Science for sale.

It seems if you have enough money, you can find scientists who are willing to write studies that corporations can use to avoid paying for damages their products create. Mother Jones has a very good article about how the companies that manufacture welding rods have paid scientists millions for studies "proving" their products don't cause Parkinson's disease in welders. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/07/toxic-smoke-and-mirrors

Quote :

Court documents obtained by Mother Jones show that the welding companies paid more than $12.5 million to 25 organizations and 33 researchers, virtually all of whom have published papers dismissing connections between welding fumes and workers' ailments. Most of the money, $11 million, was spent after the litigation achieved critical mass in 2003; attorneys for the welders, meanwhile, spent about half a million.

The pattern doesn't surprise George Washington University epidemiologist David Michaels, author of Doubt Is Their Product: How Industry's Assault on Science Threatens Your Health. Corporate-funded research articles are often "advocacy documents that are being produced purely for use in court cases," he says. "It's unfortunate, because it really pollutes the scientific literature."

Which is why I think the debate over the whole "global warming" issue is interesting. Like you said if one pays a someone enough- the issue could go either way.

Ohhmama wrote:

Which is why I think the debate over the whole "global warming" issue is interesting. Like you said if one pays a someone enough- the issue could go either way.

No, what is happening with the welders and AGW is that big corporations are paying unscrupulous scientists to produce bogus studies which muddy the waters and confuse the issue. I think it borders on criminal that greedy corporations are allowed to use their billions to avoid paying for the damage their products do. There is no reason for anyone to become ill with Parkinson's from welding fumes. Air supplied hoods would protect hundreds of thousands of workers from a debilitating disease. However, unethical scientists, aided by lawyers and our government have stopped the industry from taking the steps needed to make the work safer. Another example of our "wonderful" free market system in action.

Ohhmama wrote:

Which is why I think the debate over the whole "global warming" issue is interesting. Like you said if one pays a someone enough- the issue could go either way.

Exactly...Al Gore is making so much money off of global warming, he turns down political appointments.

Ohhmama wrote:

Like you said if one pays a someone enough- the issue could go either way.

Not hardly. The scenario is always the same when it comes to disputing established science. You'll have the various National Academies along with the rest of the world's scientific organizations of national or international standing vs. whatever skeptic think-tank is out muddy the waters. One side has open, and established studies and research, spanning decades, each round of subsequent research independently building off the previous vs. the "study of the week" purporting to show that gravity is a hoax, the earth is flat, Satan planted all those fossils, global warming is a massive conservative conspiracy, or tobacco is good for you. The methods and tactics are always the same. And like I've even pointed out ad nauseum, they're usually the same people and organizations to boot. Steve Milloy, the Heartland Institute, etc. were out there pushing the same arguments against the studies on the dangers of smoking as they are now against the dangers of AGW. So it's easy to understand why I have such a hard time believing that he now the paragon of honest research and the rest of the scientific community (millions of people spanning hundreds of different countries) are involved in a massive international conspiracy. It's mind numbingly stupid.

There are recognizable standards for science and research, but they're apparently not getting taught in school anymore.

And as far as the specific topic for this thread, there were two books that I read that highlighted quite well the depths some corporations were willing to go to suppress, hide, or falsify research that reflected badly on their business:

Trust Us We're Experts: How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles with Your Future
Toxic Sludge is Good For You: Lies, Damn Lies and the Public Relations Industry

LoisLane wrote:

Ohhmama wrote:

Which is why I think the debate over the whole "global warming" issue is interesting. Like you said if one pays a someone enough- the issue could go either way.

Exactly...Al Gore is making so much money off of global warming, he turns down political appointments.

Which is why only an idiot would cite Al Gore in a AGW debate. I'll prefer the research from the scientists that gave us the atomic bomb over that asshat any day of the week.

Heretic wrote:

Ohhmama wrote:

Like you said if one pays a someone enough- the issue could go either way.

Not hardly. The scenario is always the same when it comes to disputing established science. You'll have the various National Academies along with the rest of the world's scientific organizations of national or international standing vs. whatever skeptic think-tank is out muddy the waters. One side has open, and established studies and research, spanning decades, each round of subsequent research independently building off the previous vs. the "study of the week" purporting to show that gravity is a hoax, the earth is flat, Satan planted all those fossils, global warming is a massive conservative conspiracy, or tobacco is good for you. The methods and tactics are always the same. And like I've even pointed out ad nauseum, they're usually the same people and organizations to boot. Steve Milloy, the Heartland Institute, etc. were out there pushing the same arguments against the studies on the dangers of smoking as they are now against the dangers of AGW. So it's easy to understand why I have such a hard time believing that he now the paragon of honest research and the rest of the scientific community (millions of people spanning hundreds of different countries) are involved in a massive international conspiracy. It's mind numbingly stupid.

Indeed. I'm just thankful that our country finally has the will and the leadership necessary to address the climate crisis. I just hope that it's not too late. There is no way out of this crisis without America leading the way, and now I'm confident that we will do just that.

In reality, the "debate" over climate change has been over for years. What's been missing is the courage necessary to deal with the reality of the situation that we find ourselves in...

Here's an interesting piece...

THEY WERE ONLY OFF BY A FACTOR OF 18.... For several months, whenever the issue of cap-and-trade comes up, GOP policymakers and their allies immediately turn to their favorite talking point: a cap-and-trade proposal would impose, on average, a $3,128 energy burden on the typical American home. The figure comes from a bastardisation of a study conducted by John Reilly, an M.I.T. scientist who supports the cap-and-trade plan -- and who has tried to explain to Republicans why the claim is wrong.

Told, over and over again, that their talking point has no basis in reality, Republican officials nevertheless keep saying it. When the GOP isn't denying climate change science altogether, it's pushing the $3,128 claim.

OK, so we know the Republicans are lying, but what's the actual cost Americans can expect if a cap-and-trade system becomes law? The Congressional Budget Office, which has produced several reports of late that Republicans just love,reported on the expected costs of Waxman-Markey.

Quote :

...CBO estimates that the net annual economywide cost of the cap-and-trade program in 2020 would be $22 billion -- or about $175 per household. That figure includes the cost of restructuring the production and use of energy and of payments made to foreign entities under the program, but it does not include the economic benefits and other benefits of the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and the associated slowing of climate change.

Some households would pay a little more, and some of the nation's poorest households would actually get money back, but the average is about $175 per household, the equivalent, Chris Harris noted

Better yet, the costs go down in future years, as carbon permits are sold, and the proceeds are "rebated to taxpayers"
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_06/018719.php

Artie60438 wrote:

THEY WERE ONLY OFF BY A FACTOR OF 18.... The figure comes from a bastardisation of a study conducted by John Reilly, an M.I.T. scientist who supports the cap-and-trade plan -- and who has tried to explain to Republicans why the claim is wrong.

Yeah, the whole argument was demonstrably false, which means the Republicans fronting it were either deliberately lying or too intellectually lazy to do the research.

Quote :

MIT Professor tells GOP to stop ‘misrepresenting’ his work and inflating the cost to families of cap-and-trade by a factor of 10.

Think Progress previously reported the outright lie being told by Republicans that the green economy legislation before Congress would “cost every American family up to $3,100 per year in higher energy prices.” GOP leaders apparently arrived at this number by intentionally misinterpreting a 2007 study conducted by MIT.

PolitiFact interviewed John Reilly, an MIT professor and one of the authors of the study, who explained he had spoken with a representative from the House Republicans on March 20, and that he had clearly told them, “why the estimate they had was probably incorrect and what they should do to correct it.”

. . .

Today, Professor Reilly sent a forceful letter to Boehner and the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming to denounce this blatant distortion being told by Congressional Republicans. Reilly noted that $3,100 was actually “10 times the correct estimate which is approximately $340″ and that the costs on lower and middle income households can be “completely offset by returning allowance revenue to these households”.