Azalin Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 it's certainly about the quest for knowledge. that doesn't exclude the simultaneous quest to improve the world. I absolutely think the quest for knowledge should be completely separate from any quest to save the world, because that automatically imposes a bias on the research. when the research happens to be in a field that involves major policy issues effecting literally everyone, there is no room for bias of any kind. on a separate note, I think way too many people mistake 'skeptics' as 'deniers'. most people I know that don't buy into the man-made climate change issue aren't outright deniers, but instead would like to see something a little more solid than computer-modeled projections or shrill cries regarding polar bears before we go crafting any more policy or legislation that drives up the cost of energy.
TakeYouToTasker Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 (edited) really? i'd like to see the data to support that assertion, as would any scientist worth his salt. you'll likely need to search socia;l science sources for that. that should be fun for you. So your counter assertion is that people don't seek work in fields that interest them? By the by, the "scientists" you're defending really aren't interested in seeing any evidence that runs contrary to their own falsifiable work, nor do you, so I find your position unlikely. Edited May 21, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker
keepthefaith Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 on a separate note, I think way too many people mistake 'skeptics' as 'deniers'. most people I know that don't buy into the man-made climate change issue aren't outright deniers, but instead would like to see something a little more solid than computer-modeled projections or shrill cries regarding polar bears before we go crafting any more policy or legislation that drives up the cost of energy. I for one would like to see our beloved government tackle some of the more tangible and immediate issue with well crafted common sense solutions before they try to take control of the weather.
Azalin Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 I for one would like to see our beloved government tackle some of the more tangible and immediate issue with well crafted common sense solutions before they try to take control of the weather. 'government', 'well-crafted', and 'common sense'.
OCinBuffalo Posted May 21, 2014 Author Posted May 21, 2014 (edited) "Denier"? Who still takes the "Global Warming denier" charge seriously? Hint: only the people who will never vote for an R in their life = 20% of the country. You 20% can say "denier" in your irrelevant echo chamber all you like, but, that is the only place where it resonates. In fact, as I will explain, that resonance is wholly intentional. For the serious people: The only thing I deny is that the entire lifcycle of this issue has not been 100% predicated on politics. It's hilarious that the leftists here...are now desperately seeking to uncouple the politics from this, and treat it intellectually(as most of us have been doing). As merely a "problem to be solved". Do they expect us to forget that they have been doing 0 problem solving, and 100% political capital building/ammo packing, with this issue since 2004(when the left decided it needed a new issue, because Bush got re-elected). This is the history of Global Warming. Hell, they don't even want to call it Climate Change anymore. Now it's "Climate Chaos"? I wonder how well that tested in the focus groups? Look: It's as I said in the OP. They are setting up the lies to come....because the truth is also coming, and when it dawns, this issue is going down. That's where we are now: the Going Down phase. This is merely desperation. Desperation, and a pathetic attempt to play save ass. The worst: the "save ass" isn't even necessary. The D establishment(read: Not Obama) is done with taking political losses from this issue. Wise up fellas. Political covering strategy is what is going on here now. Some of the leftists in this thread, don't realize that THEY are the target of their own party's $/efforts. ("Say denier again, they love that!" ) There is no plan to convince Is/Rs, or "win" with this. The objective of calling someone a "denier" at this late stage: to keep the 20% from becoming completely demoralized, when they realize they've been played, and now, are left behind to get slaughtered(by DC_Tom, others...and me ). That's all that is happening here: a "rear guard action" that is covering the establishment Ds retreat from this issue. They're going to say all sorts of things....but they aren't going to lose Union Voters over this, and that's what will happen if they stay. Sure, this is just an obscure forum, but, the strategy is designed for ALL forums. Let birdogs et al, everywhere, be the meat shield that takes all the hits, while, the Clintons et al make a quiet and quick getaway. That's what birdog and GreggyT are doing in this thread now: covering the D establishment's retreat, using the lame "denier", and, "Ok, let's forget politics, and treat this like a problem we can solve together", tactics. Edited May 21, 2014 by OCinBuffalo
Gary M Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 Finally some consensus on the subject. http://www.petitionproject.org/
keepthefaith Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 'government', 'well-crafted', and 'common sense'. I know that's one hell of a stretch. Had we elected Romney I think we may have experienced some of that.
DC Tom Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 I know that's one hell of a stretch. Had we elected Romney I think we may have experienced some of that. No. The government bureaucracy is the proverbial herd of diarrhetic elephants: a massive, mind-boggling sight that is unstoppable and capable of generating massive amounts of **** on a daily basis. Even if the intent is there, the bureaucracy will serve to perpetuate itself.
TakeYouToTasker Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 No. The government bureaucracy is the proverbial herd of diarrhetic elephants: a massive, mind-boggling sight that is unstoppable and capable of generating massive amounts of **** on a daily basis. Even if the intent is there, the bureaucracy will serve to perpetuate itself. "The bureacracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureacracy."
Chef Jim Posted May 22, 2014 Posted May 22, 2014 "The bureacracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureacracy." I didn't get a harumph out of that man!
Chef Jim Posted May 22, 2014 Posted May 22, 2014 Circle jerk strong tonite. Mongo like candy. Figured I'd stick with the theme.
TakeYouToTasker Posted May 22, 2014 Posted May 22, 2014 Circle jerk strong tonite. Arms tired? Ask Oscar Wilde.
3rdnlng Posted May 22, 2014 Posted May 22, 2014 Circle jerk strong tonite. Arms tired? Ducky, is that you?
meazza Posted May 22, 2014 Posted May 22, 2014 Ducky, is that you? Why all the hate against circle jerks?
GaryPinC Posted May 22, 2014 Posted May 22, 2014 what is the motivation for the climate scientists then? i've asked this before and no convincing answer was given. are people still going into climate science because they've invested too much to choose another profession? most do it because they want to make a difference, better the world or even save it. in that case, the motivation in their reasoning seems pure and unbiased. not so when "the redistributive leftist agenda" is injected into the mix. i'd like to see some citations quoting climate scientists discussing their ultimate goals of redistribution before entertaining the idea that this is their motivation. it takes logical gymnastics to get from here to there. not so much for the motivation of the deniers, especially when they blatantly state it... The motivation is securing grant money to keep your job, prestige, and lab going. Prestige gets you speaking engagements which brings in more money. Sadly governments don't fund for good science that proves something doesn't work, they fund positive results. The ego of scientists get in the way when they form a hypothesis and need it proven to keep the grant $ coming. I don't trust anything Michael Mann does. The fact that he is willing to snipe Pat Sajak's twitter declaration says everything about him as a scientist. I haven't delved into every link of this source and it's not my expertise so I can't say how much of the assertions are true but read it, especially towards the bottom. I've done research in drug discovery and currently cardiology and I've seen scientists manipulate their data akin to what is asserted here about Mann: http://a-sceptical-mind.com/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-hockey-stick totally true what they say about the peer review process also. The peer review doesn't delve into the raw data, it simply looks for holes and inconsistencies in what the paper is trying to assert. Labs fall into conflicting hypotheses and theories then people choose sides. If you happen to be on the opposite side of a reviewer you will get a bad review. If you're not on the right side of some cliques you won't get your work published in certain journals no matter how good it is. Don't get me wrong, there are many upstanding high-character scientists but there are also many who are willing to tweak data because they're convinced the answer they seek is in there but there's too much noise.
DC Tom Posted May 22, 2014 Posted May 22, 2014 The motivation is securing grant money to keep your job, prestige, and lab going. Prestige gets you speaking engagements which brings in more money. Sadly governments don't fund for good science that proves something doesn't work, they fund positive results. The ego of scientists get in the way when they form a hypothesis and need it proven to keep the grant $ coming. I don't trust anything Michael Mann does. The fact that he is willing to snipe Pat Sajak's twitter declaration says everything about him as a scientist. I haven't delved into every link of this source and it's not my expertise so I can't say how much of the assertions are true but read it, especially towards the bottom. I've done research in drug discovery and currently cardiology and I've seen scientists manipulate their data akin to what is asserted here about Mann: http://a-sceptical-m...he-hockey-stick totally true what they say about the peer review process also. The peer review doesn't delve into the raw data, it simply looks for holes and inconsistencies in what the paper is trying to assert. Labs fall into conflicting hypotheses and theories then people choose sides. If you happen to be on the opposite side of a reviewer you will get a bad review. If you're not on the right side of some cliques you won't get your work published in certain journals no matter how good it is. Don't get me wrong, there are many upstanding high-character scientists but there are also many who are willing to tweak data because they're convinced the answer they seek is in there but there's too much noise. Or James Hansen. His original work on climate change was great, but if you're being arrested at demonstrations where you're protesting that your science isn't being taken seriously, you've ceased to be a scientist.
OCinBuffalo Posted May 22, 2014 Author Posted May 22, 2014 The motivation is securing grant money to keep your job, prestige, and lab going. Prestige gets you speaking engagements which brings in more money. Sadly governments don't fund for good science that proves something doesn't work, they fund positive results. The ego of scientists get in the way when they form a hypothesis and need it proven to keep the grant $ coming. I don't trust anything Michael Mann does. The fact that he is willing to snipe Pat Sajak's twitter declaration says everything about him as a scientist. I haven't delved into every link of this source and it's not my expertise so I can't say how much of the assertions are true but read it, especially towards the bottom. I've done research in drug discovery and currently cardiology and I've seen scientists manipulate their data akin to what is asserted here about Mann: http://a-sceptical-m...he-hockey-stick totally true what they say about the peer review process also. The peer review doesn't delve into the raw data, it simply looks for holes and inconsistencies in what the paper is trying to assert. Labs fall into conflicting hypotheses and theories then people choose sides. If you happen to be on the opposite side of a reviewer you will get a bad review. If you're not on the right side of some cliques you won't get your work published in certain journals no matter how good it is. Don't get me wrong, there are many upstanding high-character scientists but there are also many who are willing to tweak data because they're convinced the answer they seek is in there but there's too much noise. Sorry dude, we've already been told this is too "conspiratorial" to be true. Therefore, It can't be how real science actually operates. You know, because the Climate Chaos scientists don't concern themselves with wordly things like the above. They only focus on the search for the truth. Well, that, and building the Consensus of the Faithful. Thus, your real life, the one that you live each day? It's not really happening. And frankly, how dare you bring your own real and relevant experinces into this? () It bothers me(because I am inferior, and thus insecure, or worse, hate it whenever I'm not the smartest/most knowledgeable person in the conversation), so you have to stop tooting your own horn. That's what you're doing: making this about you! You are also deluding yourself into thinking what you've seen with your own eyes is happening, but it's just impossible. You are either delusional, or you are lying. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if you were being funded by the Koch BrothersTM and that you are only saying this because they are paying you. After all, any heretical scientist must have some ulterior motive, like $, for denying the faith. True scientists are never motivated by money. The only thing they seek is truth....and the Consensus of the Faithful. So yeah, you are a denier. You're delusional, or, anti-science, and getting $ from the Koch BrothersTM to spew your racist, anti-science, anti-gay hate! And worse, you're making this about your experince. I don't have any, and that bothers me, and....nobody reads your posts anwyay.
GaryPinC Posted May 22, 2014 Posted May 22, 2014 Or James Hansen. His original work on climate change was great, but if you're being arrested at demonstrations where you're protesting that your science isn't being taken seriously, you've ceased to be a scientist. Exactly, thanks. All these guys are less than open with their data and methodologies, claiming it's too complex for non-climate scientists to understand. BS. Any scientist who reads and tries to utilize research papers smells the corners these guys cut so they can claim "settled" science. No real scientist calls things "settled". Things are accepted until evidence arises to challenge it. Any respectable scientist is just the opposite of these guys, they want their work open and critiqued so they can have new angles to explore and test.
GaryPinC Posted May 22, 2014 Posted May 22, 2014 True scientists are never motivated by money. No, true scientists are the same as everyone else. They have to eat and provide for themselves and their family, and when the money's short their way of dealing with it depends on their character which is no different from anyone else. Which is why attention-seeking scientists are hard to take seriously.
Recommended Posts