Or you can flip this around, and argue that global warming denialists are going to be able to get oil company grants. I'm not arguing for or against a particular position on global warming. I'm just trying to explain one way that funding affects scientific outcomes without overt fraud being committed.
But that's exactly the problem.
Whenever anyone comes out with the "funding corrupts the science" meme it's always the evil warmists who are being accused. Because, bizarrely, there is no serious research "debunking" AGW.
2. Using new and revolutionary techniques, I show the following positive/negative result
I claim you are always going to see 2 stated, simply because 1 is a sure end to your funding. They might be honest and give choice 2 huge error bars and show the definite result as small, but there is always going to be a small spin if just to maintain funding.
If you do 2 then your papers are going to be regarded as junk, you'll probably end up publishing them in E&E, and that will be the end of all future funding.
And the reason for this is simple - the corporation is the property of its shareholders, and it it didn't have a legal duty to maximise profit the corrupt management would steal even more of the shareholders money than they already do,
Because if you don't generate results that indicate that more study is desperately needed, you won't get the next grant.
What nonsense. If you were able to cast doubt on AGW in some credible way you'd have money poured into your pockets so fast your trousers would fall down.
Nope, it's just a clipped list from wiki, with the (many) non-climate-scientists omitted. I think it's organized according to argument - what part of AGW they object to/criticize.
What he's referring to is that if you don't get some conclusions similar to the ones they're looking for in the grants, you won't get more money along those lines- and possibly elsewhere.
Begging the question. Where is your evidence that someone is "looking for conclusions".
You are slandering people based on your political prejudices.
But when the university starts to suppress this kind of stuff based on the topic of research and not on the credibility of the researcher or his methods, then we're bound to hit 1 or 2 cases where a solid hypothesis could be completely ignored and starved of funding purely because it does not meet the current preferred theory. There hasn't been a recorded instance of this within the field of climate scienceyet
So, it's never happened, but when it does happen...
Like I said. This is mere slander in order to refute reality with preconceived political dogma.
The source of research funding in each case is a corporation, and not a very popular one. Please can you explain how the funding of, say, the Climate Research Unit certainly does not affect the research outcomes under any circumstances, but the funding of a Monsanto or Pepsi scientist definitely does affect the research?
So, what is it? The guys who work for Monsato are whiter than white, or the guys who work for the UEA CRU are corrupt? Do you want to have your cake, or eat it?
"It is however, not considered a climate "forcing," because the amount of H2O in the air basically varies as a function of temperature"
And the same thing with CO2 (see above). Wow, isn't that nice? The AGW crowd can't even remain consistent. So please do tell, what is temperature a function of? God forbid the sun right, that doesn't exist. Modern flat earthers.
No, you are completely missing the point.
Yes, CO2 increases as a function of temperature.
So in the past, without CO2 being released by human activity, CO2 lagged temperature rise.
But CO2 is now rising because it's being released by human activity. Which, as CO2 is a greenhous gas causes temperature rise, (which will, as in the past, cause more CO2 to be released).
What part of this is too hard to understand - oh, that's right, you can't hear it because you've got your fingers stuck in your ears as you sing lalallalala...
Nobody who knows anything about Murdoch or NYC journalism takes anything Wolff has to say seriously when he's in "Murdoch mode." Kind of like asking the Sheriff of Nottingham to give a measured opinion about that guy "Robin Hood."
I like the way you start out with Lindzen, the original source of the "No statistically significant warming since 1995" nonsense (i.e. someone who's smart enough to know that there has been statistically significant warming since 1994).
Of course LiS doesn't contain STREAMS code - LiS is STREAMS. its writers claim it doesn't contain AT&T code, and I believe them - but there is no technical reason LiS couldn't be a copy of the SYSV code, it's just that nobody but a fool would bother - STREAMS is rather simple and quite well documented.
The system is too complex to model. Perhaps the planet will get hotter for a while.
Oh, that's great. Why bother researching things when the almighty hicksw can bring down the word of God: "it's too complex". "perhaps something will happen".
Fucking brilliant.
Where are your numbers, cretin. Why should we listen to you?
Or maybe it's because the amateurs like Steve McIntyre have a proven track record in punching holes in statistical and computer models that the CRU and Michael Mann have been using to perpetrate their climate fraud.
Of particular note, and probably a source of much consternation to SCO and their proponents, is that LiS itself doesn't implement streams either, just does protocol translation. So neither linux nor LiS contains infringing code.
Slashdot Mirror
1 in 200 sounds low to you?
But that's exactly the problem.
Whenever anyone comes out with the "funding corrupts the science" meme it's always the evil warmists who are being accused. Because, bizarrely, there is no serious research "debunking" AGW.
If you do 2 then your papers are going to be regarded as junk, you'll probably end up publishing them in E&E, and that will be the end of all future funding.
And I won't forget yours.
And the reason for this is simple - the corporation is the property of its shareholders, and it it didn't have a legal duty to maximise profit the corrupt management would steal even more of the shareholders money than they already do,
What nonsense. If you were able to cast doubt on AGW in some credible way you'd have money poured into your pockets so fast your trousers would fall down.
and since your cynicism lets you dismiss any worry that maybe you'd have to get off your fat arse, you're happy with that.
Aha, from List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming.
Thanks
Begging the question. Where is your evidence that someone is "looking for conclusions".
You are slandering people based on your political prejudices.
So, it's never happened, but when it does happen...
Like I said. This is mere slander in order to refute reality with preconceived political dogma.
So, what is it? The guys who work for Monsato are whiter than white, or the guys who work for the UEA CRU are corrupt? Do you want to have your cake, or eat it?
No, you are completely missing the point.
Yes, CO2 increases as a function of temperature.
So in the past, without CO2 being released by human activity, CO2 lagged temperature rise.
But CO2 is now rising because it's being released by human activity. Which, as CO2 is a greenhous gas causes temperature rise, (which will, as in the past, cause more CO2 to be released).
What part of this is too hard to understand - oh, that's right, you can't hear it because you've got your fingers stuck in your ears as you sing lalallalala...
How many mistakes?
Here are the ones I've heard of, maybe you can add some more?
What have I missed? Do you count four as "far more than one or two"
Please explain the mechanism. How could a research grant affect the outcome of the research? Do you have any concrete examples.
Or are you merely trying to smear the honesty of all reseach scientists for narrow, short-sighted political reasons?
You compared Rupert Murdoch to Robin Hood?
Wow.
No, The FT (subsidiary of Pearson PLC) owns 50% of the Economist, not a controlling interest.
An impressive list.
Is it in any particular order?
I like the way you start out with Lindzen, the original source of the "No statistically significant warming since 1995" nonsense (i.e. someone who's smart enough to know that there has been statistically significant warming since 1994).
Of course LiS doesn't contain STREAMS code - LiS is STREAMS. its writers claim it doesn't contain AT&T code, and I believe them - but there is no technical reason LiS couldn't be a copy of the SYSV code, it's just that nobody but a fool would bother - STREAMS is rather simple and quite well documented.
Oh, that's great. Why bother researching things when the almighty hicksw can bring down the word of God: "it's too complex". "perhaps something will happen".
Fucking brilliant.
Where are your numbers, cretin. Why should we listen to you?
Who?
What bollocks. Do you seriously think that the LHC team are being paid a bounty for finding the Higgs boson?
Please cite exactly one example of this.
Then why did he make requests for data he already had,
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/mcintyre_had_the_data_all_alon.php
What analysis has he made of the data now he has it?
What papers has he written using the data?
Yes, but unless a time machine was involved none from FreeBSD 2.2.6.
From http://email.gcom.com/home/linux/lis/
Of course LiS does protocol translation - that's what STREAMS is, a framework for doing protocol translation.
As to whether LiS is infringing I couldn't say - I've never seen the SVR4 code to STREAMS.