Ebionite
Well-Known Member
It is a straw man because GW is not the same as catastrophic AGWNo, it's not
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
It is a straw man because GW is not the same as catastrophic AGWNo, it's not
Is this just an opinion or do you have evidence and references to back it up?An employer who has a public policy that relates to the subject matter of the scientific work that they seek employees for will tend to attract scientists that agree with that policy rather than those who disagree with it. This leads to a bias in the interpretation of the result of the work in favour of the policies of the employer.
I was in ag biotech for 20 years and those companies got the message too. There is heavy investment industry wide on research into crops that can tolerate arid conditions, climate, soil conservation and other areas related to climate change.If you can't be bothered to read the link I've supplied, I am not going to copy it all out for you. I've had enough of your nonsense now. I repeat, the fossil fuel companies and the motor manufacturers have got the message - and so have almost all governments of the world. It is only cranks like you that have failed to do so.
It's self-evident.Is this just an opinion or do you have evidence and references to back it up?
Please compare and contrast what you mean by GW and AGW and explain the differences?It is a straw man because GW is not the same as catastrophic AGW
So nothing then. Thank you for saving me time.It's self-evident.
Facts and reason are not nothing.So nothing then. Thank you for saving me time.
You haven't offered facts and reason. You made a claim. I asked for the evidence of your claims and got nothing. I don't need to belabor this further entertaining word games, conspiracies or the like.Facts and reason are not nothing.
Do you deny that it is a fact that potential employees are more likely to apply for employment if they agree with the policies of their employer?You haven't offered facts and reason.
Do you deny that it is a fact that potential employees are more likely to apply for employment if they agree with the policies of their employer?
The A means anthropogenic. GW is from any cause.Please compare and contrast what you mean by GW and AGW and explain the differences?
You didn't answer the question.Most people are opportunistic. They apply for employment because they seek to earn a salary doing a job that they are willing and able to do. Putting food on the table and paying the rent can be much more compelling incentive than the politics of the employer.
You are a wealth of nothing. I won't waste my time further.The A means anthropogenic. GW is from any cause.
You didn't answer the question.
That has been my experience. If there is evidence to the contrary, no one has seen fit to offer it.Most people are opportunistic. They apply for employment because they seek to earn a salary doing a job that they are willing and able to do. Putting food on the table and paying the rent can be much more compelling incentive than the politics of the employer.
I've not actually seen that sort of thing happen and I saw no policies intended to subvert science from within when I worked in biotech. Not to mention, scientists in both the public and private sector are often involved in the research or reviewing it. The scientific community exists within companies and extends beyond it. It is a very well-regulated industry.That's because the question--whether people are "more likely" to apply for work with a politically sympatico employer--doesn't lead where you think it does. Scientists who apply to work for tobacco and oil companies will tend to be more likely to apply for other reasons than sympathy with the company's goals in preserving their business model. Whatever they do, the company ultimately controls what gets reported out as the results of their research. Some, but not all, will be motivated to skew results that they think will please their employer.
I've not actually seen that sort of thing happen and I saw no policies intended to subvert science from within when I worked in biotech. Not to mention, scientists in both the public and private sector are often involved in the research or reviewing it. The scientific community exists within companies and extends beyond it. It is a very well-regulated industry.
I was a natural history biologist that got into applied biology, because that is where the jobs and the money are. I wasn't fully concerned with which company hired me, it was the job and research I was interested in. Of course, that isn't completely true, I was enthusiastic about the technology and the benefits it could bring. But my company was not the only company involved in that work and still isn't.I also worked in that kind of environment, but let me clarify my remark. It is natural for people in a corporate environment to become advocates for their employer's products and services. So, when I said that people might tend to skew or bias their results to please their employer, I didn't mean to imply that they would tend to do so in a deliberate attempt to help their employer deceive the public. Quite often bias is manifested as a desire to please their first or second level manager, who doesn't want to bring bad news up the chain. Even when it isn't, the information that gets passed up the chain of command isn't always accurate.
Many years ago, when I started work for a large government contractor, my very first assignment was to serve on the "green team" to decide whether to bid on a government project. My role was to evaluate our ability to fulfill some requirements in the RFP that depended on the state of the art in machine translation at the time. It was obvious to me that we couldn't deliver on those requirements, so I vetoed continuing with the bid, as did other members of the green team (for other technical reasons). I assumed that this was the end of my participation in that project bid, but a week later I was notified that there was going to be a final assessment, and I was now a member of the "red team". I was told to find ways that we could overcome barriers to the requirements, some of which were pure science fiction. We vetoed the bid proposal again. So the company went ahead and submitted a bid on the project anyway, because they had been working on the planned bid for months already and devoted considerable company resources to it. Thankfully, the bid was rejected, and the competitors that ended up winning it spent a lot of government money on a boondoggle that ultimately ended in failure.
This was my first experience in working at a large corporation, but I came to understand that my role as an AI researcher wasn't necessarily going to turn out the way I wanted or expected it to.
It leads to bias in interpretation because that's the only place that it can go, logically.That's because the question--whether people are "more likely" to apply for work with a politically sympatico employer--doesn't lead where you think it does.
If you don't know what anthropogenic means then there are plenty of online dictionaries that can help you out with that.You are a wealth of nothing. I won't waste my time further.