I guess that post with those links was ment for me, eh?
-But first, I don't believe the conservative (or other) media in my area. I already said so in a former post.
that's right, make sure your cover your ass, then spout opninons that parrot the conservative media view anyway. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />
And now you could post a couple of dozens links about what they didn't acomplish. These days they only publish things when it makes them look good.
1. so why didn't you? too lazy to even post links? Or is it like I think, that you really know so little about it that you can't.
2. I didn't post very many links to actual UN publications (of which there are thousands), only to areas that summarize UN accomplishments (of which you seemed to think there weren't any).
3. You do not imply that the list of accomplishments is invalid, and in fact, state that these make the UN "look good"; so how exactly does your statement disagree with mine?
4. I could post links about what you "haven't accomplished" as well. Kinda pointless tho, yes? do we judge based on what someone has accomplished, or what they have not?
The world of science is ruled by money too, you know.
Scientific research needs a lot of $$$. So big companies sponsor research in their feild. But... when research shows that those companies are in the wrong the results never get published. And the researchers have to keep it hush hush or they'll get cut off.
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/suspicion.gif" alt="" /> Oh, so now you are an expert on scientific research, eh? What's your field of expertise, rapid deployment of utter nonsense? I happen to have a master's degree in Integrative Biology from UC Berkeley, as such, I know scientists, and you're no scientist. The "world of science" to use your own simplification, is about a lot more than just money. If it wasn't, you'd probably be choking on industrial fumes, and scraping toxic waste from your front doorstep. Unless you yourself live in a complete dictatorship, I think you might want to reconsider your blanket statement that unpopular scientific studies are never published. It is actually the exception, rather than the rule, that real scientists don't publish their results becuase of fear of a lack of funding. Do you have no public funding of the sciences where you are from? Your argument here does not hold water. Moreover, it actually supplies significant argument for the exact opposite: The purpose of neutral organizations like the UN is to assist in research and publication of data that might be considered VERY unpopular in many circles.
Only recently scientists from all over the world complained about that. That it was almost impossible to do objective research. You get to see only what they want you to see.
Oh? show me where this occured? I'd like to see the results of debate amongst the scientific community about this, really. Do you have a link to this?
again, this only supports my argument FOR the UN. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/think.gif" alt="" />
Example:
With the trials against cigaret companies in the USA those been a bit more in the media again. When researchers first discovered how bad smoking is... theose companies had all results destroyed and even published some advertising movies about how healthy and good smoking is. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" />
A couple of those companies been convicted a few times already. Let's take one located in Illinois.
On a last conviction it had to pay 10.1 billion $. Half of that money is supposed to go to smokers that ware "mislead by ads. saying that light sigarets waren't bad for your health". The other half is going to the state.
But what does the state do with that money? It invests it in... the sigaret companies. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" /> Becouse they're good for the economy of the state.
-If they ever get the money.
*sigh* aside from the fact that i don't see what this has to do with research at the UN, again, if you weren't so brainwashed by the media, you could have tracked down any one of the thousands of PUBLISHED studies documenting the dangers of smoking since the 1950's. Believing that tobacco companies had "all results destroyed" is giving them a bit too much credit. The results they quashed were from their OWN INTERNAL RESEARCH STUDIES, not independent studies conducted by universities and other agencies. why do you think the surgeon general started putting warning labels on cig packages in the 70's? just on a whim? My point is, independent research can overcome political and economic bias, which is exactly why I support the UN!!! You are making my arguments for me!! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/puppyeyes.gif" alt="" />
As for that list you posted... would you mind having a look at those websites again? They often kinda prove they're just propaganda too and... eh... make your post a bit contradictive.
put your money where your mouth is: define exactly the problems you have with the sources of the material, and why you believe them to be propoganda. I wouldn't have posted them if I thought them to be without basis in fact.
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/up.gif" alt="" /> Look, I agree that money and politics CAN have an unbalanced effect on what research can be done. But, isn't that the point to sponsoring independent research to begin with?? How could you create an organization that would be more balanced than the UN to sponsor independent research???
