Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-L] integrity +- climate change




John Denker seems to be arguing below that a funding source can lead to biased
research. This is true, but one should also recognize that federal funding
can do the same thing, since the requirement of federal funding seems to be
that one adopt a specific athropogenic narrative to do any climate research.


_________________________________________
I quote from:
Suzanne Goldenberg
"Climate sceptic researcher investigated over funding
from fossil fuel firms"
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/11/cclimate-sceptic-researcher-willie-soon-investigated-funding-fossil-fuel-firms

Willie Soon [....] a Harvard-Smithsonian researcher
known as a
climate sceptic is under multiple ethics investigations
arising from
his hidden financial relationships with fossil fuel
companies.

In his correspondence with the energy companies, Soon
described


Perhaps most disturbing of all:

A number of the journals to which Soon contributed have
no conflict
of interest policies, the CIC said in a report. That
stands in
contrast to policies for journal articles for medicine
and other
scientific disciplines.

I recommend reading the whole article.

==============

As James Randi is fond of saying, scientists are easier to
fool than children. And he ought to know; he's a renowned
expert in the arts of deception.

The point is, children expect to be lied to all the time.
Scientists do not expect Mother Nature to be dishonest.
Sometimes surprising, sometimes confusing, but not
systematically deceitful.

As for the scientists themselves, scientific integrity is
a bit of a catch-22. We expect it, but only because we
do *not* take it for granted, i.e. only because we are
*not* complacent about it. Eternal vigilance is required.

For example: It is very, very rare for anybody to get
fired from Bell Labs, but there is one sure-fire way:
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22fired+from+bell+labs%22

Scientific training gives people the tools to find out the
truth and tell the truth /if they want to/. It does not
guarantee that they always want to. Any institution
(scientific, academic, industrial, governmental, social,
or otherwise) that wants to survive has to set up and
vigorously defend a culture that does not tolerate bad
behavior.

Whenever there is a scandal, investigators ask the victims
why they didn't report it sooner. The answer is always
the same: victims say they felt they had no-one to turn
to. The usual *wrong* reaction is to set up some sort of
ombudsman in the HR department, so there is "somebody" to
turn to. I insist that's the wrong reaction, because in
a healthy organization there is not "some" one designated
person who opposes evil. Victims should be able to turn
to ANYBODY and EVERYBODY for support ... long before it
gets to be a scandal. That is, anybody and everybody who
sees something sketchy should take the perp aside and
explain "that's not how we do things around here."

Every worker-bee in the community needs to take ownership
of this idea. Eternal vigilance is required.