Interesting read re. Global warming

[blackrock13]

Lets start with NASA global warming scientists. While they are not on grants, they are paid by the government for their work: http://climate.nasa.gov/

Then you have the EPA, who are involved with GW and are also paid by the govt: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/

Then you have all the scientists who work for IPCC: http://www.ipcc.ch/

Then you have all the scientists who work for the National Climatic Data Center: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Climatic_Data_Center

Then you have all the scientists who work for Climatic Research Unit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit

And then you also have many university scientists/professors who work on grants like Michael Mann.

Some of these scientists work for the government and get paid a salary, and some make a living receiving grants from charity, UN or other governmental agencies

I really wasn't looking for a very short list, just a percentage, more reflective of the term 'many'. I know you understand english well, but then...

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

I really wasn't looking for a very short list, just a percentage, more reflective of the term 'many'. I know you understand english well, but then...

How am I supposed to put a percentage on it, rockie?? I have no idea, do you know??

And that wasnt a short list btw, those agencies employ many GW scientists

 

[blackrock13]

How am I supposed to put a percentage on it, rockie?? I have no idea, do you know??

And that wasnt a short list btw, those agencies employ many GW scientists

I don't, that why I asked. You made the claim and you had to have some idea in order to make the claim. I gave you quite a wide margin of error just to be nic; 10% 33%, 50%+1, 66%, 90+%?

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

I don't, thats why I asked. You made the claim and you had to have some idea in order to make the claim. I gave you quite a wide margin of error just to be nice; 10% 33%, 50%+1, 66%, 90+%?

All I said was many scientists who study global warming have a financial stake. Thats a fact.

I cant give you a percentage number, but apparently you cant either.
So what exactly are you going on about??!

 

[blackrock13]

All I said was many scientists who study global warming have a financial stake. Thats a fact.

I cant give you a percentage number, but apparently you cant either.
So what exactly are you going on about??!

I just wanted to get a sense of your 'many'. in the same vain I can say that I have met and worked with 'many' who haven't, getting money from companies. Giving money to a university is one thing but they give it to the researchers, controlling the string. If the researchers do bad research, defined as full of flaws and not able to withstand peer review, they don't get more; incentive to do viable work.

 

[groggy]

All I said was many scientists who study global warming have a financial stake. Thats a fact.

I don't see where you've made that case at all.
You need to prove that they are given grants based on predetermined results.

All you've shown is that the government is concerned about climate change so commissioned some scientists to study issues.
I'm sure the government would be totally excited if it turned out not to be an issue at all and then could get back to funding studies about BPA or salt in the diet.

There are plenty of other issues climatologists would be studying if it wasn't climate change, I'm sure.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

I don't see where you've made that case at all.
You need to prove that they are given grants based on predetermined results

I dont need to prove anything. All I said was many global warming scientists are either paid through grants, or paid through govt salaries. Thats a fact. Very few people work for free.

Sorry if you dont like it, but its true

 

[groggy]

I dont need to prove anything. All I said was many global warming scientists are either paid through grants, or paid through govt salaries. Thats a fact. Very few people work for free.

Sorry if you dont like it, but its true

I think its a great system and don't see anything wrong with it.
What's your beef then?

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

I think its a great system and don't see anything wrong with it.
What's your beef then?

Where did I say I had a beef with anything??

 

[blackrock13]

I dont need to prove anything. All I said was many global warming scientists are either paid through grants, or paid through govt salaries. Thats a fact. Very few people work for free.

Sorry if you dont like it, but its true

So are you saying that a researcher getting government money puts his research in question?

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

So are you saying that a researcher getting government money puts his research in question?

No, but you just did :biggrin1:

You think it might be true?? Or would people never do such a thing for money??

 

[blackrock13]

No, but you just did :biggrin1:

You think it might be true?? Or would people never do such a thing for money??

No I just asked the question. I don't believe there is a large direct correlation at all. The research develops credibility over time and hopefully strives to maintain that credibility throughout his career. It doesn't take much to submarine it and then it takes years to get it back again, if ever. a researcher who is exposed cooking the results is back at washing beaker and test tubes in no time or doing punditry on FOXNEWS.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

No I just asked the question. I don't believe there is a large direct correlation at all. The research develops credibility over time and hopefully strives to maintain that credibility throughout his career. It doesn't take much to submarine it and then it takes years to get it back again, if ever. a researcher who is exposed cooking the results is back at washing beaker and test tubes in no time or doing punditry on FOXNEWS

Here's my take on the whole GW thing. Up until Climategate I never questioned GW, I figured if we're all pumping out so many CO2's worldwide thats bound to have an effect on our climate.

After Climategate happened I started wondering if perhaps the doomsday scenarios are highly exaggerated. And if so, how may years/decades/centuries do we have until the shit hits the fan. Nobody knows, and thats my whole point.

Of course there is some warming going on, so I do support greener technologies. But AFA doomsday scenarios Al Gore keeps scaring us with, I think they are unfounded

 

[blackrock13]

Here's my take on the whole GW thing. Up until Climategate I never questioned GW, I figured if we're all pumping out so many CO2's worldwide thats bound to have an effect on our climate.

After Climategate happened I started wondering if perhaps the doomsday scenarios are highly exaggerated. And if so, how may years/decades/centuries do we have until the shit hits the fan. Nobody knows, and thats my whole point.

Of course there is some warming going on, so I do support greener technologies. But AFA doomsday scenarios Al Gore keeps scaring us with, I think they are unfounded

Fair enough, much of what you say is true. The deadlines are amorphous at best. We don't know what and when new technologies may be discovered that wil mitigate the deadline, but then we don't want to be away near that deadline do we, let alone on the slippery slope approaching it. We also don't know when a slow down will occur when large scale producers of the toxins, will be closed down or slowed down affecting outputs, similar to what's been going on in recent years. As far as the scare tactics by some, there are people who are too slow dumb, ignorant, to believe/understand common sense science. They need to be scared. Al Gore? It's way past him and his film, which is five years old now.

 

[groggy]

Here's my take on the whole GW thing. Up until Climategate I never questioned GW, I figured if we're all pumping out so many CO2's worldwide thats bound to have an effect on our climate.

After Climategate happened I started wondering if perhaps the doomsday scenarios are highly exaggerated. And if so, how may years/decades/centuries do we have until the shit hits the fan. Nobody knows, and thats my whole point.

Of course there is some warming going on, so I do support greener technologies. But AFA doomsday scenarios Al Gore keeps scaring us with, I think they are unfounded

What has that to do with your concern about government funding scientific research?

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

What has that to do with your concern about government funding scientific research?

Where did I say I had concern about government funding scientific research?

You keep putting words into my mouth, I then question you on it, and not only do you not respond to my multiple questions, but you keep putting more words into my mouth

 

[OddSox]

And those grants are awarded to do research, not to provide predetermined results.
They continue to get those grants based on their ability to provide fully documented, provable, peer assessed results.

Or are you trying to suggest that the government has some kind of secret conspiracy to fund scientists who will prove the government and politicians wrong on all environmental and economic plans to contain climate change?

Of course, they're going to go where the money is. As far as 'peer-reviewed' climategate pretty much showed that up for the farce that it is. As far as the politicians go, they go where the money is.

 

[blackrock13]

Of course, they're going to go where the money is. As far as 'peer-reviewed' climategate pretty much showed that up for the farce that it is. As far as the politicians go, they go where the money is.

So all peer review is a farce, don't think so. A small group gets caught and you paint all researchers with the same brush.

 

[whitewaterguy]

So all peer review is a farce, don't think so. A small group gets caught and you paint all researchers with the same brush.

still frothing at the lips like a perseverating rabid chihuahua eh? lol

 

[blackrock13]

still frothing at the lips like a perseverating rabid chihuahua eh? lol

No really but you will when you read the Scout post. Nothing in my post was incorrect.