House Democrats refuse to hear skeptic of Manbearpig

[Alaska Darin]

And here I thought you had a rational head for this stuff. No matter how objective a person may appear, there will always be issues that will drive nearly anyone to over-simplification, ad hominem rationalization, fantastical thinking and general credulity.

You mean like "we have to believe the scientists, because they have a consensus", even though they don't? They have a Frankenstein mob and lotsa money.

Global Warming can be boiled down to: "Urban Heating" + "Increased Solar Activity". Period.? Really? I thought global climate analysis was a lot more complicated than that. Seems silly that there's such a fuss over a simple thing like you described.

Yeah, "Global Warming" can pretty much be summed up to that - it's pretty much that big a crock. Your response is pretty much expected given you likely haven't read a single "real" piece of data or scientific paper on the subject.

Before you put your crystal ball away, would you mind telling me which stocks will perform best over the next 20 years? Maybe next week's lottery numbers? Thanks.

It has nothing to do with a crystal ball. It has to do with being able to separate the wheat from the chaff. You can't do it, so you immediately discredit it with things like "pick a stock" and "lottery numbers".

 

"Global Warming" started out as junk science and it has morphed into religion fed into by people like you who refuse to spend even a second looking at it objectively but are instead "convinced" like a crow is by a piece of aluminum foil.

[EC-Bills]

All things being equal, promising research gets funding, provided there's no retarded executive bias against the outcome.

 

Now go ahead and tell me how naive I am as to how things really work in the 'academic textbook writing' world.

 

Once again, you show you have no clue about what you are talking about. Not all promising research gets funded. You ever hear of egos, insecurity, jealousy in the academic world? It's there just like anyplace else.

[DC Tom]

Once again, you show you have no clue about what you are talking about. Not all promising research gets funded. You ever hear of egos, insecurity, jealousy in the academic world? It's there just like anyplace else.

 

I'd probably say it's worse than anything I've seen...except the government.

 

So government-funded science is probably populated by more primma donnas than Hollywood.

[Alaska Darin]

I'd probably say it's worse than anything I've seen...except the government.

 

So government-funded science is probably populated by more primma donnas than Hollywood.

It's like a high school popularity contest.

[Wacka]

All things being equal, promising research gets funding, provided there's no retarded executive bias against the outcome.

 

Now go ahead and tell me how naive I am as to how things really work in the 'academic textbook writing' world.

 

You have no idea how grants get funded. This is how I remember it as of approximately 2002. The head of the study section selects people (10-15) (usually friends) to review grants. The people in the study section each got a big box of grants (30-40) now probably distributed on DVD or online. They have a relatively short time (month) to review them and write a synopsis and opinion on the grant, while still doing their regular job. They usually farm out the reviewing and synopsis writing to their grad students, pos-docs, or employees. They send the synopses to the members and they have a week to read them. They all get together in one room. There are a certain # and $ amount they will fund. They quickly discuss the grants and winnow down the number and $ amounts. If there is a rival in the study section, forget about getting funded or have the $ amount drastically cut.

The grants are about what you plan to do, but most of it is what you have done during the last grant to justify giving you more.

 

It's also like the government , in fact it is government $. If you don't spend each year's allotment. it doesn't carry over to the next year. When I was in grad school in the 80s, the prof came in and said we had one month to spend 15K or lose it. We stocked up on non-perishable supplies like pipettes and petri plates and bought equipment we didn't use for a year or two.

 

It's like making sausage or law, you don't want to see the process.

[Gene Frenkle]

You have no idea how grants get funded. This is how I remember it as of approximately 2002. The head of the study section selects people (10-15) (usually friends) to review grants. The people in the study section each got a big box of grants (30-40) now probably distributed on DVD or online. They have a relatively short time (month) to review them and write a synopsis and opinion on the grant, while still doing their regular job. They usually farm out the reviewing and synopsis writing to their grad students, pos-docs, or employees. They send the synopses to the members and they have a week to read them. an They all get together in one room. There are a certain # and $ amount they will fund. They quickly discuss they grants and winnow down the number and $ amounts. If there is a rival in the study section, forget about getting funded or have the $ amount drastically cut.

The grants are about what you plan to do, but most of it is what you have done during the last grant to justify giving you more.

 

It's also like the government , in fact it is government $. If you don't spend each year's allotment. it doesn't carry over to the next year. When I was in grad school in the 80s, the prof came in and said we had one month to spend 15K or lose it. We stocked up on non-perishable supplies like pipettes and petri plates and bought equipment we didn't use for a year or two.

 

It's like making sausage or law, you don't want to see the process.

That's fine, I get the point. I'm not completely sold on man made global warming as it is. I feel like a parrot: The best I can personally do right now is to accept whatever science says about this right now and *cough* not get too emotionally invested *cough* in what the science says right now so that I am prepared to change my thinking based on new evidence.

 

In the end, science is black and white no matter how you want to portray it. I'm not talking about people, I'm talking about hard facts. After all the research is done and analyzed, something is either true or it isn't. Those on the wrong side of science are destined to fail in the end because they are provably wrong. That's why, when taking the long view, it doesn't matter how funding is appropriated in the short term. If something is right, it will stand up to all comers and if it is wrong it will not.

 

I appreciate all of your insight into the world of research funding, but I don't think your arguments either disprove global warming or prove a lack of global warming. Despite your cynasism, the truth will win out.

 

Other than that, this discussion is going nowhere. I'm really not trying to convince anyone of anything.

[Ramius]

That's fine, I get the point. I'm not completely sold on man made global warming as it is. I feel like a parrot: The best I can personally do right now is to accept whatever science says about this right now and *cough* not get too emotionally invested *cough* in what the science says right now so that I am prepared to change my thinking based on new evidence.

 

In the end, science is black and white no matter how you want to portray it. I'm not talking about people, I'm talking about hard facts. After all the research is done and analyzed, something is either true or it isn't. Those on the wrong side of science are destined to fail in the end because they are provably wrong. That's why, when taking the long view, it doesn't matter how funding is appropriated in the short term. If something is right, it will stand up to all comers and if it is wrong it will not.

 

I appreciate all of your insight into the world of research funding, but I don't think your arguments either disprove global warming or prove a lack of global warming. Despite your cynasism, the truth will win out.

 

Other than that, this discussion is going nowhere. I'm really not trying to convince anyone of anything.

 

The main problem remains: what they did ISN'T SCIENCE! If it was science, the global warming apostles would set out to prove the opposing viewpoints wrong. Instead, they simply choose to ignore any and all opposition, parroting, "What we say is true, do not questions us. Our beliefs are above criticism." That line of logic is reserved for religion, NOT science.

 

If you want to prove definitively that X is the definitive cause of Z, not only do you have to prove that X impacts Z, but you also need to prove that Y does NOT impact Z.

[DC Tom]

If you want to prove definitively that X is the definitive cause of Z, not only do you have to prove that X impacts Z, but you also need to prove that Y does NOT impact Z.

 

 

I just wanted to stress: definitively.

 

Lots of people here are going to miss that. I expect conner still will.

[/dev/null]

If you want to prove definitively that X is the definitive cause of Z, not only do you have to prove that X impacts Z, but you also need to prove that Y does NOT impact Z.

 

Mind your Ps and Qs