Why are the GE payed scientists ok , but Exxons 's arent?

Question

doesnt GE have more to make , being they make everything from buckets for turbins(a bucket is what the fan blades are called on a turbin) to the light bulbs?

Why is it ok to have one have studies that they will profit off of , but yet not the other ?

Answer 1

As an aside, I am still chuckling over your logic on the cow thing.  

GE hires electrical engineers, Exxon hires petroleum engineers.  In general, to retell an old joke I first heard about UNC and Duke, in two-story outhouses, the EEs complain that the PEs downstairs make too much noise.  The point being the EEs from GE are way way smarter than the PEs from Exxon, which is why GE-payed scientists ok , but Exxon 's arent.  It's not that GE doesnt have more to make , it's that Exxon will not yet profit the other from one before GE does since GEs bucket bulbs are studies of beforehand.  Capisce?  

Word of advice, don't be talking smack like this in bars in Schenectady, you will get a l*****g that you won't forget.  EEs don't punch hard, but a slide rule will leave an ugly welt.

Answer 2

There are thousand more scientists than just industry insiders saying that global warming is happening. However, how many non-industry scientists oppose the global warming theory? You can count them on one hand.

Answer 3

Funding is funding.  Obviously funding drives the results.  It is sad that the alarmists refuse to acknowledge that money drives the results in many scientific studies.  Alarmism is always favored in the survival of the fittest cause because the alarmist cause necessarily predicts gloom and doom and is therefore deemed more important.  Generally these type of studies conclude that we are in great jeopardy and that more study is needed.  The oil companies have somewhat of an incentive to play up global warming.  It they can knock the price of coal down a few notches, it will bring up the price of energy.  Government meddling in energy will inevitably lead to shortages and increased costs as well as numerous unforeseen consequences (i.e HIGH FOOD COSTS).

Answer 4

Since you gave no context to your question about GE scientists (got a report in mind?) it's hard to answer you specifically.  But basically it comes down to not trusting any "scientist" who doesn't publish their work in appropriate peer-reviewed scientific journals.  

Anyone with a little science or math training can write something on the web (or in a book) that could mislead the +75% of the population without any significant advanced science or math training.  But it's a lot harder to fool the people who've studied and work in this field, who also happen to read the peer reviewed journal articles.

So I don't care if a scientist works for GE or Exxon.  If they perform a scientific study, get it accepted to a reputable (that doesn't include a medical journal that accepts climate science reports, for example) journal, then there information is worthy of consideration.  If responses to their study are positive, from other experts in the field, that will add to it's credibility.  However, if other experts find flaws in the study, or attempt to duplicate the work and conclude something different, then the original report would become less credible.

Answer 5

So very true.....

Answer 6

Of course Exxon pay to fund global warming skeptics. Exxon need to be seen publicly defending the oil industry. This helps to give credence to the arguments from people who support AGW and their stance that all scientists who dismiss AGW are funded by the likes of Exxon. Of course the information they produce has no basis in science other wise there is less support for the AGW arguement. The truth is Exxon do not want any proof to surface that global warming is not happening. After all, they started the whole thing anyway. They have been busy buying resources and setting up companies that will benefit hugely from the new carbon trading industry. Exxon stand to make more profit from global warming than they do from oil. They also indirectly fund research to support AGW, but not openly enough for people to easily find out. It has been carfully orchestrated from the very begining. They get the best of both worlds and we have been “had” either way by Exxon.

Answer 7

GE engineers and scientists adhere to proper standards of scientific evidence.  

The Exxon/Mobile propaganda campaign is not based on any evidence. As the Royal Society showed 2 years ago, their "publications" on  global warming contained no evidence--they did no research. They wee simply propaganda--and written by PR hacks, not scientists.

Answer 8

Two reasons.

The thousands of global warming scientists include scientists funded by all kinds of sources.  Government, foundations, different industries, etc.

The ranks of the very few "skeptics" are dominated by those funded by fossil fuel companies.

And GE will continue to make money, no matter what.  They're quite diverse.

Serious action on global warming will cost Exxon billions of dollars.

The two economic incentives are not at all comparable.

Answer 9

If the big co. do not make a good profit there will be none of those good jobs to be had.

Answer 10

Exxon is currently making more money from the AGW scare mongers than any other entity because coal is being replaced by natural gas for power generation.

Answer 11

OK for what?      GE's main product is not meant to be burnt and release CO2 like Exxonmoble's is if you're talking about climate change.   GE scientists have their own set of dubious facts, but discussing them on a Global Warming sight isn't the right place for it to happen.    This would be one of them apples and oranges comparison thingies here.

Answer 12

Which scientists are funded by GE?

The thing about scientists funded by Exxon is that they're rarely doing active research in climate science.  Scientists who are actively doing research in climate science get their grant money from institutions like the National Science Foundation.  Their funding only depends on the scientific merit of their proposals and the quality of their research.  It does not depend on their position with regards to global warming.

If a scientist says 'I think humans aren't causing global warming because of X and I want to research X to prove my point', he'll be able to get grant money to study this assuming X is a valid uncertainty.

When a scientist gets money from Exxon, it not only indicates that his opinions are influenced by the oil industry, but it also indicates that he's unable to get grant money based on the quality of his research.

However, the fact that a scientist gets funding from Exxon is merely an indicator that it's quite likely that his opinions are biased.  It's still important to evaluate every scientist's arguments based on their scientific merit.  The problem with skeptical arguments is that they rarely have any scientific merit, and are easily disproven.