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

homercles337

Diamond Member
Dec 29, 2004
6,346
3
71
Originally posted by: Deudalus
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."
Jebus christ, you are a tool. You have shown that you know NOTHING about grants, the review process, or science. Answer my questions!

1) What are your conclusions on the direct relationship between grants and salary?
2) What are the references of papers/books to sources for all your conclusions about the specifics of scientific work?

Here, i will let you in on a little "secret." Grants, at the time of application, are reviewed for their scientific relevance and feasibility. If your research ideas are neither (bullshit, in dumbdalus speak), it will NOT be funded. Here is another "secret." Disproving a current hypothesis is as much information to the scientific community as proving one. In addition, lying about results to get funding/refunded results in the end of ones career. You have proven yourself to be clueless and unwilling to let go of your tin foil hat conspiracy theories about something you know NOTHING about. That is the definition of ignorance.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,520
0
0
Originally posted by: Deudalus
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."
The problem with your argument is that you're supporting the whole thing through inference rather than direct proof. You aren't saying that scientists ARE being influenced by grant funding, you're laying out a scenario where it COULD happen that way. Which is fine, but you're claiming that the existence of a possible scenario where they are biased proves such bias must exist and that their facts must be wrong. That seems a little thin to me.

While you have no proof of your claim, I also find it incredibly difficult to believe. In order for your scheme to work, it would require that virtually every scientist and virtually everyone who funds scientific research to be in on the plan. Otherwise the scientists who are just making stuff up to get grants from Al Gore (or whoever) would quickly be exposed by the scientists who aren't trying to get those specific grants. Writing a scientific paper isn't like writing an OP-ED in the Washington Post, you have to back up what you're saying with data and analysis, and if you CAN'T do those things, it's incredibly easy for other experts to call you on it. I could certainly imagine a scenario where a handful of individuals might be swayed by the promise of more grant money to do something unethical, but the rest of the community would quickly bring them to task. Your theory relies on EVERYONE getting on board with the ruse at the exact same time. Anything else simply wouldn't work.

I am not a climate scientist, but I am involved in scientific work in another field, and they all pretty much work the same way. There are a large number of people with a variety of funding sources and backgrounds, and really the only way for an idea to gain support is for someone to consistently back it up with well reasoned arguments and supporting data. Outsiders who don't know what they are doing often claim that the community has settled on a set of facts they refuse to move off of (sound familiar?) but new people with new ideas dramatically change the field every day, the difference is that they do so by making a good argument...nothing else works. My problem with your scenario is that it doesn't seem very plausible that the climate community would work that way, any more than my community would suddenly jump all over a new idea when the science doesn't support it.
 
Dec 30, 2004
12,560
2
76
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
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?
The sky is brown in certain cities over there.

The sky is not brown anywhere over here in the USA.

The US's pollution does not travel across the Atlantic and give people in Europe breathing problems like China's does across the pacific and give California problems.

End of story.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,833
1
0
Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
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?
The sky is brown in certain cities over there.

The sky is not brown anywhere over here in the USA.

The US's pollution does not travel across the Atlantic and give people in Europe breathing problems like China's does across the pacific and give California problems.

End of story.
Brown sky != CO2. CO2 is invisible. That's smoke and smog, which is separate from the global warming issue.
 
Dec 30, 2004
12,560
2
76
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
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?
The sky is brown in certain cities over there.

The sky is not brown anywhere over here in the USA.

The US's pollution does not travel across the Atlantic and give people in Europe breathing problems like China's does across the pacific and give California problems.

End of story.
Brown sky != CO2. CO2 is invisible. That's smoke and smog, which is separate from the global warming issue.
wow.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY