Try reading this on oil companies PERCENT of NET profit. You cite the politically left think tank, and strong supporters of green energy. I don't exactly consider them an "independent" source of information. My source is sheer numbers comparison in the table that shows the major oil companies make 6.2 cents net profit out of every dollar of revenue. That places them 114 out of 125 major industries.esxmarkc wrote:I hit your point on the money. I was talking about published, peer-reviewed research. I never indicated differently.You miss my point. The key word is "published." Not all research is published. But, I agree that "Very little good science is ever done attempting to prove a pre-conceived outcome." You're right, it's not good science.
Why you are attempting to put words in my mouth or assume to know what I believe so incorrectly has me puzzled. I'll say it once more: I read most of it all. I filter it as best as I possibly can for it's bias. I form my own opinions and that's simply it.So you obviously believe that all those that are currently convinced in man made global warming are continuing their research with open minds and are open to being proven wrong.
Can you really say that with a straight face?The oil industry is not on the ballot, and cannot vote into power those that will make them richer at the expense of us all.
And Scientists can get their resume' s enhanced regardless of their position as long as they publish.They are also not the scientists that are enhancing their resumes with their published papers.
I'm not sure what you are trying to convince me on here. That their combined lobbying and financial influential power is of no concern here? They have the biggest dog in the fight and the most to loose.As far as oil companies being "bloated," compare their profit margin with that of other businesses. They come in at less than 10% profit margin. When you are selling megabucks worth of product throughout the world, you profit is megabucks. They spend "cubic money" which nets cubic money., but the percentage of profit is still much lower than many other businesses.
In 2011, the five biggest oil companies earned a combined profit of $375 million per day, or a record $137 billion profit for the year despite a reduction in their oil production.
The entire oil and gas industry spent on average $400,000 each day lobbying senators and representatives to weaken public health safeguards and keep big oil tax breaks.
As for 2012, you should read this. Honestly. Please read it - especially on how their spending on lobbying paid off.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/ ... -the-gold/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
but just in case you don't decide to click on it:
The oil and gas industry has been the largest beneficiary of the anti-environment votes in the House. Since the beginning of 2011, the House has voted 109 times for policies that enrich the oil and gas industry, including 45 votes to weaken environmental, public health, and safety requirements applicable to oil companies; [and] 38 votes to block or slow deployment of clean energy alternatives.
That is the beauty of peer-reviews: even the WIki is easily reviewed by you and I so before you go quoting Richard Horton you may want to do a little research on that quackAs for "peer reviewed" articles published, there are many types of peer reviews. But, to sum it up, I took note of this on the Wikipedia page you linked:
"Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet, said:
The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than just a crude means of discovering the acceptability—not the validity—of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong."
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=c ... r%20review" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I won't even DARE asking you where you got that figure from.So I'll leave this discussion with this. 97% of like minded people will always agree, regardless of the subject, as long as they all subscribe to the same thinking and beliefs. As I said before, I don't know what the truth is on man made global warming, but I am convinced the "published" science is skewed to favor the conclusion that it is. Once again, MHO.
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/05/oil ... t-215.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
You make a personal opinion that Dr. Horton is a quack. While there seems to have been some controversy, his credentials and awards seem quite impressive.
As for publishing, who makes the decision whether a study is published or not? I don't believe it's the author that is the deciding factor. Peer reviews may be open, blind, or anonymous. What type of peer reviews are in the 97% you cited? Who funded the studies that were reviewed?
As for the 97% agreement, I'd wager that 97% of communists thought it was the best type of gov't, and that 97% of capitalists think theirs is best. It's just common sense that like minded people agree.
Bottom line, unlike much research, there are politics involved with climate change. As long as that is a factor, then facts will be distorted to suit political ends by both sides, and in my opinion, that includes which studies are "published" and which are not.
