View Single Post
Old 09-11-2013, 12:51 PM   #51
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,995
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
It's impossible to deny that publicized advocacy and/or financial interest weigh heavily against any "scientist's" ability to remain objective.
What does "objective" mean, to you?

Was it wrong for the M.D.'s who studied the effect of smoking on health to advocate for restrictions on cigarettes? Why?

What "financial interest"? Do you really believe climate science is chock-full of corrupt scientists, getting rich while spreading lies for money? I know that's what Limbaugh and the other trogs tell you, but they're simply full of crap.

Quote:
If you doubt that, just reference your second to last post. You're basically making that very same argument.
So, you support the idea that scientists should only talk about their science, and anything else they state is mere advocacy and suspect, so they should just STFU.
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote