the extent claimed, I'll be glad to be all on board. BUT, right now the evidence is NOT irrefutable except to those whose paychecks and potential future wealth depend on claiming it is. If politics and money weren't so heavily involved, I'd be less of a skeptic.
Nobody argues the earth is flat because there is irrefutable proof it isn't. Nobody argues that thunderstorms don't cause tornadoes because there is irrefutable proof that they do. Nobody argues that aspirin doesn't decrease mortality in heart attack patients because at this point, the data is irrefutable that it does decrease mortality.
Have a great day syskatine. I'll leave you to your fantasy.
