*sigh* every official involved with that kind of crap needs to be removed from their position.

http://lolwut.com/layout/lolwut.jpg

yes, and what happens when the Koch brothers pay a skeptic physisist to disprove global warming and he does just the opposite. I love how the government and corporations are blamed for fixing the global warming studies (with little motive i might add) yet it is readily obvious and understood by all that all sorts of members of government and corporations are doing their best to bury evidence of global warming. Be a skeptic all you want, its real.

@krellin

Every field has its idiots; I'm not sure that's justification to throw the entire profession into question. The nice thing about science is that you can always review the white paper for yourself and make your own decisions about their work.

*I* don't throw the entire profession into question....I'm asking what you all feel. i thin there is very valid science out there. I look at the particle physics stuff going on and I am intrigued.

In particular, though, when I see "studies" and "reports" that are used to set government policy (such as this, such as global warming nonsense....) then I am more likely to closely examine the money trail along side the result.

@Santa - as I said - not here to discuss global warming, and I won't. To suggest that there is "consensus" on global warming, though, just makes you look like a dumbass...but, you do that regularly anyway, so no big surprise.

lol I wasn't saying *you* feel that way. I was stating my opinion on the matter, per your request : )

I agree that one needs to be cognizant of funding when considering studies. Although, in the water-dehydration example, I'm not sure who benefits from this.

Let's also consider that the vast majority of people have a difficult time balancing their checkbooks, let alone "examining the data" of the latest scientific discovery. I'm sure that Santa is more than happy to look at a page long article and pretend he knows all there is to know about global warming. I'm sure when he sees Al Gore say something is valid, he jumps up and down and says "Yipee!!!" as he passes along a link to his friends.

I doubt what he has ever done is examine MULTIPLE sources of ice shelf data looking at GLOBAL ice, not just one area that is shrinking...whie others grow. I'm sure he doesn't look at C02 studies that show the LAGGING effect of C02 levels versus temperature. I'm sure he hasn't looked at the studies that show how "tree ring" data was selectivy choosen for inclusion in studies. All this takes time and effort...and when data is found that contradicts he pre-determined conclusion, he ignores it. (Coincidentally, there was a post a few weeks back about a study indicating how Liberals are able to "cope" with contradictory data....i.e. ignore what they don't like. santa is an excellent example of that...)

It's hard to tell who benefits from the EU thing....though clearly the target was (EVIL!) corporations, as the result of the "study" was that the evil corporations can't advertise their water as useful for hydration.

i.e. Perfect example of Anti-Corporate science

No I don't. I trust that the vast majority experts who tell me that this is occuring know what they are talking about. In addition, when i see the qualities of the minds that vocally oppose their work, and the corporations that back them, that reinforces my trust for the other side. Bottom line is Global Warming has been created into a political cleavage by oil companies fearing any interference, and as usual people like krellin are glad to devolve a scientific question into a culture war. Go right ahead there is no way to stop you all, so all I can do is hope you are right, because otherwise we are fucked

Krellin: I'm a scientist (in training?). There are politics, but at least in the academic world, they are at a minimum. As with all things, consider the source. Since I don't think anybody has a financial incentive to "invent" a global warming crisis (sorry, I know you don't want to go there) I'm inclined to trust them. The leading scientific nay-sayer that I am aware of (sorry I forget his name) has written a very impressive-looking paper, but with very little digging I found he is deeply in the pockets of vested interests.

Are you familiar with google scholar? If you want to know what scientists are reading, that's a good place to start, and none of the journals that I glanced at (an admittedly brief look) attempt to falsify global warming... so no, I don't believe you when you say there is no consensus. I'd be happy to look at any scientific articles you have on hand - I keep an open mind.

LOL sorry, not trying to derail... but please do show me what you've found.

"Coincidentally, there was a post a few weeks back about a study indicating how Liberals are able to "cope" with contradictory data....i.e. ignore what they don't like. santa is an excellent example of that...)"

Seems like you're ignoring the inconvenient skeptic study that demonstrated evidence for man-made global warming. Look at the level of "scholarship" by the skeptics, and compare that to the scientists they're trying to slander. The skeptic "studies" are fraught with lies, misinformation, and distortions to cook the books in their favor. They don't follow their own standards. They're nothing but paid propagandists for big industry, trying to besmirch honest people who get paid very little because their findings stand in the way of the big polluters getting what they want.

And BTW Krellin, I'm on the verge of getting the most kick ass job in the world, so much for how completely undesirable i am on the job market

I guess these 50 million laser images are all lies.

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/stories/polar-ice-caps-melting-faster-than-we-thought

Santa, define "expert". the odd thing about "climate" scinece is how few actually "Climatoologists" are considered experts....whereas I can point you so actual, real climate scientists...you know, "Climatologists"...that say the "science" behind anthropogenic global warming is just bullshit. but of course...you won't listen to them, because your mind is made up. That's OK....it means you are a typical American. You thought the generic phrase "Change we can believe in" actually meant something positive, even though you didn't have any idea what it meant. You probably believe the "Occupy" movement is a good thing, even though they have no spokesperson, and have no specific claims. And that's OK....because it just means you are a typical sheep-like American.

As for your job....goody for you. I'm sure you will clean the toilets well.

@Yellowjacket...I'm a "scientist" to - I'm an engineer. (Define "scientist") As for politics at a minimum in Acedemia...Ahhhhh ha ha ha ha ha!! Who the hell do you think funds the school??? Who gives them their science grants? No politics in Acedemia....give me a break, dude. It's hardly worth reading the rest of what you say after such a blatantly ridiculous statement.

As for google scholar...one, Google is hardly an unbiased source. Their search engines are for profit, and their result are dictated on profit, and political motivations of the corporation. It is demonstrable and documented. As for "what scientists are reading"...as if every legit scientist is putting their reading list on google, huh? Again...you make me chuckle. Our load. Long and hard...

Your statements are ridiculous. "The (singular) leading scientific nay-sayer...." Again...pure ignorance. You are a good sheep, and will make a very good corporate/government scientist.

Santa / Yellowjacket: The question: Do you (Yes or No will suffice) believe that scientific findings that yo uhear about are 1. Sponsored by Government and Corporations primarily and that 2. The release of findings is therefore dictated by those entities who *bought* the research, and therefore have a vested interest in the outcome of the science?

oookaaay... and it only took you a single reply to go from polite to hostile.

I'll humor you though... scientists don't have a choice on whether they get 'put' on google scholar. It isn't a 'reading list,' it's a direct link to virtually every peer reviewed journal article ever written. It's just a simple way to search for relevant topics, and it's conveniently sorted (yes, like google) based on number of hits. So whatever scientists are searching for is at the top.

As far as 'no politics in academia,' that's not what I said. I said it was 'at a minimum,' meaning compared to most other sources, which have conflicts of interest due to direct financial interest.

Also, I was very careful to state 'naysayer that I was aware of,' just to pull that tooth for you... but go ahead and gum it to death if you like. But again, I'll ask you to provide peer reviewed journal articles that falsify global warming. I've never seen a good one and if you have them it may do some good to sway me.

As a final note, I think it is very easy for people to criticize scientists, but the sad fact is that the only ones who are credible in doing so are those that can comprehend the nuts and bolts of their research (i.e. other scientists). And of that small group of very, very smart people, to my understanding the consensus is that global warming is very real.

Yes, it is true, but that doesn't necessarily invalidate the findings themselves. It is mandatory to list all conflicts of interest when submitting for publication, that way the reader can decide for himself the degree of bias (if applicable)

"Google is hardly an unbiased source."

Yeah the "bias" of reporting articles actually published in journals.

@Yellowjacket -- Sorry...that was not hostile. I think your statement was ridiculous and naive. If you would like to rephrase that in a way that is not hostile, go ahead. I prefer to say I am *honest*. You want to be a scientist, but you look to the corporate and political for your guidance....your are fooling yourself. You think acedemia is and honest arbiter of truth? Then you are just blatantly naive....that isn't hostile. it's just true. Who do you think funds the college research? And what do you think happens to that funding if their political sponsor disagrees with their results? The researches may not openly discuss politics....but who do you think gets funding and WHY do they get the funding they receive? Because maybe they write grant proposals that they know will catch the eye of people they know will push for their funding. whatever...if you want to pretend thre is no politics in funding, keep thinking that.

"The leading nay-sayer that you are aware of" i.e., though I suspect you are a believer in global warming, the notion that you are only aware of ONE nay-sayer is strong indication that you have done exactly NO research on the other side of the argument. I suspect the same is true with Santa and most sheeple that regurgitate what they have been told, as opposed to what they have learned to be true.

As for Google...again...it's a corporate entity known for skewing honest results and pushing a political agenda. If you want to claim itis full and complete, go for it. I don't. I don't believe wikipedia is a good source of info.

I agree with your final statement....only it's not just "who can criticize" scientists...it's also a matter of how quickly you jump onto the bandwagon of belief and support. In my lifetime, eggs have been incredible and edible....then they were killers you should never eat...then they were OK once a week....now the door is wide open. it's a simple fucking egg...and nobody can decide if it is healthy of not. that one of thousands of contradictory things "scientists" have told me over the years. I have been told in the 70's that we were definitely heading for a new global ICE age....now we are going to burn up and the seas will rise and....We were supposed to run out of food for the planet decades ago. We were supposed to run out of oil any number of times. The planet was only supposed to be able to sustain 1 billion people....all these "scientific" claims I have heard, backed by "scientists" and proclaimed by elements of government and media alike.

I *love* science. I love discovery. I love that I can store insane amounts of data on something the size of the thumbnail thanks to scientific discovery. I also am experienced enough to be skeptical of a great deal of what currently passes for science these days,and my gut instinct is to DIStrust before I believe. I DIStrust because I have a bit of understanding of how money flows, and how "blind" results have a tendency to meet donors expectations (studied this in college, as a matter of fact...)

If you feel offended by my words, I suggest you lighten up. I won't apologize for calling something ridiculous that I think is ridiculous. Most o fyou never have any issue insulting me....so don't be so offended when I do the same in return.

Follow that "money" trail, Krellin!

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-26-2011/weathering-fights---science---what-s-it-up-to-

Not asking for an apology man, I know you get heated :P and it takes a lot more than that to offend me... most people bore me long before they offend :)

Now as far as your argument regarding academic bias goes, I don't deny that there is some, but in my experience, for what it's worth, it is not nearly as prevalent as you are making it out to be. Keep in mind that my area (much like the majority of scientific research) is not controversial at all, and thus does not come under this kind of scrutiny.

You are correct that in that my research on the other side is limited. But before you point the finger, I will for the third time invite you to provide peer reviewed evidence supporting your claim. Interestingly I've actually done more research looking for articles that support your argument than reading ones that oppose it; the lack of results is staggering.

This is NOT my area of research, so as a scientist I have enough faith in my fellows to support the overwhelming consensus. I don't even have time to read every relevant article in my OWN field, much less another. And I guess that answers your question of 'Do you trust scientists?'

Yes, yes I do.

I think it naive to suppose that scientists are affected by human failures and temptations less than everybody else. There was a story recently in some major journal (Science? Nature? not the journal itself but its "lighter side" version -- I can dig up a link if anybody cares) wherein a journal editor remarked that postdocs make the best referees because they are too naive to be politically motivated in their remarks.

Don't get me wrong. Science is great, I love it. But to ignore the human aspects just makes one less able to use it correctly as a good tool for gaining knowledge.

this seems pretty reasonable, it is regulation of advertising standards, a thing unknown in the US

"Prof Brian Ratcliffe, spokesman for the Nutrition Society, said dehydration was usually caused by a clinical condition and that one could remain adequately hydrated without drinking water.

He said: “The EU is saying that this does not reduce the risk of dehydration and that is correct.

“This claim is trying to imply that there is something special about bottled water which is not a reasonable claim.”

----

though i was suspicious at first that this was another euromyth made up by europhobe newspapers, but it turns out it's just a piece of anti-advertising regulation which the europhobes have jumped on.

Is the science wrong or is it being misrepresented? I think the point is, advertising does a great job misrepresenting 'facts' and this is the EU preventing such.A tiny insignifigant regulation which will no doubt affect millions in a way which most of them don't ever notice.

Because in all fairness the EU is just about as powerful as the member states allow it to be, and thus dealing with trivia like this is where the EU get's it's kicks...

"He said: “The EU is saying that this does not reduce the risk of dehydration and that is correct.""

You're saying that's a reasonable statement, Orathaic?

...

...

There are certainly some rogue "scientists" like the ones being paid to deny global warming like those who tried to cast doubt on the detrimental health effects of smoking but I feel the vast majority of real scientists base their careers on their reputation and present the truth as they see it.

As for no consensus, you must be joking.

When examining the morass of conflicting media surrounding global warming I think you have to ask yourself 'Cui bono'? I just can't believe there is some secret and powerful interest paying thousands of scientists to fabricate evidence. How much benefit could they actually receive? On the other hand it is very clear who would benefit from hiding the truth.

@Smeck, you said'You're saying that's a reasonable statement, Orathaic?'

if the dehydration is being caused by a clinical condition, and water will not fix it, then the claim is false. And yes i think it is reasonable to prevent advertisers from putting forth false claims.

Honestly, in the public interest, i think banning this will do more good than harm.

Do you disagree, or do you think governments should not act in the public interest?

And that quote is not mine, it is one of the guys who supports this claim.

ha cleaning out toilets, right. But then again if they asked me to clean out toilets where the job is located it would still be a dream job

@Orathaic, they didn't say it would fix it. They said it would prevent it.

"Do you disagree, or do you think governments should not act in the public interest?"

I utterly disagree. In fact, while I respect you and your opinions on most things, this one seems completely ludicrous to me. I don't even begin to see how you could hold it, and I hope you'll explain.

"And that quote is not mine, it is one of the guys who supports this claim."

Yes, which you said you agreed with. I was quoting it to see if you could really possibly agree with such a patently false claim.

Reiterating: he is not just saying water doesn't cure dehydration. He is saying water does not REDUCE the RISK of hydration.

If that statement is true -- which you and he are saying it is -- then somebody who has drunk water is not even at lower RISK of dehydration, statistically, than somebody who has not.

This is so absurd I can't even believe I'm arguing about it.

SunZi, nobody that I'm aware of has suggested that scientists in most cases are paid by "powerful interests" to fabricate results. It's more subtle. They're paid by interests to get science, and they get paid more if their theories are deemed important and true. They are thus at great temptation to hide results that gravitate against these things, etc., to unfairly criticize competing claims, and so on. This stuff is all well documented. Google.

"Sorry...that was not hostile. I think your statement was ridiculous and naive."

lol

'@Orathaic, they didn't say it would fix it. They said it would prevent it.'

so you are saying water can prevent other medical conditions which have dehydration as a symptom? well, i'm glad to know you are an expert.

I said: 'if the dehydration is being caused by a clinical condition, and water will not fix it, then the claim is false.'

with which part are you disagreeing? your quote makes it sound like you don't think governments should act in the public interest, though i fear i must be reading that wrong.

The fact is most of us get water from our food, (obviously depending on our diet) and if you already have enough hydration from your food then drinking water will not make any statistical difference.

Thus in the vast majority of cases of dehydration drinking water would not have been any use as a preventative measure.

And again, this is a minor regulation which is being made into a huge issue. Nowhere near as important as good education in the first place (i believe that dehydration is still a major source of child mortality in the developing world, where clean water supplies may be more difficult to find and 'common sense' says you shouldn't put water in a leaking pot, as it will just leak more... so parents of children with diarrhea do give them more water... )

This is about public education and understanding. And how advertisers will manipulate information to manipulate people.

perhaps companies should also be allowed claim that their water will help you detox?

and if 'water hydrates' is common in sense enough as everyone seems to claim, then what is the need to say it? if companies are simply asking to be allowed make claims which everyone already knows then they are doing nothing but manipulating people, those people who you claim have common sense.

"so you are saying water can prevent other medical conditions which have dehydration as a symptom? well, i'm glad to know you are an expert."

No, I'm not. I'm sorry to know you struggle with English comprehension. The ad did not say (and I did not say) that water could prevent all medical conditions leading to dehydration. It said it could reduce the risk of dehydration. This statement is true PERIOD.

Let's take an example. About once a year in the US, some high school kid dies during sports workouts because it was hot and he wasn't drinking enough. Not, he had a condition. Not, he was drunk. Just, it was hot and he wasn't drinking enough water. Drinking more water would _almost certainly_ have saved such the kid's life. In particular, it would have reduced the risk of dehydration.

Now, did the ad say, "Water will guarantee no dehydration?" No, of course. Neither does ANY drug or substance guarantee it will work in the face of every condition that may cause the symptoms it addresses. They can only address RISK, the average over the population of the different causes and factors causing the condition.

And guess what, in a very large proportion of cases, water does indeed stave off dehydration.

"I said: 'if the dehydration is being caused by a clinical condition, and water will not fix it, then the claim is false.'

with which part are you disagreeing? "

I'm disagreeing with the relevancy of the statement, since the claim was not that water fixes dehydration in every case.

"(i believe that dehydration is still a major source of child mortality in the developing world, where clean water supplies may be more difficult to find and 'common sense' says you shouldn't put water in a leaking pot, as it will just leak more... so parents of children with diarrhea do give them more water... "

Why would clean water supplies matter? Surely there's enough water in their food?

"and if 'water hydrates' is common in sense enough as everyone seems to claim, then what is the need to say it? "

That is a completely silly statement.