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

Mavtek3100

Senior member
Jan 15, 2008
524
0
0
Originally posted by: sirjonk
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.
No I just don't think we needed the government to tell us we all needed to land on the moon to beat the Soviets. I mean who cares about it now. It was awesome to go to the moon, but let those who want to go there do the work to pay for it.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,170
20,884
136
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
eskimospy...I fully understand what you're saying...please read the links and we'll discuss. Thanks.
I'm sorry but I'm not going to read 100 pages of that crap right now... hahaha. My argument was that solar variations account for some of the climate change we have seen, but do not account for the substantial shift upwards since 1980. These statements have been the subject of numerous papers.

The papers you linked showed how cosmic rays can affect cloud formation, etc. Sure, I completely buy that. As I said before, I saw nothing in those papers that contradicted my assertions however. Just because the mechanism is not fully understood does not mean that we cannot analyze what we do know and come to conclusions with a reasonable degree of certainty.

If you are trying to say that this new research on cosmic ray effects on clouds fundamentally shifts the warming we have seen sinec 1980 from a majority man made forcing to a majority solar variation forcing I would very much like to see a link to a paper that says so. The papers you sent me do not say this in any way that I could determine.

I guess what I'm saying is that your links don't address my argument.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,468
389
121
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
eskimospy...I fully understand what you're saying...please read the links and we'll discuss. Thanks.
I'm sorry but I'm not going to read 100 pages of that crap right now... hahaha. My argument was that solar variations account for some of the climate change we have seen, but do not account for the substantial shift upwards since 1980. These statements have been the subject of numerous papers.

The papers you linked showed how cosmic rays can affect cloud formation, etc. Sure, I completely buy that. As I said before, I saw nothing in those papers that contradicted my assertions however. Just because the mechanism is not fully understood does not mean that we cannot analyze what we do know and come to conclusions with a reasonable degree of certainty.

If you are trying to say that this new research on cosmic ray effects on clouds fundamentally shifts the warming we have seen sinec 1980 from a majority man made forcing to a majority solar variation forcing I would very much like to see a link to a paper that says so. The papers you sent me do not say this in any way that I could determine.

I guess what I'm saying is that your links don't address my argument.
Current solar forcing models do not reflect any potential impact of the cosmic ray/solar wind mechanism on our climate. This mechanism may be a significant driver in cloud formation as evidenced by the numerous peer reviewed papers I linked for you. CERN is doing the CLOUD experiments to try to get a handle on this potentially significant development.

"Just because the mechanism is not fully understood does not mean that we cannot analyze what we do know and come to conclusions with a reasonable degree of certainty." <-- This is where we part company....GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out). The theory noted above is a potentially significant development that can totally change our understanding of climatology and global warming. How can you have a "reasonable degree of certainty" about anything that you don't reasonably understand? Here's an idea...let's let science run it's course and see where the facts lead us....just a thought.

 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,170
20,884
136
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
eskimospy...I fully understand what you're saying...please read the links and we'll discuss. Thanks.
I'm sorry but I'm not going to read 100 pages of that crap right now... hahaha. My argument was that solar variations account for some of the climate change we have seen, but do not account for the substantial shift upwards since 1980. These statements have been the subject of numerous papers.

The papers you linked showed how cosmic rays can affect cloud formation, etc. Sure, I completely buy that. As I said before, I saw nothing in those papers that contradicted my assertions however. Just because the mechanism is not fully understood does not mean that we cannot analyze what we do know and come to conclusions with a reasonable degree of certainty.

If you are trying to say that this new research on cosmic ray effects on clouds fundamentally shifts the warming we have seen sinec 1980 from a majority man made forcing to a majority solar variation forcing I would very much like to see a link to a paper that says so. The papers you sent me do not say this in any way that I could determine.

I guess what I'm saying is that your links don't address my argument.
Current solar forcing models do not reflect any potential impact of the cosmic ray/solar wind mechanism on our climate. This mechanism may be a significant driver in cloud formation as evidenced by the numerous peer reviewed papers I linked for you. CERN is doing the CLOUD experiments to try to get a handle on this potentially significant development.

"Just because the mechanism is not fully understood does not mean that we cannot analyze what we do know and come to conclusions with a reasonable degree of certainty." <-- This is where we part company....GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out). The theory noted above is a potentially significant development that can totally change our understanding of climatology and global warming. How can you have a "reasonable degree of certainty" about anything that you don't reasonably understand? Here's an idea...let's let science run it's course and see where the facts lead us....just a thought.
You realize that we will probably NEVER fully understand our climate, right? So at what point do we know enough to take action? According to you, never. That's just not acceptable.

You are right, new research might yeild new insights. We should then adjust our response accordingly. Again though, as we argued before... none of the papers you are linking are making the claims that you are. Until then, the mere appearance of the possibility of a change does not discount what we now know.
 

hellokeith

Golden Member
Nov 12, 2004
1,670
0
0
Dallas Fort Worth International Airport just closed due to ice and snow. That's very unusual for March in Texas..
 

jman19

Lifer
Nov 3, 2000
11,105
492
126
Originally posted by: hellokeith
Dallas Fort Worth International Airport just closed due to ice and snow. That's very unusual for March in Texas..
And has nothing to do with GW, which has been pointed out time and time again. Stop being an idiot.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,468
389
121
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
eskimospy...I fully understand what you're saying...please read the links and we'll discuss. Thanks.
I'm sorry but I'm not going to read 100 pages of that crap right now... hahaha. My argument was that solar variations account for some of the climate change we have seen, but do not account for the substantial shift upwards since 1980. These statements have been the subject of numerous papers.

The papers you linked showed how cosmic rays can affect cloud formation, etc. Sure, I completely buy that. As I said before, I saw nothing in those papers that contradicted my assertions however. Just because the mechanism is not fully understood does not mean that we cannot analyze what we do know and come to conclusions with a reasonable degree of certainty.

If you are trying to say that this new research on cosmic ray effects on clouds fundamentally shifts the warming we have seen sinec 1980 from a majority man made forcing to a majority solar variation forcing I would very much like to see a link to a paper that says so. The papers you sent me do not say this in any way that I could determine.

I guess what I'm saying is that your links don't address my argument.
Current solar forcing models do not reflect any potential impact of the cosmic ray/solar wind mechanism on our climate. This mechanism may be a significant driver in cloud formation as evidenced by the numerous peer reviewed papers I linked for you. CERN is doing the CLOUD experiments to try to get a handle on this potentially significant development.

"Just because the mechanism is not fully understood does not mean that we cannot analyze what we do know and come to conclusions with a reasonable degree of certainty." <-- This is where we part company....GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out). The theory noted above is a potentially significant development that can totally change our understanding of climatology and global warming. How can you have a "reasonable degree of certainty" about anything that you don't reasonably understand? Here's an idea...let's let science run it's course and see where the facts lead us....just a thought.
You realize that we will probably NEVER fully understand our climate, right? So at what point do we know enough to take action? According to you, never. That's just not acceptable.

You are right, new research might yeild new insights. We should then adjust our response accordingly. Again though, as we argued before... none of the papers you are linking are making the claims that you are. Until then, the mere appearance of the possibility of a change does not discount what we now know.
Of course I realize that we will probably NEVER fully understand our climate....what kind of question is that? Eskimospy, I never said one word for or against taking action...WTF...now you're making things up. Also, I never said anything about discounting 'what we now know'. I think that it's fairly obvious that where we stray is that your definition of "what we now know" is very different from my definition of "what we now know".

Look Eskimospy...you asked for "peer reviewed papers" and I produced them. It appears that you and I don't see eye-to-eye on the potential implications of this theory...which btw is no skin off my nose. If you chose to believe (for whatever reason) that the potential significance of cosmic ray/solar wind mechanism is inconsequential...go for it...it's a free world. I chose to withhold judgement until the results of the CERN study are available in 2010. Maybe I'm a little old-fashioned ...but I kinda like getting as many facts as possible and fleshing out any potentially significant issues before running amok....yeah, I know, I'm kinda funny that way. Anyway, I think we're done here. Peace.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,170
20,884
136
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Of course I realize that we will probably NEVER fully understand our climate....what kind of question is that? Eskimospy, I never said one word for or against taking action...WTF...now you're making things up. Also, I never said anything about discounting 'what we now know'. I think that it's fairly obvious that where we stray is that your definition of "what we now know" is very different from my definition of "what we now know".

Look Eskimospy...you asked for "peer reviewed papers" and I produced them. It appears that you and I don't see eye-to-eye on the potential implications of this theory...which btw is no skin off my nose. If you chose to believe (for whatever reason) that the potential significance of cosmic ray/solar wind mechanism is inconsequential...go for it...it's a free world. I chose to withhold judgement until the results of the CERN study are available in 2010. Maybe I'm a little old-fashioned ...but I kinda like getting as many facts as possible and fleshing out any potentially significant issues before running amok....yeah, I know, I'm kinda funny that way. Anyway, I think we're done here. Peace.
But they aren't peer reviewed articles that address the point I was making....!?!
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,520
0
0
Originally posted by: GoPackGo
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
Maybe, but I see no proof that "science has been politicized" by anyone. In EVERY scientific field, grant money goes to reputable scientists engaged in high quality research, the fact that certain people aren't getting grant money doesn't mean there is some conspiracy against their point of view...maybe they are just really bad scientists. The current state of the debate is easily explainable WITHOUT the presence of the left doing anything, adding some liberal conspiracy seems more like a way of trying to discredit your political opposition than a real attempt at an argument.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,520
0
0
Originally posted by: Deudalus
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.
That's an interesting story you've broken down for me, but aside from your ability to spin a good yarn, I don't see any proof that what you're saying even remotely lines up with the facts.

The first major problem is that scientific research doesn't work the way you seem to think it does. Scientists study a specific topic, it's true, but they don't study "global warming", they have a specific topic in a field of study, no real scientists study a CONCLUSION. There is no one study that ANYONE could conduct that would suggest "the topic does not exist"...because they aren't studying "man made global warming", they are studying the causes and effects of climate change. Are you suggesting that the climate never changes, or that when it does change NOTHING is causing it to do so? Because if you aren't, I'm not entirely sure how the conclusions of a particular study affect the prospect of future funding...unless the study is just bad science.

The other problem is that you're assuming this is just a he said, she said problem...nobody's right, nobody's wrong, everyone just has their own partisan agenda and so forth. Only this is science, obviously there is an answer, and while I suppose scientists could think up a fake problem to study, wouldn't studying an ACTUAL serious problem look exactly the same?

So it seems like the only real way to approach issues like these is by looking at the facts behind the arguments, not trying to attack the arguers. Whether we're dealing with global warming or the war on terror, at the end of the day, the only thing that REALLY matters is how good of an argument people are making. I tend to dismiss the people telling me to look for terrorists around every corner not because they're in the wrong party or I don't like their policies, but because they make a crappy argument that terrorists ARE lurking around every corner. Similarly, I tend to listen to scientists saying we should be paying attention to our impact on the climate not because they support what I already think (which they actually didn't, believe it or not), but because they make a convincing case that they're right.

All the rest of it is just partisan BS...and it's stupid to boot. Man-made global warming either is or is not a problem we need to worry about, and either way, arguing for the sake of "winning" the debate is stupid...it's not going to do you any good to win the argument when climate change is screwing up the planet, just like it won't do ME any good to win the argument only to waste billions of dollars fixing a non-existent problem. So rather than everyone defaulting to "their" side, maybe it's a good idea to look at the arguments, eh?
 

Deudalus

Golden Member
Jan 16, 2005
1,090
0
0
Originally posted by: Rainsford
That's an interesting story you've broken down for me, but aside from your ability to spin a good yarn, I don't see any proof that what you're saying even remotely lines up with the facts.
Well a little common sense is required.

Ask yourself how many government and private grants were given to scientists in 1985 to study climate change vs. how many grants are given out today and I think you will have your answer if you are willing to accept it.

Or hell google it and do a little reading. There is a huge cash cow waiting to be milked on either side of this debate. You might choose to believe that scientists are above making money but I somehow doubt that every scientist is a card carrying Marxist who has no interest in retirement, college for the kids, bills, mortgage, etc.

The first major problem is that scientific research doesn't work the way you seem to think it does. Scientists study a specific topic, it's true, but they don't study "global warming", they have a specific topic in a field of study, no real scientists study a CONCLUSION.
I fully understand the way science is supposed to work, I simply disagree with the way it is obviously working.

Scientists are supposed to have a hypothesis which they test through the scientific method. The problem we currently have is that the hypothesis is untestable because they literally have no hope of controlling all the variables.

We see the earth getting warmer in some areas, and colder in others. We have gone from "fight global warming" to "fight the effects of global climate change" in a matter of only a couple of years and no scientist has stepped forward and said "hey wait a minute isn't our job to predict the effect by the cause rather than look at the effect and apply the cause to it?"

The other problem is that you're assuming this is just a he said, she said problem...nobody's right, nobody's wrong, everyone just has their own partisan agenda and so forth. Only this is science, obviously there is an answer, and while I suppose scientists could think up a fake problem to study, wouldn't studying an ACTUAL serious problem look exactly the same?
When scientists start to act and sound like politicians or religious wackos we have a serious problem.

Scientists have called for the accreditation of other scientists to be revoked if they do not believe in global warming, global climate change, or whatever else its being called this week. That is a serious problem and a very, very large red flag.

So rather than everyone defaulting to "their" side, maybe it's a good idea to look at the arguments, eh?
I have no problem with that at all, but the only problem is that this debate has reached cult like religious status.

There are a lot of scientists out there that are totally unwilling to discuss this issue and they claim that a "concensus" has been reached and preach global warming/climate change as if it is fact.

We still to this day cannot predict the weather that has already happened. Read that carefully.... Climate is so complex that we cannot even predict what has happened much less what is going to happen.

These are people who are supposed to be above agenda, politics, and bias and yet they are claiming to have near full support from the scientific community for a problem that they cannot even realistically study.


Now all of that said, they could be totally right but if they are it isn't due to any revelations from their research as much as it is due to blind ass luck.

 

EXman

Lifer
Jul 12, 2001
20,083
15
81
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Shocking, another hellokeith global warming thread.

Amazingly enough he tries to dishonestly frame the issue by saying it's a 27% consensus, when what he means is that only 27% exactly agree with Al Gore, while 35% almost completely agree with Al Gore, 56% largely agree with Al Gore, and 82% generally agree with Al Gore.
That's BS. And also incorroect assertion.

Gore's slideshow is so bogus in the UK they have to run a disclaimer at the begining pointing out 47 falsehoods, retarded assumptions, inverted charts, and outright lies.
 
Dec 30, 2004
12,560
2
76
Further, China is who we should be legislating against, not ourselves. In some Chinese cities the sky is not blue. It is quite near brown.

You know, I'm sick of hearing this whole popular bash the USA, "it's their fault" crap. You can start bashing us when you guys are contributing to society and are a part of the economic game. You should be glad we're still in power, without us China would have taken over Japan long ago and Russia would be making equally aggressive moves. Talk to the Japanese, they understand this first hand, and thoroughly love America. They're much more grateful for us saving their butts.

Now go get your welfare check, the mailman just arrived.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,833
1
0
Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Further, China is who we should be legislating against, not ourselves. In some Chinese cities the sky is not blue. It is quite near brown.

You know, I'm sick of hearing this whole popular bash the USA, "it's their fault" crap. You can start bashing us when you guys are contributing to society and are a part of the economic game. You should be glad we're still in power, without us China would have taken over Japan long ago and Russia would be making equally aggressive moves. Talk to the Japanese, they understand this first hand, and thoroughly love America. They're much more grateful for us saving their butts.

Now go get your welfare check, the mailman just arrived.
China's per capita CO2 emission is 1/3 ours and it's going to stay very low compared to ours. Or does population not fit into inane soundbites? We have 1/3 the population, and you seem to believe that it means we should be able to put out 3x the CO2?
 

bigal40

Senior member
Sep 7, 2004
849
0
0
Originally posted by: sirjonk

See that smog above the city? Totally natural. Hole in the ozone layer you say? Must've been cosmic radiation. We all know human activity can't effect the environment in any significant way.
Sorry, smog and the ozone hole have nothing to do with global warming... or I guess "climate change" is the new word for it.

Smog is just the buildup of air pollutants in the low level atmosphere, usually in cities on days with little to no wind to bring in fresh air.

The ozone hole is believed to be caused by CFC's such as freon. Now new freons that are used and the ozone hole is shrinking.
 

homercles337

Diamond Member
Dec 29, 2004
6,346
3
71
Originally posted by: Deudalus
Originally posted by: Rainsford
That's an interesting story you've broken down for me, but aside from your ability to spin a good yarn, I don't see any proof that what you're saying even remotely lines up with the facts.
Well a little common sense is required.

Ask yourself how many government and private grants were given to scientists in 1985 to study climate change vs. how many grants are given out today and I think you will have your answer if you are willing to accept it.

Or hell google it and do a little reading. There is a huge cash cow waiting to be milked on either side of this debate. You might choose to believe that scientists are above making money but I somehow doubt that every scientist is a card carrying Marxist who has no interest in retirement, college for the kids, bills, mortgage, etc.

etc...etc...
Interesting. Would you explain what is your scientific training and experience? Also, references to your sources for all your conclusions would be appreciated.
 

Deudalus

Golden Member
Jan 16, 2005
1,090
0
0
Originally posted by: homercles337

Interesting. Would you explain what is your scientific training and experience? Also, references to your sources for all your conclusions would be appreciated.
Are you seriously telling me I need a degree in a scientific field, scientific training, and experience in science to realize that when money can be made off of getting a grant to study something that people will do it?

Fine then lets play that game.

If you are a not a soldier, you cannot speak out about the war.

If you are not a politician, you cannot speak out about politics.

If you are not a doctor, you are not allowed to have a position on universal healthcare.


Oh I know that you can use your own common sense and logic to arrive at a position on these issues, but you simply don't have the experience and credentials necessary to have a valid opinion.

 

BMW540I6speed

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2005
1,055
0
0
Science has always had a strange relationship with politics; scientific discoveries are useful to the government only when they bolster its position somehow, and are shut down at the first signs of a threat.

So, if you're developing nuclear or biological weapons, even under the innocuous guise of space exploration or somesuch, then you're golden. As SOON as you start contradicting the party line, off with you. US scientists are fortunate that when THAT happens they're merely unfunded and ignored, as opposed to, say, Soviet scientists that were jailed and executed.

That being said... how can scientists influence candidates, anyway? I suppose what Nature editors mean is good ol' lobbying. After all, it's the oil industry lobby that's fighting the climate change research, and the evangelical Christian lobby that's fighting the stem cell research. So why not have a scientific lobby that'll fight all those other lobbies?

Though the movement conservitives may seem all over the map on science issues, there is a consistent thread through them all. They believe scientific evidence is just another opinion, no more valid than the opinion of a pundit or preacher. They believe you can trust your gut whether to believe something or not. Look at their opinions on scientific issues with the realization that they rely on what feels right, and they start to look consistent.

Climate change cash penalties are a purely free lunch phenomena. A prominent Russian scientist believes the present warm solar cycle will start waning in several years time, and soon and we could all see a trend toward cooler temperatures for some time. If that does happen, will the political yahoos all be against global cooling? The climate is a big complicated cause and effect system, just ask the wooly mammoth and all the other animals that went extinct several thousand years ago at the end of the last ice age. One thing is certain, over geologic time the climate is not static but continually warms up and cools off.

science is based on data. The only thing most scientists really believe in is the scientific method. You know - that boring hypothesize, test, conclude cycle. The tests produce data either supporting, disproving, or inconclusive regarding the hypothesis. As for "believing in" facts, that is pretty situational.

Most of us normally "believe in" newtonian mechanics. Except in really big, small, or fast realms. For a scientist, believing in a thing means that that thing can predict an outcome. It doesn't mean that the thing is true because science is all about finding when and where the predictions don't match experiment.

Until he got set up at PIAS, Einstein like many a scientist of his day wondered if he'd be able to pay the family bills, hence his flitting about globe in the late 1920's and early 1930's looking for a better financial deal.

Political developments in Germany made one decision for him anyway. He wasn't greedy though, his humble final home at Princeton is testimony to this. Probably the greatest mind of the last 100 years wasn't arrogant enough to say that any theory was unequivocal, including his own.

Predicting what the weather is going to be like exactly in 200 years is probably as easy as reasoning out a unified field theory that also eliminates quantum uncertainty. The earth's been warming up for the last 10-15 millenia, it'll probably keep on keeping on for some time. Uniformitarianism or punctuated equilibrium, it's all good.





 

hellokeith

Golden Member
Nov 12, 2004
1,670
0
0
Two snow days in Texas in March so far, and they are predicting a third at the end of the week. Even my grand parents cannot remember more than 1 snow day in March here, let alone 3.

Must be the global warming..
 

BMW540I6speed

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2005
1,055
0
0
Originally posted by: hellokeith
Two snow days in Texas in March so far, and they are predicting a third at the end of the week. Even my grand parents cannot remember more than 1 snow day in March here, let alone 3.

Must be the global warming..
Do us all a favor then, go outside and bury your head in it. A brilliant scientific mind such as yours should be frozen for further study.
 

homercles337

Diamond Member
Dec 29, 2004
6,346
3
71
Originally posted by: Deudalus
Originally posted by: homercles337

Interesting. Would you explain what is your scientific training and experience? Also, references to your sources for all your conclusions would be appreciated.
Are you seriously telling me I need a degree in a scientific field, scientific training, and experience in science to realize that when money can be made off of getting a grant to study something that people will do it?

Fine then lets play that game.

If you are a not a soldier, you cannot speak out about the war.

If you are not a politician, you cannot speak out about politics.

If you are not a doctor, you are not allowed to have a position on universal healthcare.


Oh I know that you can use your own common sense and logic to arrive at a position on these issues, but you simply don't have the experience and credentials necessary to have a valid opinion.
Your logic is so horribly flawed im not sure where to begin.

You make claims about the specific inner workings of science. What you then spin this into is a general argument based on, "im an average idiot and can have an opinion on anything and everything!" Ok i will play.

If you are a not a soldier, you can have a general opinion of the war. Does that mean you then have specific knowledge about tactical movements of soldiers on the ground?

If you are not a politician, you can have a general opinion on politics. Does that mean you then have a specific vote on any given bill?

If you are not a doctor, you can have a general opinion on universal healthcare. Does that mean you then make specific decisions how such a plan will implement care for those with diabetes?

If you are not a scientist, you can have a general opinion on how science works. Does that mean that you then have a specific knowledge about how the grant process works? In your case you have made it clear that you dont have the first inkling of how science works in general, then you expect me to accept claims about the specifics of that? Sorry, thats not going to happen with the soldier, politician, doctor, or the scientist.

So how about my second request that you ignored? References of papers/books to sources for all your conclusions about the specifics of scientific work. Since you dodged the training/experience question, im going to assume that youre not a scientist. If so, where did you gather your evidence?
 

Deudalus

Golden Member
Jan 16, 2005
1,090
0
0
Originally posted by: homercles337

You make claims about the specific inner workings of science. What you then spin this into is a general argument based on, "im an average idiot and can have an opinion on anything and everything!" Ok i will play.
Umm no I made very simple statements which are true and mostly have nothing to do with science.

People need money.
People are greedy.
The more alarming or dangerous a problem is the more money will be spent on it.
If that perceived alarming and dangerous problem is scientific then that money will be spent on grants to study it.
Thusly, common sense will tell you that there is a vested interest in not only making sure that people think a problem exists but also that it is in fact getting more dangerous and alarming.

If you are not a scientist, you can have a general opinion on how science works. Does that mean that you then have a specific knowledge about how the grant process works? In your case you have made it clear that you dont have the first inkling of how science works in general, then you expect me to accept claims about the specifics of that? Sorry, thats not going to happen with the soldier, politician, doctor, or the scientist.
So perhaps what you are getting at is that the civilian American public can have a general view on war, universal health care, or any of a number of other things but they cannot have a valid opinion about the funding of it?

If you are truly so dense as to believe that you need to know the inner workings of a scientific subject to realize that causing a fear and commotion about it will give you more grant money then perhaps you are in over your head here...

The only statement that I made relating to science was that scientists still cannot use their models to predict weather patterns that have already happened much less future ones and that I believe is a well known fact.

 

homercles337

Diamond Member
Dec 29, 2004
6,346
3
71
Originally posted by: Deudalus
Originally posted by: homercles337

You make claims about the specific inner workings of science. What you then spin this into is a general argument based on, "im an average idiot and can have an opinion on anything and everything!" Ok i will play.
Umm no I made very simple statements which are true and mostly have nothing to do with science.

People need money.
People are greedy.
The more alarming or dangerous a problem is the more money will be spent on it.
If that perceived alarming and dangerous problem is scientific then that money will be spent on grants to study it.
Thusly, common sense will tell you that there is a vested interest in not only making sure that people think a problem exists but also that it is in fact getting more dangerous and alarming.

If you are not a scientist, you can have a general opinion on how science works. Does that mean that you then have a specific knowledge about how the grant process works? In your case you have made it clear that you dont have the first inkling of how science works in general, then you expect me to accept claims about the specifics of that? Sorry, thats not going to happen with the soldier, politician, doctor, or the scientist.
So perhaps what you are getting at is that the civilian American public can have a general view on war, universal health care, or any of a number of other things but they cannot have a valid opinion about the funding of it?

If you are truly so dense as to believe that you need to know the inner workings of a scientific subject to realize that causing a fear and commotion about it will give you more grant money then perhaps you are in over your head here...

The only statement that I made relating to science was that scientists still cannot use their models to predict weather patterns that have already happened much less future ones and that I believe is a well known fact.
Nice. The first sign of loosing an argument is resorting to personal insults.

Im a trained, working scientist with a phd and have been in academics for almost 10 years including grad school. I have written and read many, many grants. Your unfounded conclusion has no basis in reality at all. I called you on that and you resort to hand waving and back peddling. You have absolutely no justification for your claims, none. As with every topic here, im not going to change your mind despite the fact that you are talking out of your ass. The only logic you are standing on requires tin foil hats.

One question: What are your conclusions on the direct relationship between grants and salary?
 

jman19

Lifer
Nov 3, 2000
11,105
492
126
Originally posted by: hellokeith
Two snow days in Texas in March so far, and they are predicting a third at the end of the week. Even my grand parents cannot remember more than 1 snow day in March here, let alone 3.

Must be the global warming..
I'm not sure why you keep making GW threads, because you continue to make a fool of yourself in them.

And this deserves to be repeated:

Originally posted by: jman19
Originally posted by: hellokeith
Dallas Fort Worth International Airport just closed due to ice and snow. That's very unusual for March in Texas..
And has nothing to do with GW, which has been pointed out time and time again. Stop being an idiot.
Bolded the key letter for you, maybe that'll help.
 

Deudalus

Golden Member
Jan 16, 2005
1,090
0
0
Really?

Please show me your credentials.

Show me what you have done.

Show me the grants you have written, given, applied for, and received.



Better yet, why don't you stop and do some very simple reasoning.

A scientist who is receiving money that is basically supporting him and his work based on grants has a vested interest in proving his case. That is why you rarely see a scientist come back and say "I appreciate all of this money that you gave me and appreciate that I could get more for research on this subject, but unfortunately its all bullshit."
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY