• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Weather Channel founder John Coleman suggests legal action against Al Gore

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,820
1,123
126
Originally posted by: vhx
People still believe Global Warming is caused by humans even though it was reported 2007 was one of the coldest in awhile? Oh dear.

EDIT: Although that could be explained by some type of fluctuation as it probably normally does. Still doesn't help the argument that Mars, Jupiters moons and so forth are heating up as well.
It must be hard work to post something so stupid.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,991
0
0
Originally posted by: vhx
People still believe Global Warming is caused by humans even though it was reported 2007 was one of the coldest in awhile? Oh dear.

EDIT: Although that could be explained by some type of fluctuation as it probably normally does. Still doesn't help the argument that Mars, Jupiters moons and so forth are heating up as well.
Proof? And not just a select link from a specific location that had a harsh winter. I want to see proof the global temperature is going down and glaciers and polar ice aren't shrinking.

I've lived in west central FL for 25+ years and I remember the days of people putting blankets over their bushes to protect them from the freeze(S). That hasn't happened much if at all here. Does my isolated situation proves MMGW is real?

Edit: As I read further I see eskimospy did a better job of conveying my intended message. :thumbsup:
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,171
20,884
136
Originally posted by: vhx
People still believe Global Warming is caused by humans even though it was reported 2007 was one of the coldest in awhile? Oh dear.

EDIT: Although that could be explained by some type of fluctuation as it probably normally does. Still doesn't help the argument that Mars, Jupiters moons and so forth are heating up as well.
Yes it does, read up on solar variation theory. You will see that scientists have studied this very very thoroughly and determined that while the sun (obviously) has an enormous impact on our climate, the variations in solar intensity do not account for the degree in warming we have seen in the past few decades.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,520
0
0
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Most speakers there weren't scientists at all. The opening speech was given by a comedian. It might as well be a UFO conference, or an acupuncture trade show.

http://blogs.wsj.com/environme...d_environmentalcapital

ExxonMobil didn?t sponsor this conference,which runs through tomorrow afternoon. Instead, the bills are paid by an eclectic mix of free-market think tanks (including one from Pakistan), carbon-questioning NGOs, shareholder activists, and science groups critical of the U.N?s climate research.

Given that line-up, and the Heartland Institute?s stated mission??to discover and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems??two of the presentations seem a bit jarring: They?re given by Vladmir Putin?s science advisor and Mr. Putin?s former chief economic advisor.


The title of this article on their page should be enough to give them away as charlatans
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=20938

"Climate Realists Beat Alarmists in New York Debate"
Like the fact that they are called the "Heartland Institute" wasn't a big enough tip off that they aren't the unbiased group hellokeith would have us believe.

Honestly, this is just getting retarded. Every single "debate" about global warming goes the same way.

A huge percentage of climate scientists with peer reviewed research to back up what they are saying:
Human beings contribute significantly to global climate change and steps should be taken to try to reduce our impact on the climate.
A bunch of random people who have no particular expertise in the field and often are not scientists of any sort:
No, it's all a plot by Al Gore! Human beings don't affect the climate!
People like hellokeith:
See, there's a real debate. In fact, forget the debate, the second group is clearly 1000% right based on the fact that I agree with them.
Which I suppose is true, the anti-MMGW people are "debating" the issue with the scientists, in the same way that a 4th grader could "fight" Mike Tyson. But for those of us who are proud of our membership in the reality based community, this seems like a colossally stupid debate. Not because global warming MUST be right, but because a key requirement of a scientific debate is that you present scientific arguments. If you can't, then you aren't debating the issue...simple as that.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,807
4,714
126
A 2003 survey of 530 climate scientists in 27 countries, conducted by Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch at the GKSS Institute of Coastal Research in Germany, found


82 percent said global warming is happening, but only


56 percent said it?s mostly the result of human causes
So 56% of climate scientists agree that global warming is happening and is mostly a result of human causes. That is a strong consensus. The 27% question is subjective.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,520
0
0
Originally posted by: senseamp
A 2003 survey of 530 climate scientists in 27 countries, conducted by Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch at the GKSS Institute of Coastal Research in Germany, found


82 percent said global warming is happening, but only


56 percent said it?s mostly the result of human causes
So 56% of climate scientists agree that global warming is happening and is mostly a result of human causes. That is a strong consensus. The 27% question is subjective.
Also look at how the data is worded. "Mostly the result" implies that humans contribute at least 51% of the causes of global warming, but we don't have to be "mostly" the cause to still be causing a significant shift in the climate that otherwise wouldn't be occuring. Suppose, for example, that only 33% of the climate change was attributable to humans...that would not meet the criteria for "mostly the result of human causes", but it is still a large enough factor that we should probably change what we're doing.
 

vhx

Golden Member
Jul 19, 2006
1,151
0
0
@Robor: Not sure I just remember reading it somewhere. Googling said things will get you various places that have reported on it.

Originally posted by: eskimospy
First of all the data from NASA's GISS says that 2007 is tied for the second hottest year in recorded history. Their data does conflict with some other sources however that tend to put it at around the seventh hottest in history. That's not important though, because the flaw in your argument isn't about data.

Basically you are arguing that global warming isn't happening because it was cold last year. If you understand the normal fluctuations in temperature for any given year along with the fundamental theory behind global warming you will see why having a cold year means next to nothing when it comes to disproving the theory.
I never said that is all to it. And yes I do understand the fluctuations, and I know that doesn't disprove global warming. The point I was trying to make was about human beings being the cause of global warming. You posted faster than I could edit. :p I do believe we have an impact on it, just IMO not as much as other natural occurring events. Known and unknown.


Originally posted by: umbrella39
It must be hard work to post something so stupid.
Resorting to personal attacks is pathetic.
 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,699
47
91
..shhh. must not upset the carbon-con. lots of money to be had form the gullible green dullards who need something to worship and have fallen for algore's con.
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,016
308
126
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: bbdub333


I like how all this is written off, mostly without addressing anything that is said in the article.
It's not an article, it's a hack's opening statement at his conference. Do we have to take the time to refute the same crap every time someone says it or do we eventually get to the point where we are allowed to make fun of people when they are funded by oil and tobacco and somehow find that tobacco smoke and pollution don't hurt anyone?
That's fine, but please stop acting like the MMGW crowd is doing it all out of the goodness of their own hearts. They are getting paid as well.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,520
0
0
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: bbdub333


I like how all this is written off, mostly without addressing anything that is said in the article.
It's not an article, it's a hack's opening statement at his conference. Do we have to take the time to refute the same crap every time someone says it or do we eventually get to the point where we are allowed to make fun of people when they are funded by oil and tobacco and somehow find that tobacco smoke and pollution don't hurt anyone?
That's fine, but please stop acting like the MMGW crowd is doing it all out of the goodness of their own hearts. They are getting paid as well.
You guys keep repeating that, but while you talk like it's obvious, I have yet to see a good explanation of exactly how that happens. You're trying to make it sound like their is a well funded lobby equal to the oil company lobby, but just where is this money allegedly coming from? The only concrete example I've heard is carbon credits, which is A) Not just about global warming, and B) nowhere near a large enough industry to compare to the energy companies.

And let's not forget, "the MMGW crowd" is not composed of all the same people, "they" don't do anything...the individuals who support the theory do so for a variety of reasons, and since many of them are scientists with no obvious incentive to support MMGW, your repeated attacks on them just look like attempts to discredit what you can't argue against. Which is the real point here, the problem with the anti-MMGW folks isn't who's paying them, it's that they are WRONG. Motive in science is not as important as facts.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,468
389
121
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: vhx
People still believe Global Warming is caused by humans even though it was reported 2007 was one of the coldest in awhile? Oh dear.

EDIT: Although that could be explained by some type of fluctuation as it probably normally does. Still doesn't help the argument that Mars, Jupiters moons and so forth are heating up as well.
Yes it does, read up on solar variation theory. You will see that scientists have studied this very very thoroughly and determined that while the sun (obviously) has an enormous impact on our climate, the variations in solar intensity do not account for the degree in warming we have seen in the past few decades.
You may want to read up a little more on this subject (somewhere besides RealClimate or other agenda-driven sites)...and you'll find that the jury is still out. I assume that you've at least read enough to know that there is a huge correlation between the sun and our climate. The mechanism is not fully understood. CERN has some experiments going which may shed a lot more light on this subject and we should see the results in a couple years.

 

Deudalus

Golden Member
Jan 16, 2005
1,090
0
0
Originally posted by: Rainsford
You guys keep repeating that, but while you talk like it's obvious, I have yet to see a good explanation of exactly how that happens.
I'll break it down for you:

1: Both the number of and the amount of grants to study climate change has gone up exponentially over the past few years. Now consider what that means....

Scientists lobby for grant money to do a study on a specific topic. Now imagine what would happen if they received all that money and came back with the conclusion that the topic does not exist or is a rather miniscule problem. They would basically be reporting back that they were not only wrong but that you should no longer give them money. That simply won't happen.

2: If anti-GW scientists are funded by their cash cows to make it sound like it is completely non-existant then logically the pro-GW scientists will make more money by making the problem seem more extravagant.

This logic is what has led the government to spend billions upon billions in scientific research of MMGW recently (guess who gets that money) because they have been successfully convinced that it is a huge problem that is going to end the world or drastically change it ala Al Gore claiming New York will be underwater.


The more trumped up, blown out of proportion, and ludicrous a problem is the more money you can and should spend on it.

The true irony lies in the fact that the fear mongering that makes this simple rule true applies just as directly to MMGW as it does to the global war on terror thus the real question is not are you a sheep but who are you a sheep for.


 

GoPackGo

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2003
6,198
150
106
Its cold here.

Its been cold all winter.

Its going to take alot 140 degree days to make this the hottest year ever.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,468
389
121
Rainsford, I clicked on an ad at the bottom of the page regarding Global Warming and saw this quote:

"Dr Gray, whose annual forecasts of the number of tropical storms and hurricanes are widely publicized, said a natural cycle of ocean water temperatures - related to the amount of salt in ocean water - was responsible for the global warming that he acknowledges has taken place. "The human impact on the atmosphere is simply too small to have a major effect on global temperatures," Dr. Gray said. "It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong," he said. "But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out. I don't care about grants.""

Not only is grant money at risk, but careers are in jeopardy if you're not in lock step with the "consensus". Science has been politicized by the left and the sheep blindly follow....so many sheep.
 

GoPackGo

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2003
6,198
150
106
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Rainsford, I clicked on an ad at the bottom of the page regarding Global Warming and saw this quote:

"Dr Gray, whose annual forecasts of the number of tropical storms and hurricanes are widely publicized, said a natural cycle of ocean water temperatures - related to the amount of salt in ocean water - was responsible for the global warming that he acknowledges has taken place. "The human impact on the atmosphere is simply too small to have a major effect on global temperatures," Dr. Gray said. "It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong," he said. "But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out. I don't care about grants.""

Not only is grant money at risk, but careers are in jeopardy if you're not in lock step with the "consensus". Science has been politicized by the left and the sheep blindly follow....so many sheep.
Grant money - that is the key
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,171
20,884
136
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: vhx
People still believe Global Warming is caused by humans even though it was reported 2007 was one of the coldest in awhile? Oh dear.

EDIT: Although that could be explained by some type of fluctuation as it probably normally does. Still doesn't help the argument that Mars, Jupiters moons and so forth are heating up as well.
Yes it does, read up on solar variation theory. You will see that scientists have studied this very very thoroughly and determined that while the sun (obviously) has an enormous impact on our climate, the variations in solar intensity do not account for the degree in warming we have seen in the past few decades.
You may want to read up a little more on this subject (somewhere besides RealClimate or other agenda-driven sites)...and you'll find that the jury is still out. I assume that you've at least read enough to know that there is a huge correlation between the sun and our climate. The mechanism is not fully understood. CERN has some experiments going which may shed a lot more light on this subject and we should see the results in a couple years.
Well of course the sun has a huge correlation... it provides the vast majority of the energy that powers our climate. I have seen no evidence that 'the jury is out' on the issue. Every paper I have heard of has stated that while certainly variation in the sun's output has an effect on the earth's climate,(duh?) that it does not account for all of the warming we've seen. In fact, although I am less positive on this fact, but I'm not aware of any paper that has stated that solar variation even accounts for the majority (ie. 51%) of the warming we've seen in the last 3 decades.

Not to sound like a broken record, but I can link to academic papers that say this. If you have some links to some peer reviewed papers that say otherwise I would be very interested to read them.
 

Mavtek3100

Senior member
Jan 15, 2008
524
0
0
Rock on John! You go get Al Gore's ass! Everyone thinks we need an underlying cause to progress in society. In the 60's it was the space race along with the Cold War, Vietnam, and the spread of Communism. In the 70's it was the oil crisis but it didn't do much, maybe that's why we did well in the 70's? In the 80's it was the Cold War and the "Evil Soviet Union". In the 90's, not so much to do really, the internet? Again with no progressive unifying cause we did pretty well. Now we have 2 major progressive causes 1 pushed by democrats and the other pushed by Republicans, the "War on Terror" and "Global Warming". Here's hoping like hell our next leader just leaves us all alone and makes insane government spending his "Cause".
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,926
18
81
Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
Rock on John! You go get Al Gore's ass! Everyone thinks we need an underlying cause to progress in society. In the 60's it was the space race along with the Cold War, Vietnam, and the spread of Communism. In the 70's it was the oil crisis but it didn't do much, maybe that's why we did well in the 70's? In the 80's it was the Cold War and the "Evil Soviet Union". In the 90's, not so much to do really, the internet? Again with no progressive unifying cause we did pretty well. Now we have 2 major progressive causes 1 pushed by democrats and the other pushed by Republicans, the "War on Terror" and "Global Warming". Here's hoping like hell our next leader just leaves us all alone and makes insane government spending his "Cause".
People like you and Ron Paul were convinced the moon landing was mocked up on a soundstage in hollywood.
 

Deudalus

Golden Member
Jan 16, 2005
1,090
0
0
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Rainsford, I clicked on an ad at the bottom of the page regarding Global Warming and saw this quote:

"Dr Gray, whose annual forecasts of the number of tropical storms and hurricanes are widely publicized, said a natural cycle of ocean water temperatures - related to the amount of salt in ocean water - was responsible for the global warming that he acknowledges has taken place. "The human impact on the atmosphere is simply too small to have a major effect on global temperatures," Dr. Gray said. "It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong," he said. "But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out. I don't care about grants.""

Not only is grant money at risk, but careers are in jeopardy if you're not in lock step with the "consensus". Science has been politicized by the left and the sheep blindly follow....so many sheep.
QFT
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,468
389
121
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: vhx
People still believe Global Warming is caused by humans even though it was reported 2007 was one of the coldest in awhile? Oh dear.

EDIT: Although that could be explained by some type of fluctuation as it probably normally does. Still doesn't help the argument that Mars, Jupiters moons and so forth are heating up as well.
Yes it does, read up on solar variation theory. You will see that scientists have studied this very very thoroughly and determined that while the sun (obviously) has an enormous impact on our climate, the variations in solar intensity do not account for the degree in warming we have seen in the past few decades.
You may want to read up a little more on this subject (somewhere besides RealClimate or other agenda-driven sites)...and you'll find that the jury is still out. I assume that you've at least read enough to know that there is a huge correlation between the sun and our climate. The mechanism is not fully understood. CERN has some experiments going which may shed a lot more light on this subject and we should see the results in a couple years.
Well of course the sun has a huge correlation... it provides the vast majority of the energy that powers our climate. I have seen no evidence that 'the jury is out' on the issue. Every paper I have heard of has stated that while certainly variation in the sun's output has an effect on the earth's climate,(duh?) that it does not account for all of the warming we've seen. In fact, although I am less positive on this fact, but I'm not aware of any paper that has stated that solar variation even accounts for the majority (ie. 51%) of the warming we've seen in the last 3 decades.

Not to sound like a broken record, but I can link to academic papers that say this. If you have some links to some peer reviewed papers that say otherwise I would be very interested to read them.
Linkage below.
Evidence for a physical linkage between galactic cosmic rays and regional climate time series

Empirical evidence for a nonlinear effect of galactic cosmic rays on clouds

LINK BETWEEN COSMIC RAYS AND CLOUDS ON DIFFERENT TIME SCALES

Galactic Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate I

COSMIC RAYS, CLOUDS, AND CLIMATE

Experimental evidence for the role of ions in particle nucleation under atmospheric conditions

Here's info on what CERN is doing to research the impact of cosmic rays on cloud formation. The experiment is called CLOUD (Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets). It should give us a much better idea of how cosmic rays and solar wind directly impact cloud cover and our climate.

New Experiment to Investigate the Effect of Galactic Cosmic Rays on Clouds and Climate

"The roots of the CLOUD experiment can be traced as far back as two centuries, when the British Astronomer Royal, William Herschel, noticed a correlation between sunspots and the price of wheat in England. This marked the first observation that Earth's climate may be affected by variations of the Sun. However solar-climate variability has remained a great puzzle since that time, despite an intensive scientific effort. The well-known Little Ice Age around the 17th and 18th centuries - when sunspots all but disappeared for 70 years, the cosmic ray flux increased and the climate cooled - seems to be merely the latest of around a dozen similar events over the last ten thousand years. However there is no established mechanism for the brightness of the Sun to fluctuate on these time scales. The possibility of a direct influence on the climate of galactic cosmic rays (which are modulated by changes of the solar wind) is therefore attracting the interest of scientists. Satellite measurements suggest that the mechanism may involve an influence of cosmic rays on the amount of low cloud cover, which is the focus of the CLOUD experiment."

As you can see..the science is far from settled on this matter and I would closely examine the motives (agenda) of anyone who tells you differently.








 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,171
20,884
136
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: vhx
People still believe Global Warming is caused by humans even though it was reported 2007 was one of the coldest in awhile? Oh dear.

EDIT: Although that could be explained by some type of fluctuation as it probably normally does. Still doesn't help the argument that Mars, Jupiters moons and so forth are heating up as well.
Yes it does, read up on solar variation theory. You will see that scientists have studied this very very thoroughly and determined that while the sun (obviously) has an enormous impact on our climate, the variations in solar intensity do not account for the degree in warming we have seen in the past few decades.
You may want to read up a little more on this subject (somewhere besides RealClimate or other agenda-driven sites)...and you'll find that the jury is still out. I assume that you've at least read enough to know that there is a huge correlation between the sun and our climate. The mechanism is not fully understood. CERN has some experiments going which may shed a lot more light on this subject and we should see the results in a couple years.
Well of course the sun has a huge correlation... it provides the vast majority of the energy that powers our climate. I have seen no evidence that 'the jury is out' on the issue. Every paper I have heard of has stated that while certainly variation in the sun's output has an effect on the earth's climate,(duh?) that it does not account for all of the warming we've seen. In fact, although I am less positive on this fact, but I'm not aware of any paper that has stated that solar variation even accounts for the majority (ie. 51%) of the warming we've seen in the last 3 decades.

Not to sound like a broken record, but I can link to academic papers that say this. If you have some links to some peer reviewed papers that say otherwise I would be very interested to read them.
Linkage below.
Evidence for a physical linkage between galactic cosmic rays and regional climate time series

Empirical evidence for a nonlinear effect of galactic cosmic rays on clouds

LINK BETWEEN COSMIC RAYS AND CLOUDS ON DIFFERENT TIME SCALES

Galactic Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate I

COSMIC RAYS, CLOUDS, AND CLIMATE

Experimental evidence for the role of ions in particle nucleation under atmospheric conditions

Here's info on what CERN is doing to research the impact of cosmic rays on cloud formation. The experiment is called CLOUD (Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets). It should give us a much better idea of how cosmic rays and solar wind directly impact cloud cover and our climate.

New Experiment to Investigate the Effect of Galactic Cosmic Rays on Clouds and Climate

"The roots of the CLOUD experiment can be traced as far back as two centuries, when the British Astronomer Royal, William Herschel, noticed a correlation between sunspots and the price of wheat in England. This marked the first observation that Earth's climate may be affected by variations of the Sun. However solar-climate variability has remained a great puzzle since that time, despite an intensive scientific effort. The well-known Little Ice Age around the 17th and 18th centuries - when sunspots all but disappeared for 70 years, the cosmic ray flux increased and the climate cooled - seems to be merely the latest of around a dozen similar events over the last ten thousand years. However there is no established mechanism for the brightness of the Sun to fluctuate on these time scales. The possibility of a direct influence on the climate of galactic cosmic rays (which are modulated by changes of the solar wind) is therefore attracting the interest of scientists. Satellite measurements suggest that the mechanism may involve an influence of cosmic rays on the amount of low cloud cover, which is the focus of the CLOUD experiment."

As you can see..the science is far from settled on this matter and I would closely examine the motives (agenda) of anyone who tells you differently.
I haven't read your links yet or anything, but you realize that nobody is discounting the effects of solar variation on climate change, right? The science just points to the fact that since the 80's the two trends have diverged, with the variations in the sun's output no longer being able to account for all the warming we've seen.

EDIT: Okay after reading the abstracts and conclusions to those papers, I don't see how they disprove what I said in the slightest? All they say is that the sun has an effect on climate, something that has been known for quite a long time. They make no statement as to solar variation being the primary mover of the degree of climate change (EDIT AGAIN... ahaha) in the last 3 decades , and they do not even address MMGW that I saw. If there are specific passages you are referring to that make any of these statements please quote them as I might have missed something.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,468
389
121
eskimospy...I fully understand what you're saying...please read the links and we'll discuss. Thanks.

EDIT: Man you're a fast reader!
 

DanTMWTMP

Lifer
Oct 7, 2001
15,909
12
81
I work with some of these scientists (I'm just their damn peon computer dude coder man for them). I was checking past data and cross-referencing them from other data-collecting sources we had at the time (data collected from salt conductivity, temperature sensors from our research vessels). There's quite a bit of conflict with some of the data, and I requested the principal investigator of that data to give me more consistent data to work with (standard protocol whenever this happens). I get an email a day later giving me a better-looking data set, but was different from the initial collection.
I suggested with my coworkers that we should say that this particular data set should be labeled as bad data and not be considered at all for the final report. Maybe it was due to equipment failure or a fish bumped into it...

(warning, next paragraph is my opinion/assumption, and I can be sorely incorrect. I don't have a phD).
NOPE...the head PI used this statistically insignificant, smudged data on his report to get politically motivated grant money. ("This should be looked into for further research as it is an alarming number in this part of the ocean...."). Obviously we were a bit weirded out, but again, the dude w/ the phD has the FINAL say on ALL data; even data that has been changed 4 years after the data collecting. Can we speak up? no. We do not have the credentials.

Then again, the above is JUST MY ASSUMPTION. Of course it's peer reviewed and what not, and I have no say in this matter since I don't have the educational background (not phD) to even have a voice. I'm the dude that works behind the scenes to support these guys... I'm a mere peon bastard guy. But I can understand that a group of scientists need a living and need these grants; and it appears that the only way to get them is to politicize science (again, my ASSUMPTION. I can be sorely wrong because I do not have the credentials to have a real say in this matter).
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY