Visit our Popular Forums

**boatman61** · 23-03-2019, 11:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by gamayun

"Most" How freaking scientific is that?!

Depends.. Who funded the research..

**newhaul** · 23-03-2019, 11:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by boatman61

Depends.. Who funded the research..

bingo that is exactly on point .
The results will usually provide " proof " for the payers point of view or narrative.
That have nothing to do with the facts.

CaptTom · 23-03-2019, 12:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by newhaul

bingo that is exactly on point .
The results will usually provide " proof " for the payers point of view or narrative.
That have nothing to do with the facts.

It's totally true that biased organizations do fund flawed research.

It's not true that all research is fatally flawed or biased.

Yes, you should consider the funding source. If it's funded by a front for some industrial trade organization (tobacco, or whatever) look for questionable practices.

But I believe the vast majority of "real" scientists and researchers are honest and do their best to produce meaningful results.

Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. We all benefit from every advance in science. I'm not ready to dismiss it all and go back to the stone age.

Singularity · 23-03-2019, 12:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by newhaul

bingo that is exactly on point .
The results will usually provide " proof " for the payers point of view or narrative.
That have nothing to do with the facts.

Consider a study to be like a comedy routine and the truth to be a good laugh.

With junk research it is not as though there are per se nefarious comedy writers setting an agenda while smoking cigars in a dark room. Junk research is often just a single or three comedians giving the audience what they want...a good laugh. When this is the case, the narrative is driven by the consumer. If the consumer initially laughs and the next day re-considers the joke and all of a sudden doesn't find it funny...then who is to blame?

john61ct · 23-03-2019, 12:42

The fossil fuels industries want us to believe that rapidly removing them from our energy production mix - say down to below 20% - not only requires large lifestyle sacrifices, but is impractical if not flat-out impossible.

As opposed to those who believe that it is absolutely required that we do so for the sake of future generations, whatever the difficulties or expense involved.

And that transition would actually generate a lot of economic activity, and more sustainably.

Resistance to these ideas is only coming from the American conservative right, as a result of huge "PR" (sub rosa propaganda).

In the process driving the idea that Science and consensus Reality are up for debate, leaving the top% wealthy free to shape public perception in alignment with supporting their short-term profits.

**newhaul** · 23-03-2019, 13:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by john61ct

The fossil fuels industries want us to believe that rapidly removing them from our energy production mix - say down to below 20% - not only requires large lifestyle sacrifices, but is impractical if not flat-out impossible.

As opposed to those who believe that it is absolutely required that we do so for the sake of future generations, whatever the difficulties or expense involved.

And that transition would actually generate a lot of economic activity, and more sustainably.

Resistance to these ideas is only coming from the American conservative right, as a result of huge "PR" (sub rosa propaganda).

In the process driving the idea that Science and consensus Reality are up for debate, leaving the top% wealthy free to shape public perception in alignment with supporting their short-term profits.

except that it is actually unrealistic to do in a short time .
https://eandt.theiet.org/content/art...d-power-firms/

Dymaxion · 23-03-2019, 13:39

Let's hear it for the Journal of Irreproducible Results.

gamayun · 23-03-2019, 14:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by StuM

Would you prefer "more than 50%" ?

No, I'd expect an accurate number or a range with statistical estimates around the values. It's just a useless non-value and a specious argument to say "most" because it helps set in people's minds that science can't be trusted.

**newhaul** · 23-03-2019, 14:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by gamayun

No, I'd expect an accurate number or a range with statistical estimates around the values. It's just a useless non-value and a specious argument to say "most" because it helps set in people's minds that science can't be trusted.

goes right along with the writers word " consensus " neither one has any real place in scientific works.
Both are ment to persuade the non scientific masses

john61ct · 23-03-2019, 14:29

Gravity is still "just" a theory scientifically.

But there is certainly a consensus around what we need to know in our daily lives, getting things up off the ground even into space.

I'm sure even the Flat Earth believers can agree on that 8-)

**StuM** · 23-03-2019, 15:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by gamayun

No, I'd expect an accurate number or a range with statistical estimates around the values. It's just a useless non-value and a specious argument to say "most" because it helps set in people's minds that science can't be trusted.

Tell that to the IPCC

**boatman61** · 23-03-2019, 16:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by john61ct

The fossil fuels industries want us to believe that rapidly removing them from our energy production mix - say down to below 20% - not only requires large lifestyle sacrifices, but is impractical if not flat-out impossible.

As opposed to those who believe that it is absolutely required that we do so for the sake of future generations, whatever the difficulties or expense involved.

And that transition would actually generate a lot of economic activity, and more sustainably.

Resistance to these ideas is only coming from the American conservative right, as a result of huge "PR" (sub rosa propaganda).

In the process driving the idea that Science and consensus Reality are up for debate, leaving the top% wealthy free to shape public perception in alignment with supporting their short-term profits.

I believe BP has invested around 1billion in alternative energy options..
However its spent maybe x 10 of that in lobbying for keeping fossil fuels ahead of the game..
Lord knows what the other big boys are spending in the lobbies..

Money, Money MONEY.. Its a rich mans world.!!!

**newhaul** · 23-03-2019, 16:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by boatman61

I believe BP has invested around 1billion in alternative energy options..
However its spent maybe x 10 of that in lobbying for keeping fossil fuels ahead of the game..
Lord knows what the other big boys are spending in the lobbies..

Money, Money MONEY.. Its a rich mans world.!!!

some of the first solar panels I worked with were BP branded panels some 20 years ago