Bingo. That right there. All that needs be said to prove there is zero reason to listen to your bullshit, to prove you are jn fact questikning the science, that you do in dact dispute it. Be gone shill the game is up.
(Wow, you're so mad and irrational you can't even type anymore.)
Well, I'm sorry you are unaware of bias in science; actual scientists are quite aware of it, which is why we try to control it through mechanisms such as peer review, double blind studies, disclosure of conflicts of interest, and replication. Nevertheless, scientific bias is clearly still widespread. Nor is this a new insight. Max Planck, for example, said that science advances one funeral at a time.
So, you are accusing scientists of unconsciously letting financial concerns affect their results in a major way?
I didn't "accuse" anybody. I pointed out a conflict of interest.
Do you realize that there are climate scientists all over the world, who agree?
Agree with what? Climate scientists write thousands of papers on thousands of topics. It's scientific illiterates who try to turn climate change discussions into a binary issue.
You can look up the funding data yourself. There is an entire.gov website devoted to it.
So we still need to better understand the effects and predict when, where and scope of the coming changes.
Congress will make the determination of the funding levels. I think some cutbacks are reasonable: the models we have are pretty good. Besides, other nations can and should ramp up their funding, since the US currently disproportionately pays for this.
You are admitted to the US (and other Western nations) only if you can establish with reasonable certainty that you (1) will leave again, and (2) won't cause harm while you're here. If you come from places like Europe, the US uses your police records, surveillance data, credit records, and similar information to make that determination. If you come from places like Somalia or Yemen, reliable records are not available, and the US is trying to use social media profiles as an unofficial substitute. I think that's a bad idea. Social media profiles are unlikely to be very reliable, and the whole thing looks appears like a massive invasion of privacy. The US should generally give visas only to people who can provide credible government and financial records, with case-by-case exemptions in a few special cases.
They are scientific researchers. That is their skill. They would perform research jn some other area.
Scientific research is highly competitive. Nobody is going to hire a mid-career climatologist for a non-climatology position if they can get a fresh graduate student in their field.
Researchers are paid for the act of research, not based oin the results.
Correct. However, public funding levels for areas of research are determined by how important that area of research is deemed to the public. Climate research is only funded at current levels because scientists say that it is a threat.
It's really entertaining that you've decided that I am from Scandinavia and not Alaska
Well, you talked about "my homeland" as opposed to "our homeland". And your English is a bit iffy. Instead of beating around the bush, why don't you come out and say where the hell you're from?
which would perhaps explain why you think that my experience has been one of wealth rather than grinding poverty
What are you talking about? Alaska is one of the wealthiest US states, is extremely resource rich, and has higher per capita GDP and median household income than, say, Sweden. If you're from Alaska, you're even more privileged than the people from the Nordic countries.
So the part of your philosophy that is complete nonsense which you have yet to make any remark in support of would be that you're suggesting that we don't need to study this.
I have never made any suggestion that "we don't need to study this", whatever "this" might be.
I think they would get more funding if they provided mixed and inconclusive results, and arguing that more research was required.
Well, if you believe that there is a deep, dark, deliberate conspiracy among scientists to maximize money from government coffers, there are probably many things they could do. But that is obviously absurd.
What actually exists is a significant conflict of interest under which many scientists operate independently. How that affects the scientific conclusions is anybody's guess.
"I'm not "alleging" a distortion of science. I simply pointed out that climate scientists have strong financial stake in the conclusions they reach, nothing more and nothing less."
So either you're contradicting yourself from one sentence to the next or there is no problem here.
You really are utterly incapable of understanding that it is possible to point out a conflict of interest without alleging actual misconduct? You really do need to read at least some scientific papers, since this is actually quite common.
The warming will be catastrophic, but you don't care because you think it won't affect you.
I'm a realist and face facts: the warming will happen pretty much at the levels of one of the intermediate IPCC scenarios. Even the already unrealistic Paris accords result in significant warming, melting, and sea level rise.
And as an aside, the "research papers" I mentioned would obviously be the foundational evidence for the theory.
Why do you keep bringing this up? The "evidence for the theory" isn't in dispute here, and you're not a scientist anyway.
What you need to read is some basic political science, economics, and history, since you still seem to live under the absurd delusion that the world operates like your little privileged, wealthy Nordic paradise. You need to grow up.
I would shed every drop of blood I have for any small comfort about the fate of my homeland. Go ahead, comfort me.
If you're from one of the Nordic countries, your "homeland" is melting. The Arctic will be mostly ice free in 2100. The permafrost will be gone in large parts of the northern hemisphere. Sea levels will rise by about 2ft by 2100. Many species will go extinct. Those are the facts; learn to live with them.
You are, however, alleging a distortion of science
I'm not "alleging" a distortion of science. I simply pointed out that climate scientists have strong financial stake in the conclusions they reach, nothing more and nothing less. It is you who keeps fantasizing that pointing this out automatically translates into a denial of scientific results.
"on what grounds do you argue that the concerns are overblown"
"You're arguing against AGW, by using a political argument."
Which part of Nowhere have I argued "against AGW". AGW is clearly happening and I have never disputed that. do you not understand? You keep misrepresenting my position.
Tell me what's wrong with the research papers.
I have no idea which "research papers" you are referring to. When it comes to climate change, I generally just stick to the IPCC reports. Do you disagree with the scientific conclusions of the IPCC reports? If so, please do explain! I'm sure as a professional PHP developer, your insights will be fascinating!
I find the prospect that a third of their funds go to any single category difficult to believe without any evidence. By the way, I'm pretty sure the second largest source of federal funding for science comes from the NIH
NIH is a rounding error. Funding is through about a dozen agencies. Use Google and stop asking stupid questions. It takes about a minute to find the official budgets.
Then on what grounds do you argue that the concerns are overblown?
In this thread, I haven't argued about AGW-related concerns at all. I simply pointed out that, contrary to what MightyMartian was implying, AGW researchers have a strong personal and financial interest in the conclusions they reach.
Otherwise, I base my thinking about the scientific aspects of AGW on the IPCC reports; you should read them some time.
As it happens, I am not a scientist, merely an empiricist
I've always wanted for those who screed against the science of climate change
I have said nothing "against the science of climate change". I think climate change is happening. But I also think it's unstoppable: it will run its natural course and we'll have to live with the consequences: a couple of feet sea level rise by 2100 and warmer polar regions.
The poster you responded to made a claim that scientists are financially vested in global warming science, but what are _his_ financial interests?
I have no financial interest in either fossil fuel or alternative energy. I don't even own any stock in any of those; I think fossil fuel companies are lousy investments.
I do have a strong personal interest: I think climate change research is a waste of time, and I'd much rather see the funding and effort redirected to something that benefits me, like cancer research, aging research, etc.
There are a few groups who take AGW into consideration such as insurance companies and the military.
Yes, and why do they do that? Because they are concerned that AGW is a threat. If climate change researchers concluded that AGW was not a threat, they would therefore have no more motivation to pay for climate research.
All I'm saying is that when looking at climate change research, you need to keep in mind that the livelihood of the people conducting it depends on reaching certain conclusions and not others. That doesn't automatically invalidate the conclusion of climate science researchers, but the idea that scientists are disinterested third parties while oil executives are venal and greedy and therefore can't be trusted is simply not tenable. Both sides in the climate change debate have strong personal and financial motivations for their positions.
If anything, the financial motivations for climate science researchers are stronger, because the personal loss of going from a respected academic researcher to a barista is arguably greater than going from a double digit billionaire to a single digit billionaire.
If you have actual evidence of profiteering and dishonest dealing by climatologists, then by all means provide it.
I have not accused climatologists of "dishonesty", which would imply deliberate deception. I have pointed out that, contrary to what you said, they have a strong personal and financial interest in reaching the conclusions they are reaching; if climatologists reached a consensus that climate change was not happening, or that it wasn't dangerous, a large number of them would lose their funding. That is, climatologists are not unbiased, disinterested bystanders in their research.
"traditional" $100-$200 million? Traditional since when?
Since 1988. After Hansen's testimony in 1988, that quickly ramped up to $1-2 billion per year.
You're arguing against AGW,
Nowhere have I argued "against AGW". AGW is clearly happening and I have never disputed that.
We respect your right to disagree with the science; the whole point of science is to argue about models of reality. The rules of this game are mandatory and not up for debate
I don't know what you do for a living; if you fancy yourself a scientist, you are a lousy one, since you seem to be incapable of distinguishing such elementary propositions as "the conclusions that researchers in climate change research reach have a strong impact on their funding and careers" and "AGW is happening". As it happens to be the case, both conclusions are true.
You said "should be shut down hard", implying that some external agency come in and tell company owners to do with their private property. What possible justification is there for that?
Slashdot Mirror
(Wow, you're so mad and irrational you can't even type anymore.)
Well, I'm sorry you are unaware of bias in science; actual scientists are quite aware of it, which is why we try to control it through mechanisms such as peer review, double blind studies, disclosure of conflicts of interest, and replication. Nevertheless, scientific bias is clearly still widespread. Nor is this a new insight. Max Planck, for example, said that science advances one funeral at a time.
I explained my reasoning.
Indeed. Which is literally what I said. Are you unable to read?
I happen to be a scientist (also an atheist, an immigrant, a gay man, an Obama voter).
I don't know what you are, but demagogue and blind political partisan would be at the top of my list.
I didn't "accuse" anybody. I pointed out a conflict of interest.
Agree with what? Climate scientists write thousands of papers on thousands of topics. It's scientific illiterates who try to turn climate change discussions into a binary issue.
You can look up the funding data yourself. There is an entire .gov website devoted to it.
Congress will make the determination of the funding levels. I think some cutbacks are reasonable: the models we have are pretty good. Besides, other nations can and should ramp up their funding, since the US currently disproportionately pays for this.
You are admitted to the US (and other Western nations) only if you can establish with reasonable certainty that you (1) will leave again, and (2) won't cause harm while you're here. If you come from places like Europe, the US uses your police records, surveillance data, credit records, and similar information to make that determination. If you come from places like Somalia or Yemen, reliable records are not available, and the US is trying to use social media profiles as an unofficial substitute. I think that's a bad idea. Social media profiles are unlikely to be very reliable, and the whole thing looks appears like a massive invasion of privacy. The US should generally give visas only to people who can provide credible government and financial records, with case-by-case exemptions in a few special cases.
Oh deary, the next eight years will be hard on you,
Well, yes, in fact, pointing out a conflict of interest is totally different from a scientific debate.
I didn't make things up. Go look up the numbers yourself.
Scientific research is highly competitive. Nobody is going to hire a mid-career climatologist for a non-climatology position if they can get a fresh graduate student in their field.
Correct. However, public funding levels for areas of research are determined by how important that area of research is deemed to the public. Climate research is only funded at current levels because scientists say that it is a threat.
Not this stupid, naive belief that scientists are unbiased again.
Well, you talked about "my homeland" as opposed to "our homeland". And your English is a bit iffy. Instead of beating around the bush, why don't you come out and say where the hell you're from?
What are you talking about? Alaska is one of the wealthiest US states, is extremely resource rich, and has higher per capita GDP and median household income than, say, Sweden. If you're from Alaska, you're even more privileged than the people from the Nordic countries.
I have never made any suggestion that "we don't need to study this", whatever "this" might be.
Well, if you believe that there is a deep, dark, deliberate conspiracy among scientists to maximize money from government coffers, there are probably many things they could do. But that is obviously absurd.
What actually exists is a significant conflict of interest under which many scientists operate independently. How that affects the scientific conclusions is anybody's guess.
You really are utterly incapable of understanding that it is possible to point out a conflict of interest without alleging actual misconduct? You really do need to read at least some scientific papers, since this is actually quite common.
I'm a realist and face facts: the warming will happen pretty much at the levels of one of the intermediate IPCC scenarios. Even the already unrealistic Paris accords result in significant warming, melting, and sea level rise.
Why do you keep bringing this up? The "evidence for the theory" isn't in dispute here, and you're not a scientist anyway.
What you need to read is some basic political science, economics, and history, since you still seem to live under the absurd delusion that the world operates like your little privileged, wealthy Nordic paradise. You need to grow up.
If you're from one of the Nordic countries, your "homeland" is melting. The Arctic will be mostly ice free in 2100. The permafrost will be gone in large parts of the northern hemisphere. Sea levels will rise by about 2ft by 2100. Many species will go extinct. Those are the facts; learn to live with them.
I'm not "alleging" a distortion of science. I simply pointed out that climate scientists have strong financial stake in the conclusions they reach, nothing more and nothing less. It is you who keeps fantasizing that pointing this out automatically translates into a denial of scientific results.
You said:
"on what grounds do you argue that the concerns are overblown"
"You're arguing against AGW, by using a political argument."
Which part of Nowhere have I argued "against AGW". AGW is clearly happening and I have never disputed that. do you not understand? You keep misrepresenting my position.
I have no idea which "research papers" you are referring to. When it comes to climate change, I generally just stick to the IPCC reports. Do you disagree with the scientific conclusions of the IPCC reports? If so, please do explain! I'm sure as a professional PHP developer, your insights will be fascinating!
NIH is a rounding error. Funding is through about a dozen agencies. Use Google and stop asking stupid questions. It takes about a minute to find the official budgets.
In this thread, I haven't argued about AGW-related concerns at all. I simply pointed out that, contrary to what MightyMartian was implying, AGW researchers have a strong personal and financial interest in the conclusions they reach.
Otherwise, I base my thinking about the scientific aspects of AGW on the IPCC reports; you should read them some time.
As far as I can tell, you're a loudmouthed fool.
I have said nothing "against the science of climate change". I think climate change is happening. But I also think it's unstoppable: it will run its natural course and we'll have to live with the consequences: a couple of feet sea level rise by 2100 and warmer polar regions.
I have no financial interest in either fossil fuel or alternative energy. I don't even own any stock in any of those; I think fossil fuel companies are lousy investments.
I do have a strong personal interest: I think climate change research is a waste of time, and I'd much rather see the funding and effort redirected to something that benefits me, like cancer research, aging research, etc.
Yes, and why do they do that? Because they are concerned that AGW is a threat. If climate change researchers concluded that AGW was not a threat, they would therefore have no more motivation to pay for climate research.
All I'm saying is that when looking at climate change research, you need to keep in mind that the livelihood of the people conducting it depends on reaching certain conclusions and not others. That doesn't automatically invalidate the conclusion of climate science researchers, but the idea that scientists are disinterested third parties while oil executives are venal and greedy and therefore can't be trusted is simply not tenable. Both sides in the climate change debate have strong personal and financial motivations for their positions.
If anything, the financial motivations for climate science researchers are stronger, because the personal loss of going from a respected academic researcher to a barista is arguably greater than going from a double digit billionaire to a single digit billionaire.
I have not accused climatologists of "dishonesty", which would imply deliberate deception. I have pointed out that, contrary to what you said, they have a strong personal and financial interest in reaching the conclusions they are reaching; if climatologists reached a consensus that climate change was not happening, or that it wasn't dangerous, a large number of them would lose their funding. That is, climatologists are not unbiased, disinterested bystanders in their research.
Since 1988. After Hansen's testimony in 1988, that quickly ramped up to $1-2 billion per year.
Nowhere have I argued "against AGW". AGW is clearly happening and I have never disputed that.
I don't know what you do for a living; if you fancy yourself a scientist, you are a lousy one, since you seem to be incapable of distinguishing such elementary propositions as "the conclusions that researchers in climate change research reach have a strong impact on their funding and careers" and "AGW is happening". As it happens to be the case, both conclusions are true.
Nowhere did I dispute that AGW is occurring. Nowhere did I call an "entire academic discipline liars".
You, however, are a liar and a blind partisan.
Think of concatenation as a simple function:
f(x,y) = 10**ceil(log10(y+1)) * x + y
You said "should be shut down hard", implying that some external agency come in and tell company owners to do with their private property. What possible justification is there for that?