It's only ok to do that when it benefits lobbyists and their clients. Since there is little or no money in CP, da goobermint doesn't really give a shit.
Before their 17th birthday, you would kill them with your bare hands, but after their 17th birthday, you would shake their hand? Or is there some other line I don't know about? Do children never lie, or misinterpret a situation?
No, one must compare the amount of money spent on climate research by the oil lobby versus the amount spent by government organizations. THAT is the important comparison. Yes, it is terrible and stupid that oil and gas companies get these outrageous subsidies, but the oil and gas companies aren't doing a lot of research on climate with that money--they are lining their pockets and MAYBE doing some research on improving oil production efficiency.
Also, note that despite my anti-AGW stance, I am much more of a tree hugger than 99% of the population. I just happen to also have a firm understanding of economics (and hence understand the effect that anti-AGW proposals will have on the poor of the world), and know that the best way to efficiently preserve natural resources is to have them in private hands rather than government hands (who will pimp them out via no-bid contracts to people who give their campaign a few tens of thousands of dollars). This has been shown to work, as private African game reserves have been found to do a much better job at eliminating poachers than public wildlife reserves.
Refusing to allow questioning by those outside of the field is also against the scientific method, and that is exactly what the great grandparent was talking about.
Note that you are in no way a scientist, but rather simply a schmuck who thinks he is better than others because he blindly follows what others tell him WITHOUT QUESTION. If the "scientific" community were ruled by people like you, the universe would still be rotating around the Earth, disease would still be caused by miasma and/or demonic possession, and there would be no such thing as subatomic particles, only "aether".
Wow, you blindly accept anything in a textbook? Textbooks are notorious for errors. You'd best start using that big wart on your neck to think for yourself rather than simply accepting as fact that which is presented to you in a book. Otherwise, you are exactly the same as any other religious fanatic.
No, I am exactly as skeptical of a group of people who's continued funding relies on the the existence of the phenomenon they are measuring. You can't possibly think that those guys are in any way non-biased. Well, you can, but that only further exposes your own bias. I don't "believe" anything. I only look for evidence of ongoing unsuccessful attempts to disprove both the thesis and the methodology, which I have in general failed to find, as there are many sound arguments against the methodology, and until recently, even this major portion of the thesis was in doubt. Further, there was a great deal of both direct and circumstantial evidence of an ongoing conspiracy to suppress alternative points of view, to the point of corruption of the publication process. Such actions are INEXCUSABLE, as they transform scientific institutions into religious ones. It doesn't matter if they were right on one point or the other, the active suppression of dissent makes what they are doing into something other than science.
Think about how you remediate damage to a human body. How to you fix a deep cut? Do you just stop cutting? DO you run the knife backwards? Do you try to control the growth and proliferation of each and every individual cell in the wound? Or do you clean the wound, stitch it up, and administer antibiotics?
I see, so any question of existing consensus by highly skilled outsiders is arrogance and blasphemy and should be verboten, ja?
Questioning the unquestionable and challenging consensus is what science is about. A GOOD scientist will adopt a skeptical approach to anything being examined, just to encourage debate and to ensure that the answer he really thinks is correct holds up to scrutiny. Trying to discourage that is the realm of religion. Stop it.
If they were sure they wouldn't get caught, they certainly would. But the peer review process is usually good at catching the cheats. Except when the peers doing the reviewing have the same bias. This happens in niche areas of research, including climate research.
Place scientists on a pedestal at your own, and society's risk.
Yes, all but this one, who's results went against the bias of the funding institution. This is why I, an arch-climate skeptic, am more likely to believe this study. Similarly, if a mainstream climate scientist had come out with a climate study showing that the world wasn't warming, I would have tended to be more accepting of THAT conclusions, simply because it went against their natural bias.
Now that the climate has been confirmed to be warming by non-biased scientists, what is left is to find the cause, and determine the implications. If the implications are negative (beyond the simple change=bad that is the default for most people), then methods of remediation need to be considered, and the impacts of those remediation methods must be considered as well.
Or you could seek out private investment? My own research company is funded in large part privately. If we lost all of our grants, but the companies we develop technology for got tax cuts, it would be a net gain for us. You would likely find the same is the case for you as well. Perhaps some of the old research giants would stretch their wings again after being so long dormant. Hell, there are plenty of companies just like mine employing all manner of physicists already.
But then, I get the feeling that you are a very comfortable, tenured professor of some sort who doesn't want to pull his own weight, relying on his grad students to do all the work. Those kinds aren't well received in private industry. They prefer intellectual welfare.
You say that, but the closest implementation of libertarian economic and political philosophy in the history of the planet occurred in the US upon the end of Reconstruction, and lasted until 1913 (at least), definitively ending in 1971. And what happened to the inhabitants of the US during that time period?
It was the greatest period of economic growth in human history, turning an agrarian backwater into a superpower. Something similar happened earlier with Great Britain, and later in most of the other countries we now consider "Westernized". This is as opposed to every implementation of every other pure type of government, which inevitably lead to mass death and collapse. Turns out people do a pretty good job of ruling themselves, and that people do a really BAD job of ruling others with force.
Note also that as those great nations abandoned the libertarian principles that made them great, they also lost their greatness. Their empires (admittedly illegitimate) crumbled as their economy could no longer support the expansion. They did well for some time, slowly consuming the capital they had stored away over the decades, but now it is almost all gone, and here we are.
Most people don't understand the effect the small government of the late 1800's had on the economic and industrial progress of the same era.
If they did, they would all be screaming for those policies to be reinstituted. Sadly, most people just don't get it, and probably never will. This is why the US is likely doomed to decline and dissolution.
Slashdot Mirror
It's only ok to do that when it benefits lobbyists and their clients. Since there is little or no money in CP, da goobermint doesn't really give a shit.
Before their 17th birthday, you would kill them with your bare hands, but after their 17th birthday, you would shake their hand? Or is there some other line I don't know about? Do children never lie, or misinterpret a situation?
Personal info of some of the users was posted. Simple enough to insert the contact info of some innocent.
Test.
We'll let them keep it if and only if the Finns open up a new car manufacturing plant on American soil paid for by Finnish taxpayer dollars.
Well, more like a large sea in an ocean, but point taken. We should stop the wars too.
No, one must compare the amount of money spent on climate research by the oil lobby versus the amount spent by government organizations. THAT is the important comparison. Yes, it is terrible and stupid that oil and gas companies get these outrageous subsidies, but the oil and gas companies aren't doing a lot of research on climate with that money--they are lining their pockets and MAYBE doing some research on improving oil production efficiency.
Also, note that despite my anti-AGW stance, I am much more of a tree hugger than 99% of the population. I just happen to also have a firm understanding of economics (and hence understand the effect that anti-AGW proposals will have on the poor of the world), and know that the best way to efficiently preserve natural resources is to have them in private hands rather than government hands (who will pimp them out via no-bid contracts to people who give their campaign a few tens of thousands of dollars). This has been shown to work, as private African game reserves have been found to do a much better job at eliminating poachers than public wildlife reserves.
Good question. End all subsidies. Let the markets work.
Refusing to allow questioning by those outside of the field is also against the scientific method, and that is exactly what the great grandparent was talking about.
Such "idiots" are among good company then.
Note that you are in no way a scientist, but rather simply a schmuck who thinks he is better than others because he blindly follows what others tell him WITHOUT QUESTION. If the "scientific" community were ruled by people like you, the universe would still be rotating around the Earth, disease would still be caused by miasma and/or demonic possession, and there would be no such thing as subatomic particles, only "aether".
Wow, you blindly accept anything in a textbook? Textbooks are notorious for errors. You'd best start using that big wart on your neck to think for yourself rather than simply accepting as fact that which is presented to you in a book. Otherwise, you are exactly the same as any other religious fanatic.
No, I am exactly as skeptical of a group of people who's continued funding relies on the the existence of the phenomenon they are measuring. You can't possibly think that those guys are in any way non-biased. Well, you can, but that only further exposes your own bias. I don't "believe" anything. I only look for evidence of ongoing unsuccessful attempts to disprove both the thesis and the methodology, which I have in general failed to find, as there are many sound arguments against the methodology, and until recently, even this major portion of the thesis was in doubt. Further, there was a great deal of both direct and circumstantial evidence of an ongoing conspiracy to suppress alternative points of view, to the point of corruption of the publication process. Such actions are INEXCUSABLE, as they transform scientific institutions into religious ones. It doesn't matter if they were right on one point or the other, the active suppression of dissent makes what they are doing into something other than science.
AGW is not a theory, but a hypothesis. One portion of that hypothesis has now been impartially confirmed.
If you had any respect for science whatsoever, you would learn the difference.
Exactly.
Did you actually examine that assertion, or did you just dismiss it out of hand like the people you criticize?
How about a world where two billion people have starved to death because all that shit was expensive, and was reflected in the rising cost of food?
Think about how you remediate damage to a human body. How to you fix a deep cut? Do you just stop cutting? DO you run the knife backwards? Do you try to control the growth and proliferation of each and every individual cell in the wound? Or do you clean the wound, stitch it up, and administer antibiotics?
You are assuming those bureaucrats have a working knowledge of economics, and don't have stock in "green energy" companies.
When those "tree huggers" have a direct line to the general treasury fund of the United States of America, well, yeah, clearly the "tree huggers".
I see, so any question of existing consensus by highly skilled outsiders is arrogance and blasphemy and should be verboten, ja?
Questioning the unquestionable and challenging consensus is what science is about. A GOOD scientist will adopt a skeptical approach to anything being examined, just to encourage debate and to ensure that the answer he really thinks is correct holds up to scrutiny. Trying to discourage that is the realm of religion. Stop it.
If they were sure they wouldn't get caught, they certainly would. But the peer review process is usually good at catching the cheats. Except when the peers doing the reviewing have the same bias. This happens in niche areas of research, including climate research.
Place scientists on a pedestal at your own, and society's risk.
Yes, all but this one, who's results went against the bias of the funding institution. This is why I, an arch-climate skeptic, am more likely to believe this study. Similarly, if a mainstream climate scientist had come out with a climate study showing that the world wasn't warming, I would have tended to be more accepting of THAT conclusions, simply because it went against their natural bias.
Now that the climate has been confirmed to be warming by non-biased scientists, what is left is to find the cause, and determine the implications. If the implications are negative (beyond the simple change=bad that is the default for most people), then methods of remediation need to be considered, and the impacts of those remediation methods must be considered as well.
Or you could seek out private investment? My own research company is funded in large part privately. If we lost all of our grants, but the companies we develop technology for got tax cuts, it would be a net gain for us. You would likely find the same is the case for you as well. Perhaps some of the old research giants would stretch their wings again after being so long dormant. Hell, there are plenty of companies just like mine employing all manner of physicists already.
But then, I get the feeling that you are a very comfortable, tenured professor of some sort who doesn't want to pull his own weight, relying on his grad students to do all the work. Those kinds aren't well received in private industry. They prefer intellectual welfare.
You say that, but the closest implementation of libertarian economic and political philosophy in the history of the planet occurred in the US upon the end of Reconstruction, and lasted until 1913 (at least), definitively ending in 1971. And what happened to the inhabitants of the US during that time period?
It was the greatest period of economic growth in human history, turning an agrarian backwater into a superpower. Something similar happened earlier with Great Britain, and later in most of the other countries we now consider "Westernized". This is as opposed to every implementation of every other pure type of government, which inevitably lead to mass death and collapse. Turns out people do a pretty good job of ruling themselves, and that people do a really BAD job of ruling others with force.
Note also that as those great nations abandoned the libertarian principles that made them great, they also lost their greatness. Their empires (admittedly illegitimate) crumbled as their economy could no longer support the expansion. They did well for some time, slowly consuming the capital they had stored away over the decades, but now it is almost all gone, and here we are.
Most people don't understand the effect the small government of the late 1800's had on the economic and industrial progress of the same era.
If they did, they would all be screaming for those policies to be reinstituted. Sadly, most people just don't get it, and probably never will. This is why the US is likely doomed to decline and dissolution.