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.
So he has collected money in grants? And the issue with this is? All scientific research relies on grants and funding to be done, research ain't free.
That's a double edged sword because financially it's within the scientist's best interest to have a reason to keep the funding rolling in.
There is another document that was released that included who they were seeking funding from, it included renewable energy otganizations, carbon credit trading. They also sought funding from Shell and BP <gasp> both of whom are heavily invested in renewable energy.
That depends. Did they get funded because that was their stated aim in doing research?
We KNOW that the only way to get funding from any government is to claim you're going to find evidence of global warming.
So, again... You're trying to make this about me, rather than what the truth is.
It's not particularly convenient to try this tactic, since everyone can spot it immediately. I suggest what you need to do is to gain some insight into the science itself, and then you can gain some perspective on just how ludicrous the claim of "proof" is.
That is how you start research, you don't just start blindly researching and hope that something specific comes out of nothing.
Steps of the Scientific Method
The scientific method is a way to ask and answer scientific questions by making observations and doing experiments. The steps of the scientific method are to:
-Ask a Question
-Do Background Research
-Construct a Hypothesis
-Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
-Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
-Communicate Your Results
Who is trying to make this about you? Not every post you read is all about you. Though I do see you are trying to deflect by making this post about me.
]That's a double edged sword because financially it's within the scientist's best interest to have a reason to keep the funding rolling in. [/b]
There is another document that was released that included who they were seeking funding from, it included renewable energy otganizations, carbon credit trading. They also sought funding from Shell and BP <gasp> both of whom are heavily invested in renewable energy.
That is why I support having a general public research fund that goes to research without having that funding tied to politics.
External politics in science is an enormous issue especially where this topic is concerned.
Then there is internal politics that plays huge role as well.
Absolutely. You can make the same case for evolution.... Those "evolutionists" just keep validating the theory of evolution in order to keep getting those checks and pissing off the religious right.
When research produces results that contradict right-wing talking points, it's only natural to expect right-wingers to oppose funding that research
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003
Look in the mirror.
It's called human nature.
No one is claiming science is important but one just needs to look at the modern world around to understand science is does hold great value for understanding our universe and manipulating it's "rules" in order to suite us.
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.
Though I do see you are trying to deflect by making this post about me. 
