The Right to Keep and Bear Arms: The Gun Thread

[Chocolate Shake Man]

This is evidence of the integrity of university research, not the reverse.

Yes, and furthermore, even though the article mentions both federal funding and fraud, this is nevertheless not a case of a researcher being funded to procure a particular result. At least, that's not what this news article is suggesting.

[Emily]

Fille de Plage, honest question:
You've put up a few articles showing a few researchers have done corrupted work. One of them was not working for a university; the other was investigated and outed by his university.
You started by asserting that university research as a whole is not to be trusted.
As you look for evidence and find a smattering of articles about single instances, is there any point where you might think, "well, I've heard of a few really egregious instances and I've allowed it to affect my judgment of the whole lot, when maybe it turns out that these instances are not actually representative of the field. Maybe I should rethink."
Could you change your mind and think that, lacking substantial evidence that there's extensive corruption within university research, perhaps university researchers are actually honest people trying to do their job well as much as anyone else?
Or is it fixed that university researchers are as a whole corrupt, and regardless of evidence, your mind will not change on that?

[filledeplage]

http://news.sciencemag.org/2012/09/harvard-psychology-researcher-committed-fraud-u.s.-investigation-concludes

If you dig, to find fraud you will find it.  It is shocking.  So once the shock wears off, you have new skills that help you be a better consumer of products or of education.  

Wait, so in this article, this was reported:

"Hauser's work in humans and monkeys probed the biological roots of cognition and morality. He was an especially popular professor among undergraduates, and his provocative ideas attracted many collaborators as well as frequent media attention. He was a prolific scientist, in recent years averaging about one peer-reviewed article per month. But his work fell under a cloud in 2007, when members of his laboratory brought concerns about his research conduct to Harvard officials, instigating a 3-year internal investigation.

In August 2010, The Boston Globe broke the news that Harvard had found Hauser solely responsible for eight instances of scientific misconduct. University officials confirmed the reports but did not provide further details. Harvard's silence left researchers studying animal cognition wondering which of Hauser's hundreds of published studies might be tainted. In the wake of the investigation, in 2010 Hauser announced he was taking a year's academic leave. In July 2011, he resigned his position at Harvard."

The university itself handled this exactly as it should... his colleagues reported him to university officials who investigated, outed him, and pushed him out. The university is losing one of its best-funded researchers because the integrity of research is more important to the university than the funding.
This is evidence of the integrity of university research, not the reverse.

OK - I get that point.  However, who was "minding the store" and verifying his work from the outset?

The job is to "verify" ahead of time, to vet the researchers.  And HR can make mistakes, but his colleagues should not have had that terrible burden to "out" him.  They were doing the job of whomever his supervisor was.  That is very unfair.

Harvard won't miss the dough.  They worry about their reputation and perception in the press.

[Emily]

http://news.sciencemag.org/2012/09/harvard-psychology-researcher-committed-fraud-u.s.-investigation-concludes

If you dig, to find fraud you will find it.  It is shocking.  So once the shock wears off, you have new skills that help you be a better consumer of products or of education.  

Wait, so in this article, this was reported:

"Hauser's work in humans and monkeys probed the biological roots of cognition and morality. He was an especially popular professor among undergraduates, and his provocative ideas attracted many collaborators as well as frequent media attention. He was a prolific scientist, in recent years averaging about one peer-reviewed article per month. But his work fell under a cloud in 2007, when members of his laboratory brought concerns about his research conduct to Harvard officials, instigating a 3-year internal investigation.

In August 2010, The Boston Globe broke the news that Harvard had found Hauser solely responsible for eight instances of scientific misconduct. University officials confirmed the reports but did not provide further details. Harvard's silence left researchers studying animal cognition wondering which of Hauser's hundreds of published studies might be tainted. In the wake of the investigation, in 2010 Hauser announced he was taking a year's academic leave. In July 2011, he resigned his position at Harvard."

The university itself handled this exactly as it should... his colleagues reported him to university officials who investigated, outed him, and pushed him out. The university is losing one of its best-funded researchers because the integrity of research is more important to the university than the funding.
This is evidence of the integrity of university research, not the reverse.

OK - I get that point.  However, who was "minding the store" and verifying his work from the outset?

The job is to "verify" ahead of time, to vet the researchers.  And HR can make mistakes, but his colleagues should not have had that terrible burden to "out" him.  They were doing the job of whomever his supervisor was.  That is very unfair.

Harvard won't miss the dough.  They worry about their reputation and perception in the press.

Tenured professors don't have supervisors per se. They are the top of the research organization. As the executives at a corporation are the top of their org. It's up to their peers to review their work and report it to the board, if a corporation, or administration, if a university.

[Emily]

http://news.sciencemag.org/2012/09/harvard-psychology-researcher-committed-fraud-u.s.-investigation-concludes

If you dig, to find fraud you will find it.  It is shocking.  So once the shock wears off, you have new skills that help you be a better consumer of products or of education.  

Wait, so in this article, this was reported:

"Hauser's work in humans and monkeys probed the biological roots of cognition and morality. He was an especially popular professor among undergraduates, and his provocative ideas attracted many collaborators as well as frequent media attention. He was a prolific scientist, in recent years averaging about one peer-reviewed article per month. But his work fell under a cloud in 2007, when members of his laboratory brought concerns about his research conduct to Harvard officials, instigating a 3-year internal investigation.

In August 2010, The Boston Globe broke the news that Harvard had found Hauser solely responsible for eight instances of scientific misconduct. University officials confirmed the reports but did not provide further details. Harvard's silence left researchers studying animal cognition wondering which of Hauser's hundreds of published studies might be tainted. In the wake of the investigation, in 2010 Hauser announced he was taking a year's academic leave. In July 2011, he resigned his position at Harvard."

The university itself handled this exactly as it should... his colleagues reported him to university officials who investigated, outed him, and pushed him out. The university is losing one of its best-funded researchers because the integrity of research is more important to the university than the funding.
This is evidence of the integrity of university research, not the reverse.

OK - I get that point.  However, who was "minding the store" and verifying his work from the outset?

The job is to "verify" ahead of time, to vet the researchers.  And HR can make mistakes, but his colleagues should not have had that terrible burden to "out" him.  They were doing the job of whomever his supervisor was.  That is very unfair.

Harvard won't miss the dough.  They worry about their reputation and perception in the press.

It is true that Harvard worries about their reputation. Universities live and die by reputation, which is why integrity is so important to them.
Financially, Harvard's had some tough years lately. They used to be able to operate solely off of their endowment, but there was a period, in the 90s I think perhaps ranging into the early 2000's, when their budget was more than the endowment could handle. But I think they've got that back under control.

[filledeplage]

Fille de Plage, honest question:
You've put up a few articles showing a few researchers have done corrupted work. One of them was not working for a university; the other was investigated and outed by his university.
You started by asserting that university research as a whole is not to be trusted.
As you look for evidence and find a smattering of articles about single instances, is there any point where you might think, "well, I've heard of a few really egregious instances and I've allowed it to affect my judgment of the whole lot, when maybe it turns out that these instances are not actually representative of the field. Maybe I should rethink."
Could you change your mind and think that, lacking substantial evidence that there's extensive corruption within university research, perhaps university researchers are actually honest people trying to do their job well as much as anyone else?
Or is it fixed that university researchers are as a whole corrupt, and regardless of evidence, your mind will not change on that?

After having seen many, both in case law, and matters of public safety and health, whether defective products or toys, that were defectively designed, my position is check things out.  And it doesn't mean they are all cheats, but now everyone needs to be prudent.    

It isn't fixed, but now, as a result of mostly personal injuries, that are unreported or under reported, such as the silicone breast implants, or drugs such as thalidomide that caused fetuses to be born missing limbs, and whose drugs and devices, came about as university and pharma industry research and vast budgets for promotion, it is the responsible thing to do.  

The question has to be asked.  Who funded the research? Are they independent?  Who stands to benefit?  

If it is neutrally funded and not product driven, then it is a different story.  

When the Gillette company does research on its own razors, should you ask?  Of course you should.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

The question has to be asked.  Who funded the research? Are they independent?  Who stands to benefit?  

If it is neutrally funded and not product driven, then it is a different story.  

When the Gillette company does research on its own razors, should you ask?  Of course you should.

Did you ask these questions about the author of the article that Breitbart posted, who has been largely in the pocket of organizations with a vested interest in undermining science on global warming? If you did ask these questions, what made you decide to post the article? If you didn't, why the double standard?

[filledeplage]

The question has to be asked.  Who funded the research? Are they independent?  Who stands to benefit?  

If it is neutrally funded and not product driven, then it is a different story.  

When the Gillette company does research on its own razors, should you ask?  Of course you should.

Did you ask these questions about the author of the article that Breitbart posted, who has been largely in the pocket of organizations with a vested interest in undermining science on global warming? If you did ask these questions, what made you decide to post the article? If you didn't, why the double standard?

CSM - thank you for that information about Breitbart. 

Which organizations have a vested interest in undermining the concept of global warming?

[Emily]

After having seen many, both in case law, and matters of public safety and health, whether defective products or toys, that were defectively designed, my position is check things out.  And it doesn't mean they are all cheats, but now everyone needs to be prudent.    

It isn't fixed, but now, as a result of mostly personal injuries, that are unreported or under reported, such as the silicone breast implants, or drugs such as thalidomide that caused fetuses to be born missing limbs, and whose drugs and devices, came about as university and pharma industry research and vast budgets for promotion, it is the responsible thing to do.  

The question has to be asked.  Who funded the research? Are they independent?  Who stands to benefit?  

If it is neutrally funded and not product driven, then it is a different story.  

When the Gillette company does research on its own razors, should you ask?  Of course you should.

I will say that I think it's a shame that researchers at institutions that should be neutral, like universities, have to rely on private funding. Again, because universities rely on their reputations, universities and serious academics take integrity very seriously. Hints of corruption always create waves at universities and professors sneer intensely at other professors whom they suspect aren't entirely on the up-and-up. There's social, political and professional pressure to maintain your integrity and you will be fired and shunned if you are shown to have compromised it. But, yes, private funding can tempt those who have snuck through the cracks. I maintain that those are few.

You've mentioned that it used to be more trustworthy and that's because there used to be more public funding allowing people to become "hotshots" with no compromise.

To your specific scenario:
If the research was funded by Gillette and performed by Gillette employees, I would lean toward skepticism.
If the research was funded in part by Gillette and performed by Harvard tenured professors in their role as Harvard researchers, I would lean toward trusting the results but if the topic mattered to me for any particular reason, I would read the study and its peer reviews to validate the conditions.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

The question has to be asked.  Who funded the research? Are they independent?  Who stands to benefit?  

If it is neutrally funded and not product driven, then it is a different story.  

When the Gillette company does research on its own razors, should you ask?  Of course you should.

Did you ask these questions about the author of the article that Breitbart posted, who has been largely in the pocket of organizations with a vested interest in undermining science on global warming? If you did ask these questions, what made you decide to post the article? If you didn't, why the double standard?

CSM - thank you for that information about Breitbart.  

Which organizations have a vested interest in undermining the concept of global warming?

You can read the article I linked to if you'd like. Also consider oil and petroleum corporations and trade associations, the coal industry, etc.

Also, I would like to put in my objection to this whole tangent (in which I have played a role) which I think only serves as a diversion from the initial response that I gave to Micha.

[Emily]

OK. I found the Breitbart article. It's here:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/04/harvard-syracuse-researchers-caught-lying-to-boost-obama-climate-rules/

The reason that this was only reported on Breitbart, then linked to by sites with similar political affiliations, is that the article is presenting bogus information. The gist of the article is that this statement, which quotes one of the researchers, is a lie:
“The EPA, which did not participate in the study or interact with its authors, Buonocore says, roundly welcomed its findings.”
The article supports this notion by establishing that:

"A July 8, 2014 email shows Lambert arranging a conference call with EPA staff to get EPA’s input on the study. One of the EPA staff involved was the contact person for agency’s Clean Power Plan cost-benefit analysis. A subsequent e-mail shows that the top EPA staffer on the Clean Power Plan cost-benefit analysis was added to the call.

A July 15, 2014 email from Driscoll to an EPA staffer boasts of “considerable interest” in their analysis from unnamed outside “groups.” One sentence after buttering up the EPA staffer, Driscoll asks her if they could have a phone call to discuss fundraising for a conference Driscoll is organizing. No appearance of attempted financial conflict there?

A November 7, 2014 e-mail from Lambert to EPA about the study reads, “We would like to follow back up with you by phone to discuss possible next steps in this analysis and what role you might be able to play.”

However, what the article fails to report is that the study was published on May 27, 2014, before these interactions took place. So, they were discussing how to make use of the results after they'd been found.

Here's a press release about the publication of the research: http://eng-cs.syr.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Press-Release_Co-Benefits-Study-5.27.pdf

FilleDePlage, with all due respect, maybe your verification process would be better aimed at your sources that smear university researchers rather than university researchers. Our little unscientific study here has shown that the reports of corruption are more questionable than the research they are reporting of.

Frankly, I suspect that Breitbart was intentionally misleading its readers.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Thank you very much for that, Emily. That confirms my suspicions on the previous page that this article was nothing more than misinformation.

[Emily]

OK. I found the Breitbart article. It's here:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/04/harvard-syracuse-researchers-caught-lying-to-boost-obama-climate-rules/

The reason that this was only reported on Breitbart, then linked to by sites with similar political affiliations, is that the article is presenting bogus information. The gist of the article is that this statement, which quotes one of the researchers, is a lie:
“The EPA, which did not participate in the study or interact with its authors, Buonocore says, roundly welcomed its findings.”
The article supports this notion by establishing that:

"A July 8, 2014 email shows Lambert arranging a conference call with EPA staff to get EPA’s input on the study. One of the EPA staff involved was the contact person for agency’s Clean Power Plan cost-benefit analysis. A subsequent e-mail shows that the top EPA staffer on the Clean Power Plan cost-benefit analysis was added to the call.

A July 15, 2014 email from Driscoll to an EPA staffer boasts of “considerable interest” in their analysis from unnamed outside “groups.” One sentence after buttering up the EPA staffer, Driscoll asks her if they could have a phone call to discuss fundraising for a conference Driscoll is organizing. No appearance of attempted financial conflict there?

A November 7, 2014 e-mail from Lambert to EPA about the study reads, “We would like to follow back up with you by phone to discuss possible next steps in this analysis and what role you might be able to play.”

However, what the article fails to report is that the study was published on May 27, 2014, before these interactions took place. So, they were discussing how to make use of the results after they'd been found.

Here's a press release about the publication of the research: http://eng-cs.syr.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Press-Release_Co-Benefits-Study-5.27.pdf

FilleDePlage, with all due respect, maybe your verification process would be better aimed at your sources that smear university researchers rather than university researchers. Our little unscientific study here has shown that the reports of corruption are more questionable than the research they are reporting of.

Frankly, I suspect that Breitbart was intentionally misleading its readers.

In red above is particularly egregious and manipulative. First, there's nothing wrong with soliciting funds for a conference. Second, he was doing it after he concluded and published his research. The slur by Breitbart.com is almost suable. The only way they avoid defamation is by putting it as a question rather than statement.

[Emily]

The question has to be asked.  Who funded the research? Are they independent?  Who stands to benefit?  

If it is neutrally funded and not product driven, then it is a different story.  

When the Gillette company does research on its own razors, should you ask?  Of course you should.

Did you ask these questions about the author of the article that Breitbart posted, who has been largely in the pocket of organizations with a vested interest in undermining science on global warming? If you did ask these questions, what made you decide to post the article? If you didn't, why the double standard?

CSM - thank you for that information about Breitbart.  

Which organizations have a vested interest in undermining the concept of global warming?

You can read the article I linked to if you'd like. Also consider oil and petroleum corporations and trade associations, the coal industry, etc.

Also, I would like to put in my objection to this whole tangent (in which I have played a role) which I think only serves as a diversion from the initial response that I gave to Micha.

Ha! Sorry about the tangent CSM. My personal honor was at stake!

[Emily]

One more thing about gun regulation and the right to defend yourself: Someone should research and count occasions where civilians managed to save their lives because they were carrying guns in the US and see if it outnumbers the occasions where people were killed because guns are freely accessible, like when children find their parents' gun and shoot them because they didn't know better. If it turns out that guns save more lives than they cost, no regulations should be installed. If it turns out that the number of lives saved is relatively marginal, regulations should be brought to effect.

This has been researched and quite extensively. The research shows that the claims of self-defense are typically untrue.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/

Other research shows that "for every age group, where there are more guns there are more accidental deaths" and "the mortality rate was 7 times higher in the four states with the most guns compared to the four states with the fewest guns."

bump

[Chocolate Shake Man]

The question has to be asked.  Who funded the research? Are they independent?  Who stands to benefit?  

If it is neutrally funded and not product driven, then it is a different story.  

When the Gillette company does research on its own razors, should you ask?  Of course you should.

Did you ask these questions about the author of the article that Breitbart posted, who has been largely in the pocket of organizations with a vested interest in undermining science on global warming? If you did ask these questions, what made you decide to post the article? If you didn't, why the double standard?

CSM - thank you for that information about Breitbart.  

Which organizations have a vested interest in undermining the concept of global warming?

You can read the article I linked to if you'd like. Also consider oil and petroleum corporations and trade associations, the coal industry, etc.

Also, I would like to put in my objection to this whole tangent (in which I have played a role) which I think only serves as a diversion from the initial response that I gave to Micha.

Ha! Sorry about the tangent CSM. My personal honor was at stake!

Nothing to be sorry for -- like I said, I played a role in the tangent too.

Ultimately though it becomes difficult to combat something like that. Needless to say, one cannot credibly offer the position that they are in favour of verification while posting these kinds of articles as evidence. Let's be honest about what this is: an attempt to discredit a source because it offered up uncomfortable information. And what's remarkable is that it was being intimated that by linking to this information, I was bolstering a left wing agenda. But what do you call putting up an unverified article written by a shill for Big Oil that actively distorts the truth in order to combat this thus far not discredited research that the Harvard website posts?

[Emily]

One more thing about gun regulation and the right to defend yourself: Someone should research and count occasions where civilians managed to save their lives because they were carrying guns in the US and see if it outnumbers the occasions where people were killed because guns are freely accessible, like when children find their parents' gun and shoot them because they didn't know better. If it turns out that guns save more lives than they cost, no regulations should be installed. If it turns out that the number of lives saved is relatively marginal, regulations should be brought to effect.

CSM's response:

This has been researched and quite extensively. The research shows that the claims of self-defense are typically untrue.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/

Other research shows that "for every age group, where there are more guns there are more accidental deaths" and "the mortality rate was 7 times higher in the four states with the most guns compared to the four states with the fewest guns."

rebump courtesy of Emily 

[filledeplage]

OK. I found the Breitbart article. It's here:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/04/harvard-syracuse-researchers-caught-lying-to-boost-obama-climate-rules/

The reason that this was only reported on Breitbart, then linked to by sites with similar political affiliations, is that the article is presenting bogus information. The gist of the article is that this statement, which quotes one of the researchers, is a lie:
“The EPA, which did not participate in the study or interact with its authors, Buonocore says, roundly welcomed its findings.”
The article supports this notion by establishing that:

"A July 8, 2014 email shows Lambert arranging a conference call with EPA staff to get EPA’s input on the study. One of the EPA staff involved was the contact person for agency’s Clean Power Plan cost-benefit analysis. A subsequent e-mail shows that the top EPA staffer on the Clean Power Plan cost-benefit analysis was added to the call.

A July 15, 2014 email from Driscoll to an EPA staffer boasts of “considerable interest” in their analysis from unnamed outside “groups.” One sentence after buttering up the EPA staffer, Driscoll asks her if they could have a phone call to discuss fundraising for a conference Driscoll is organizing. No appearance of attempted financial conflict there?

A November 7, 2014 e-mail from Lambert to EPA about the study reads, “We would like to follow back up with you by phone to discuss possible next steps in this analysis and what role you might be able to play.”

However, what the article fails to report is that the study was published on May 27, 2014, before these interactions took place. So, they were discussing how to make use of the results after they'd been found.

Here's a press release about the publication of the research: http://eng-cs.syr.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Press-Release_Co-Benefits-Study-5.27.pdf

FilleDePlage, with all due respect, maybe your verification process would be better aimed at your sources that smear university researchers rather than university researchers. Our little unscientific study here has shown that the reports of corruption are more questionable than the research they are reporting of.

Frankly, I suspect that Breitbart was intentionally misleading its readers.

In red above is particularly egregious and manipulative. First, there's nothing wrong with soliciting funds for a conference. Second, he was doing it after he concluded and published his research. The slur by Breitbart.com is almost suable. The only way they avoid defamation is by putting it as a question rather than statement.

The EPA is an administrative agency branch of the government, subject to political manipulation. They have 15,000 people on the payroll. Their job is to protect the environment, and generally that includes the outdoors, and does nothing for indoor pollution, or those who get sick from cancer, etc. from indoor air quality.  So if poison from outdoors kills you, they might do something if it hits the press, and becomes high profile, they get involved.  

Several years ago, a group came up with this system called "cap and trade." It was devised to combat acid rain.  And I'm filtering it because I am not a scientist, there are "credits" given to energy companies, to use as currency to "pollute"  that I would compare to monopoly money for that board game.  Everyone seems to start out the same.  And, if there is an "energy company" who doesn't pollute they have have their monopoly money left over.  So the big polluters barter to purchase those credits. They may limit the total amount of emissions, as I understand the program, but those who pollute, get to keep doing it if they can buy the credits from another company.  Each energy company is not held to a uniform standard.  They can buy their way out of their emissions.

And,where was the EPA with inspection for the Diesel Volkswagens?  I am not giving the EPA one bit of cred, because this "clean diesel" (and I've driven VW diesels in the past, both in the States and Europe) because they haven't done their job. These VW diesels cars were in the US since 2009.  Where have they been? It took them 6 years to investigate? They have 15,000 "payroll patriots" who let this go for all that time?



 

[Emily]

OK. I found the Breitbart article. It's here:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/04/harvard-syracuse-researchers-caught-lying-to-boost-obama-climate-rules/

The reason that this was only reported on Breitbart, then linked to by sites with similar political affiliations, is that the article is presenting bogus information. The gist of the article is that this statement, which quotes one of the researchers, is a lie:
“The EPA, which did not participate in the study or interact with its authors, Buonocore says, roundly welcomed its findings.”
The article supports this notion by establishing that:

"A July 8, 2014 email shows Lambert arranging a conference call with EPA staff to get EPA’s input on the study. One of the EPA staff involved was the contact person for agency’s Clean Power Plan cost-benefit analysis. A subsequent e-mail shows that the top EPA staffer on the Clean Power Plan cost-benefit analysis was added to the call.

A July 15, 2014 email from Driscoll to an EPA staffer boasts of “considerable interest” in their analysis from unnamed outside “groups.” One sentence after buttering up the EPA staffer, Driscoll asks her if they could have a phone call to discuss fundraising for a conference Driscoll is organizing. No appearance of attempted financial conflict there?

A November 7, 2014 e-mail from Lambert to EPA about the study reads, “We would like to follow back up with you by phone to discuss possible next steps in this analysis and what role you might be able to play.”

However, what the article fails to report is that the study was published on May 27, 2014, before these interactions took place. So, they were discussing how to make use of the results after they'd been found.

Here's a press release about the publication of the research: http://eng-cs.syr.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Press-Release_Co-Benefits-Study-5.27.pdf

FilleDePlage, with all due respect, maybe your verification process would be better aimed at your sources that smear university researchers rather than university researchers. Our little unscientific study here has shown that the reports of corruption are more questionable than the research they are reporting of.

Frankly, I suspect that Breitbart was intentionally misleading its readers.

In red above is particularly egregious and manipulative. First, there's nothing wrong with soliciting funds for a conference. Second, he was doing it after he concluded and published his research. The slur by Breitbart.com is almost suable. The only way they avoid defamation is by putting it as a question rather than statement.

The EPA is an administrative agency branch of the government, subject to political manipulation. They have 15,000 people on the payroll. Their job is to protect the environment, and generally that includes the outdoors, and does nothing for indoor pollution, or those who get sick from cancer, etc. from indoor air quality.  So if poison from outdoors kills you, they might do something if it hits the press, and becomes high profile, they get involved.  

Several years ago, a group came up with this system called "cap and trade." It was devised to combat acid rain.  And I'm filtering it because I am not a scientist, there are "credits" given to energy companies, to use as currency to "pollute"  that I would compare to monopoly money for that board game.  Everyone seems to start out the same.  And, if there is an "energy company" who doesn't pollute they have have their monopoly money left over.  So the big polluters barter to purchase those credits. They may limit the total amount of emissions, as I understand the program, but those who pollute, get to keep doing it if they can buy the credits from another company.  Each energy company is not held to a uniform standard.  They can buy their way out of their emissions.

And,where was the EPA with inspection for the Diesel Volkswagens?  I am not giving the EPA one bit of cred, because this "clean diesel" (and I've driven VW diesels in the past, both in the States and Europe) because they haven't done their job. These VW diesels cars were in the US since 2009.  Where have they been? It took them 6 years to investigate? They have 15,000 "payroll patriots" who let this go for all that time?



 

I hope you're verifying your sources now, I would hate if you're slamming the EPA with the same sort of input you used to slam universities.
However, this is not to do with either gun control or the previous tangent. While I have no problem discussing the value of the EPA or whether they are corrupt or incompetent, it would probably be best to do it on another thread.

[Emily]

One more thing about gun regulation and the right to defend yourself: Someone should research and count occasions where civilians managed to save their lives because they were carrying guns in the US and see if it outnumbers the occasions where people were killed because guns are freely accessible, like when children find their parents' gun and shoot them because they didn't know better. If it turns out that guns save more lives than they cost, no regulations should be installed. If it turns out that the number of lives saved is relatively marginal, regulations should be brought to effect.

CSM's response:

This has been researched and quite extensively. The research shows that the claims of self-defense are typically untrue.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/

Other research shows that "for every age group, where there are more guns there are more accidental deaths" and "the mortality rate was 7 times higher in the four states with the most guns compared to the four states with the fewest guns."

rebump courtesy of Emily 

[filledeplage]

OK. I found the Breitbart article. It's here:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/04/harvard-syracuse-researchers-caught-lying-to-boost-obama-climate-rules/

The reason that this was only reported on Breitbart, then linked to by sites with similar political affiliations, is that the article is presenting bogus information. The gist of the article is that this statement, which quotes one of the researchers, is a lie:
“The EPA, which did not participate in the study or interact with its authors, Buonocore says, roundly welcomed its findings.”
The article supports this notion by establishing that:

"A July 8, 2014 email shows Lambert arranging a conference call with EPA staff to get EPA’s input on the study. One of the EPA staff involved was the contact person for agency’s Clean Power Plan cost-benefit analysis. A subsequent e-mail shows that the top EPA staffer on the Clean Power Plan cost-benefit analysis was added to the call.

A July 15, 2014 email from Driscoll to an EPA staffer boasts of “considerable interest” in their analysis from unnamed outside “groups.” One sentence after buttering up the EPA staffer, Driscoll asks her if they could have a phone call to discuss fundraising for a conference Driscoll is organizing. No appearance of attempted financial conflict there?

A November 7, 2014 e-mail from Lambert to EPA about the study reads, “We would like to follow back up with you by phone to discuss possible next steps in this analysis and what role you might be able to play.”

However, what the article fails to report is that the study was published on May 27, 2014, before these interactions took place. So, they were discussing how to make use of the results after they'd been found.

Here's a press release about the publication of the research: http://eng-cs.syr.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Press-Release_Co-Benefits-Study-5.27.pdf

FilleDePlage, with all due respect, maybe your verification process would be better aimed at your sources that smear university researchers rather than university researchers. Our little unscientific study here has shown that the reports of corruption are more questionable than the research they are reporting of.

Frankly, I suspect that Breitbart was intentionally misleading its readers.

In red above is particularly egregious and manipulative. First, there's nothing wrong with soliciting funds for a conference. Second, he was doing it after he concluded and published his research. The slur by Breitbart.com is almost suable. The only way they avoid defamation is by putting it as a question rather than statement.

The EPA is an administrative agency branch of the government, subject to political manipulation. They have 15,000 people on the payroll. Their job is to protect the environment, and generally that includes the outdoors, and does nothing for indoor pollution, or those who get sick from cancer, etc. from indoor air quality.  So if poison from outdoors kills you, they might do something if it hits the press, and becomes high profile, they get involved.  

Several years ago, a group came up with this system called "cap and trade." It was devised to combat acid rain.  And I'm filtering it because I am not a scientist, there are "credits" given to energy companies, to use as currency to "pollute"  that I would compare to monopoly money for that board game.  Everyone seems to start out the same.  And, if there is an "energy company" who doesn't pollute they have have their monopoly money left over.  So the big polluters barter to purchase those credits. They may limit the total amount of emissions, as I understand the program, but those who pollute, get to keep doing it if they can buy the credits from another company.  Each energy company is not held to a uniform standard.  They can buy their way out of their emissions.

And,where was the EPA with inspection for the Diesel Volkswagens?  I am not giving the EPA one bit of cred, because this "clean diesel" (and I've driven VW diesels in the past, both in the States and Europe) because they haven't done their job. These VW diesels cars were in the US since 2009.  Where have they been? It took them 6 years to investigate? They have 15,000 "payroll patriots" who let this go for all that time?
 

I hope you're verifying your sources now, I would hate if you're slamming the EPA with the same sort of input you used to slam universities.
However, this is not to do with either gun control or the previous tangent. While I have no problem discussing the value of the EPA or whether they are corrupt or incompetent, it would probably be best to do it on another thread.

Emily - you may not care for the sources. Not my problem. You don't agree and that is fine.  I've been involved on some level with higher ed for several decades and continue to be. And it is common knowledge now, with recent lawsuits about the nonfeasance of the EPA laxity.   

If EPA didn't investigate VW, there must be a reason. Six years with a "clean diesel" campaign and inspection stations all over the country, taking fees to inspect these cars annually.  I am not buying that. I suspect it is "undue influence."

That letter from Harvard was generated by a professional public relations firm, hired to minimize damage.  Interesting client list...

Universities are political organizations.  The state run universities rely on politicians to ensure programs for their different departments.  The state budgets tell how much goes for higher education.  They hire lobbyists and P.R. firms to advance their interests. Higher ed is a business.   

[Emily]

OK. I found the Breitbart article. It's here:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/04/harvard-syracuse-researchers-caught-lying-to-boost-obama-climate-rules/

The reason that this was only reported on Breitbart, then linked to by sites with similar political affiliations, is that the article is presenting bogus information. The gist of the article is that this statement, which quotes one of the researchers, is a lie:
“The EPA, which did not participate in the study or interact with its authors, Buonocore says, roundly welcomed its findings.”
The article supports this notion by establishing that:

"A July 8, 2014 email shows Lambert arranging a conference call with EPA staff to get EPA’s input on the study. One of the EPA staff involved was the contact person for agency’s Clean Power Plan cost-benefit analysis. A subsequent e-mail shows that the top EPA staffer on the Clean Power Plan cost-benefit analysis was added to the call.

A July 15, 2014 email from Driscoll to an EPA staffer boasts of “considerable interest” in their analysis from unnamed outside “groups.” One sentence after buttering up the EPA staffer, Driscoll asks her if they could have a phone call to discuss fundraising for a conference Driscoll is organizing. No appearance of attempted financial conflict there?

A November 7, 2014 e-mail from Lambert to EPA about the study reads, “We would like to follow back up with you by phone to discuss possible next steps in this analysis and what role you might be able to play.”

However, what the article fails to report is that the study was published on May 27, 2014, before these interactions took place. So, they were discussing how to make use of the results after they'd been found.

Here's a press release about the publication of the research: http://eng-cs.syr.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Press-Release_Co-Benefits-Study-5.27.pdf

FilleDePlage, with all due respect, maybe your verification process would be better aimed at your sources that smear university researchers rather than university researchers. Our little unscientific study here has shown that the reports of corruption are more questionable than the research they are reporting of.

Frankly, I suspect that Breitbart was intentionally misleading its readers.

In red above is particularly egregious and manipulative. First, there's nothing wrong with soliciting funds for a conference. Second, he was doing it after he concluded and published his research. The slur by Breitbart.com is almost suable. The only way they avoid defamation is by putting it as a question rather than statement.

The EPA is an administrative agency branch of the government, subject to political manipulation. They have 15,000 people on the payroll. Their job is to protect the environment, and generally that includes the outdoors, and does nothing for indoor pollution, or those who get sick from cancer, etc. from indoor air quality.  So if poison from outdoors kills you, they might do something if it hits the press, and becomes high profile, they get involved.  

Several years ago, a group came up with this system called "cap and trade." It was devised to combat acid rain.  And I'm filtering it because I am not a scientist, there are "credits" given to energy companies, to use as currency to "pollute"  that I would compare to monopoly money for that board game.  Everyone seems to start out the same.  And, if there is an "energy company" who doesn't pollute they have have their monopoly money left over.  So the big polluters barter to purchase those credits. They may limit the total amount of emissions, as I understand the program, but those who pollute, get to keep doing it if they can buy the credits from another company.  Each energy company is not held to a uniform standard.  They can buy their way out of their emissions.

And,where was the EPA with inspection for the Diesel Volkswagens?  I am not giving the EPA one bit of cred, because this "clean diesel" (and I've driven VW diesels in the past, both in the States and Europe) because they haven't done their job. These VW diesels cars were in the US since 2009.  Where have they been? It took them 6 years to investigate? They have 15,000 "payroll patriots" who let this go for all that time?
 

I hope you're verifying your sources now, I would hate if you're slamming the EPA with the same sort of input you used to slam universities.
However, this is not to do with either gun control or the previous tangent. While I have no problem discussing the value of the EPA or whether they are corrupt or incompetent, it would probably be best to do it on another thread.

Emily - you may not care for the sources. Not my problem. You don't agree and that is fine.  I've been involved on some level with higher ed for several decades and continue to be. And it is common knowledge now, with recent lawsuits about the nonfeasance of the EPA laxity.   

If EPA didn't investigate VW, there must be a reason. Six years with a "clean diesel" campaign and inspection stations all over the country, taking fees to inspect these cars annually.  I am not buying that. I suspect it is "undue influence."

That letter from Harvard was generated by a professional public relations firm, hired to minimize damage.  Interesting client list...

Universities are political organizations.  The state run universities rely on politicians to ensure programs for their different departments.  The state budgets tell how much goes for higher education.  They hire lobbyists and P.R. firms to advance their interests. Higher ed is a business.   

There was no damage to minimize. Harvard has that PR firm issue press releases regarding new publications all the time. It's standard.
There was no damage to minimize because the things that Breitbart was complaining about had not yet happened. And what they were complaining about (that a study's author discussed the results of a study after the fact with the body that would have a primary interest in the results and that the study's author would discuss with that body putting together a conference to discuss the results) is not wrong in any way.
Seriously, the fact that you don't view your news sources with the same skepticism that you view science should alert you to a bias. That article is a transparent unfounded hit-piece and yet you continue to look for ways, that don't exist, to imply there was some meat behind it. You need to rethink your approach to information gathering, unless you are consciously deciding to select information to support your preexisting views.
You lose credibility when you keep defending a discredited piece.

[filledeplage]

OK. I found the Breitbart article. It's here:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/04/harvard-syracuse-researchers-caught-lying-to-boost-obama-climate-rules/

The reason that this was only reported on Breitbart, then linked to by sites with similar political affiliations, is that the article is presenting bogus information. The gist of the article is that this statement, which quotes one of the researchers, is a lie:
“The EPA, which did not participate in the study or interact with its authors, Buonocore says, roundly welcomed its findings.”
The article supports this notion by establishing that:

"A July 8, 2014 email shows Lambert arranging a conference call with EPA staff to get EPA’s input on the study. One of the EPA staff involved was the contact person for agency’s Clean Power Plan cost-benefit analysis. A subsequent e-mail shows that the top EPA staffer on the Clean Power Plan cost-benefit analysis was added to the call.

A July 15, 2014 email from Driscoll to an EPA staffer boasts of “considerable interest” in their analysis from unnamed outside “groups.” One sentence after buttering up the EPA staffer, Driscoll asks her if they could have a phone call to discuss fundraising for a conference Driscoll is organizing. No appearance of attempted financial conflict there?

A November 7, 2014 e-mail from Lambert to EPA about the study reads, “We would like to follow back up with you by phone to discuss possible next steps in this analysis and what role you might be able to play.”

However, what the article fails to report is that the study was published on May 27, 2014, before these interactions took place. So, they were discussing how to make use of the results after they'd been found.

Here's a press release about the publication of the research: http://eng-cs.syr.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Press-Release_Co-Benefits-Study-5.27.pdf

FilleDePlage, with all due respect, maybe your verification process would be better aimed at your sources that smear university researchers rather than university researchers. Our little unscientific study here has shown that the reports of corruption are more questionable than the research they are reporting of.

Frankly, I suspect that Breitbart was intentionally misleading its readers.

In red above is particularly egregious and manipulative. First, there's nothing wrong with soliciting funds for a conference. Second, he was doing it after he concluded and published his research. The slur by Breitbart.com is almost suable. The only way they avoid defamation is by putting it as a question rather than statement.

The EPA is an administrative agency branch of the government, subject to political manipulation. They have 15,000 people on the payroll. Their job is to protect the environment, and generally that includes the outdoors, and does nothing for indoor pollution, or those who get sick from cancer, etc. from indoor air quality.  So if poison from outdoors kills you, they might do something if it hits the press, and becomes high profile, they get involved.  

Several years ago, a group came up with this system called "cap and trade." It was devised to combat acid rain.  And I'm filtering it because I am not a scientist, there are "credits" given to energy companies, to use as currency to "pollute"  that I would compare to monopoly money for that board game.  Everyone seems to start out the same.  And, if there is an "energy company" who doesn't pollute they have have their monopoly money left over.  So the big polluters barter to purchase those credits. They may limit the total amount of emissions, as I understand the program, but those who pollute, get to keep doing it if they can buy the credits from another company.  Each energy company is not held to a uniform standard.  They can buy their way out of their emissions.

And,where was the EPA with inspection for the Diesel Volkswagens?  I am not giving the EPA one bit of cred, because this "clean diesel" (and I've driven VW diesels in the past, both in the States and Europe) because they haven't done their job. These VW diesels cars were in the US since 2009.  Where have they been? It took them 6 years to investigate? They have 15,000 "payroll patriots" who let this go for all that time?
 

I hope you're verifying your sources now, I would hate if you're slamming the EPA with the same sort of input you used to slam universities.
However, this is not to do with either gun control or the previous tangent. While I have no problem discussing the value of the EPA or whether they are corrupt or incompetent, it would probably be best to do it on another thread.

Emily - you may not care for the sources. Not my problem. You don't agree and that is fine.  I've been involved on some level with higher ed for several decades and continue to be. And it is common knowledge now, with recent lawsuits about the nonfeasance of the EPA laxity.  

If EPA didn't investigate VW, there must be a reason. Six years with a "clean diesel" campaign and inspection stations all over the country, taking fees to inspect these cars annually.  I am not buying that. I suspect it is "undue influence."

That letter from Harvard was generated by a professional public relations firm, hired to minimize damage.  Interesting client list...

Universities are political organizations.  The state run universities rely on politicians to ensure programs for their different departments.  The state budgets tell how much goes for higher education.  They hire lobbyists and P.R. firms to advance their interests. Higher ed is a business.  

There was no damage to minimize. Harvard has that PR firm issue press releases regarding new publications all the time. It's standard.
There was no damage to minimize because the things that Breitbart was complaining about had not yet happened. And what they were complaining about (that a study's author discussed the results of a study after the fact with the body that would have a primary interest in the results and that the study's author would discuss with that body putting together a conference to discuss the results) is not wrong in any way.
Seriously, the fact that you don't view your news sources with the same skepticism that you view science should alert you to a bias. That article is a transparent unfounded hit-piece and yet you continue to look for ways, that don't exist, to imply there was some meat behind it. You need to rethink your approach to information gathering, unless you are consciously deciding to select information to support your preexisting views.
You lose credibility when you keep defending a discredited piece.

Emily - The conflicts of interest are blatant.  And running a "conference" can be an expensive proposition.  I recently attended a conference for continuing education where they flew one professor from Hawaii, and many others from all over the country.  Hotels, meals, cars, speaker fees...and on and on. 

It is naive to think there is no crossover or no undue influence.  And that Breibart site had the actual email chain.  Syracuse got $3.6 mil from the EPA.  Resources for the Future got $2 mil.  Harvard got $31 mil.  Are you kidding?  EPA gave "input" - and there is no conflict?  Follow the money.  It drives the policy.  

The "agenda" was to close coal fired plants.  It is called "checkbook science."

[Emily]

Topic FilledePlage thinks there's something wrong with an organization funding a study on issues that organization is responsible for moved to a new thread

[filledeplage]

Topic FilledePlage thinks there's something wrong with an organization funding a study on issues that organization is responsible for moved to a new thread

The project was called "The Science and Policy Integration Project."  It is right in the linked emails.