Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is no agenda in science. I don't know what kind of crap you just posted, but it's not from any credible scientific publication.
Getting funded maybe? It's a lot easier to get funding for a problem than a non-problem. And can you get Elton John to perform at a celebration of discovering that we're not going to fry to death?
Getting funded maybe? It's a lot easier to get funding for a problem than a non-problem. And can you get Elton John to perform at a celebration of discovering that we're not going to fry to death?
I spent many years in a research role at a university and funding certainly is a motivation for choosing areas of research. It is no lie that researchers will flock to a "hot" topic. But I have never seen anyone bias his/her findings based upon getting funding. In fact almost the opposite - researchers make reputations not by being sycophants but by bucking the trend and finding something that nobody else has noticed. Many if not most scientists tend to be a argumentative and contrarians and not all that interested in being lost in the crowd.
Both papers and funding proposals are peer reviewed by multiple reviewers. I think by and large the integrity of the research community is very high and if someone proposes research that has sound methodology and is attempting to disprove global warming, I cannot see it not getting funded. There is too much scrutiny in the process.
Getting funded maybe? It's a lot easier to get funding for a problem than a non-problem. And can you get Elton John to perform at a celebration of discovering that we're not going to fry to death?
What are you talking about?
That isn't how the major funding sources work at all. And make no mistake, climate scientists were getting funding well before people started noticing the effects of anthropogenic climate change. There are over 250K papers on climate science in just google scholar from 1950-1970. People were getting funding.
You seem to be implying climatologists get funding no one else gets. Weird.
And what scientists are getting any musicians to do anything?
Getting funded maybe? It's a lot easier to get funding for a problem than a non-problem. And can you get Elton John to perform at a celebration of discovering that we're not going to fry to death?
"Funding" has become the knee-jerk response of deniers with little or zero understanding of how scientific research is organized or produced. To be fair I would be in the same boat if I hadn't married someone who went through the whole process of working through a masters, PhD and then continuing on in a tenure-track professorship at a large state university. Most people aren't up for it... I certainly don't have it... you are systematically and institutionally "attacked" the whole time... you literally have to "defend" yourself (dissertation) to get out of it honorably. If you become a professor then it becomes 1/3 of your job in the way of "peer-reviewed articles". It's basically like a crude and competitive form of crowd sourcing data. You conduct a study, do an experiment and write up the results.. you send it in as an "article" and then the journal reviews will examine it... they'll look at your hypothesis... your research methodologies and interpretation of the results. Everyone who's reviewing the articles will be subject matter experts in order to be credibly capable of evaluating it.. it's "peer-reviewed" because everyone is keeping everyone else in check.
And the other 2/3? 1/3 teaching and probably another 1/3 writing grant proposals.
But here is another area where I think confusion sets in... scientists become subject matter experts *BEFORE* they become grant-writing researchers. Students, especially the good ones like my husband, frequently contribute to the high level article publishing and grant-writing process as they are learning, but generally speaking they're not the "first author". In fact I can tell you that my husband in his second year as an assistant professor wrote up an entire NIH grant proposal and yet upon the final draft wasn't even listed as an author (and that's when he gave his dean the finger and left academia for good... but I digress ). What I'm trying to say is that scientists identify and pursue their interests before they get the money. They work for years as research assistants or post-doctoral students. Most of the time (there are always exceptions!) you've built up esteem and a favorable reputation amongst the subject matter community before you win grants.
However you have a point.. there have been many researchers paid by the cigarette and fossil fuel industry to research and present findings in such a way as to protect the cigarette and fossil fuel products. I believe that's where the word "scam" is applicable.
That isn't how the major funding sources work at all. And make no mistake, climate scientists were getting funding well before people started noticing the effects of anthropogenic climate change. There are over 250K papers on climate science in just google scholar from 1950-1970. People were getting funding.****************
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyingsaucermom
"Funding" has become the knee-jerk response of deniers with little or zero understanding of how scientific research is organized or produced. To be fair I would be in the same boat if I hadn't married someone who went through the whole process of working through a masters, PhD and then continuing on in a tenure-track professorship at a large state university. **************
I have read both of the above posts but excerpted them to save space. My point is that in order to be paid to research a problem there has to be one in the first place. No problem, or no problem subject to remediation = not much money.
I think most people of good will agree that we should not be poisoning the atmosphere and/or the waters. And that should continue to be the case even with a "Republican clean sweep" which is the OP target.
One difficulty comes with substances that are non-poisons in and of themselves, such as CO2. The impact of C02 emissions is much less immediately drastic. The argument seems to be that its long-term impact is pernicious. The problem, of course, is that if it is bad and we wait until it can be measured the damage is done and irreversible. The other side of that coin is that we are hybridizing the measurement of temperature, using proxy data for past conditions and actual temperatures for recent ones. What I argue for is using the temperature data we have for parts of the world that have them for a long time. And that data really doesn't show much warming.
The climate alarmists then point to the high latitudes and altitudes, where there isn't much data prior to the 1950's. The glaciers and ice sheets have shrunk, no question about it. The issue is, does that shrinkage occur as a result of man-made climate change, or natural melt from post-Ice Age warming? I think the latter. To plunge advanced societies into drastic and expensive remediation for a speculative cause and effect relationship makes no sense.
Recognizing this the Kyoto, Copenhagen and Paris mechanisms focus on financial adjustments. This is with the full knowledge that little will be done to reduce emissions. What will happen are large funds transfers to the Third and Fourth World countries for the ostensible purpose of "climate adjustment." The day I see the leader of Zaire, Zimbabwe, Burundi, Tahiti or the Marshall Islands use the funds thus gained for much beyond their Swiss bank accounts is the day I, a 59 year old male, gets pregnant.
Can't read it. Please only post links that do not require an account.
I have an account so I DM'd you a copy of My Unhappy Life as a Climate Heretic. I have heard about this, and worse harassment for being skeptical of the fanciful claims of fanatics. It's become a religion.
I personally had a member of my extended family start screaming at me at a Thanksgiving dinner over this issue.
I have read both of the above posts but excerpted them to save space. My point is that in order to be paid to research a problem there has to be one in the first place. No problem, or no problem subject to remediation = not much money.
You are incorrect. There needs to be a paucity of knowledge not "a problem". Science is NOT a method to solve problems, it is a methodology to determine answers regarding the natural world. Its results maybe used to solve problems but solutions to problems is Not part of the typical funding equation.
Maybe, before you talk about things of which you clearly know very little you spent just a little bit of time educating yourself.
Quote:
One difficulty comes with substances that are non-poisons in and of themselves, such as CO2.
What is a non-poison? First, let's determine if CO2 is really a "non-poison", I suggest that you get a canister of pure CO2 and try breathing it for a few minutes and see exactly how "non-poison" -out it is.
Quote:
The other side of that coin is that we are hybridizing the measurement of temperature, using proxy data for past conditions and actual temperatures for recent ones. What I argue for is using the temperature data we have for parts of the world that have them for a long time. And that data really doesn't show much warming.
I get that you like to parrot points you've read off of blogs buts t is as apt as anything else you have posted. Proxy data is no more flawed than actual measurements, you accept the validity of proxy data in your everyday life all the time but don't even realize it. Proxy data sets are used frequently in clinical studies, where they are often used in mixed data sets with patient reported data. I suspect you aren't telling your doctor to not prescribe any medicines tested instudies that utilized proxies.
This is a strawman argument and not based on good science. Everything else you wrote is supposition not fact. fact.
Quote:
The climate alarmists then point to the high latitudes and altitudes, where there isn't much data prior to the 1950's. The glaciers and ice sheets have shrunk, no question about it. The issue is, does that shrinkage occur as a result of man-made climate change, or natural melt from post-Ice Age warming? I think the latter. To plunge advanced societies into drastic and expensive remediation for a speculative cause and effect relationship makes no sense.
Oh I see "you think" and that is based on what evidence? What experimentation that YOU have done? What qualifies YOU to pretend you have an informed opinion compared to people who actually study this as their life work?
Oh, and Milankovitch proves how wrong you are without any experimentation.
Quote:
Recognizing this the Kyoto, Copenhagen and Paris mechanisms focus on financial adjustments. This is with the full knowledge that little will be done to reduce emissions. What will happen are large funds transfers to the Third and Fourth World countries for the ostensible purpose of "climate adjustment." The day I see the leader of Zaire, Zimbabwe, Burundi, Tahiti or the Marshall Islands use the funds thus gained for much beyond their Swiss bank accounts is the day I, a 59 year old male, gets pregnant.
He studied political science. Not an actual scientist.
He isn't a climate anything.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
). What I'm trying to say is that scientists identify and pursue their interests before they get the money. They work for years as research assistants or post-doctoral students. Most of the time (there are always exceptions!) you've built up esteem and a favorable reputation amongst the subject matter community before you win grants. 
