DrMaddVibe
13 years ago

I wonder how many of the dissenting scientists are operating on federal grants..... 🤔 🤔 🤔

DrafterX wrote:




Oh hockey sticks!
victor809
13 years ago

I wonder how many of the dissenting scientists are operating on federal grants..... 🤔 🤔 🤔

DrafterX wrote:



Strange... the homeless man on the corner saying his theory on time-travel will change the world wasn't funded by federal grants either....:-k 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔


You do realize that someone could potentially not have a federal grant for any of the following reasons:
1 - They do a crappy job of presenting their research goals (see "community college")
2 - Their research goals don't seem plausible (see "homeless man on the corner")
3 - Their research is not in any way novel (doing the same research over and over again expecting to get a different answer)


All sorts of research gets funded, some researcher not getting funding is not a sign of a conspiracy. It's more likely a sign that he's a questionable scientist.
dubleuhb
13 years ago
victor809
13 years ago
oh... and the stupid "thinking" smiley is overblown (as I attempted to illustrate).
DrafterX
13 years ago
poor Victor.... 😞
dubleuhb
13 years ago
I'm sure there is never any discussions about getting the ''correct'' results can get you more scratch going on, nooooowaaay!!!
DrMaddVibe
13 years ago

poor Victor.... 😞

DrafterX wrote:




He needs a bailout then!🐴
victor809
13 years ago

I'm sure there is never any discussions about getting the ''correct'' results can get you more scratch going on, nooooowaaay!!!

dubleuhb wrote:



you realize that grants aren't a "discussion", right?

You apply for a grant, submit an enormous package showing your research to-date, identify the types of experiments you intend to carry out, attach CVs of the primary investigators and send it to the agency.

A month or more later you are told whether you got the grant and potentially how much.

This isn't a back and forth between the investigator and some random funding agency. (unless the funding agency is a private organization...)

victor809
13 years ago
I've been part of grant submissions. It's a pretty large undertaking if you expect to have any chance of success (ie of sufficient size to fund a lab, couple post-docs etc).
dubleuhb
13 years ago
I never have or will but if you think this government wouldn't look at the previous work and have that as part of the determining factor your crazy. They live by getting the results they seek.

You trust them, I get it, but I don't.
DrafterX
13 years ago

He needs a bailout then!🐴

DrMaddVibe wrote:




he needs to stop hanging with freaks with chips on their shoulders... it's starting to rub off.... 😟
victor809
13 years ago

I never have or will but if you think this government wouldn't look at the previous work and have that as part of the determining factor your crazy. They live by getting the results they seek.

You trust them, I get it, but I don't.

dubleuhb wrote:



Trust is an exaggeration.

I just think it's easy to cover up incompetence with accusations of a conspiracy.

It's much easier to just claim there's a conspiracy, then you never have to submit your research to peer review, you never have to justify your methods or double-check anything.
DrMaddVibe
13 years ago

he needs to stop hanging with freaks with chips on their shoulders... it's starting to rub off.... 😟

DrafterX wrote:




Rubby is a full contact sport!

GEORGETOWN STYLE!
HockeyDad
13 years ago

On a clear day I can see Toronto from my roof, not Russia but it still sucks to go there.

dubleuhb wrote:




I saw Toronto yesterday. It will be even better once it is 10-20 degrees warmer.
dubleuhb
13 years ago

Trust is an exaggeration.

I just think it's easy to cover up incompetence with accusations of a conspiracy.

It's much easier to just claim there's a conspiracy, then you never have to submit your research to peer review, you never have to justify your methods or double-check anything.

victor809 wrote:


So you agree, it can happen, thanx.
jpotts
13 years ago

I don't personally care, but to be so certain that man-made climate change is a myth, based on what I'm gonna assume is a high-school level science education, when large numbers of scientists who have dedicated their life to the topic believe otherwise, simply because you're sure they're all trying to conspire against you... well that's some interesting hubris.

victor809 wrote:



Yeah.

And it is even grander hubris when you ignore that there are just as many (if not more) scientists that outright reject the notion of man-made cliemate change, or that any such climate change exists in the first place.

Just because they wear a lab coat, and have a few charts they can point at, doesn't mean that they are any better at predicting the future of Mankind then some scruffy robe-clad prophet coming out of a desert storm in the Middle East. Proof is in the pudding, Victor.

When one of those so-called scientists can show me how CO2 - which is heavier than the air around it - can make the trip MILES into the upper atmosphere while defying gravity, and an exponential loss of energy, to accumulate and create this "massive" greenhouse effect, then maybe I'll listen. So until they get GPS for molecules real soon, I'm gonna go with basic science and say that these scientific doom-and-gloomers are completely full of crap.

Now maybe you work in a field where you can say "it's possible," and that's proof enough for you. For many of us who actually have to show results...well...we have a bit of a higher standard.

I believe it's reasonably likely that the 7 billion of us generating pollutants, changing water-flow and generally deforesting large areas does have an impact on the climate (in some way shape or form). But I just don't care because, like I said, I don't care in the least bit about your children. I usually assume that most people who "don't believe" in our impact on the climate generally don't like their kids as much as they like convenience and are trying to rationalize the choice away. but I'm not judging.

victor809 wrote:



Funny.

Changing water flow? So...um...the Mississippi now drains into the Great Lakes? Or the course of the Nile has reversed? I'm a little confused where you get this whole "water flow" argument from.

Sea currents changing? Is that it? Well, I hate to point this out to you, but sea currents change ALL OF THE TIME. They did so before man became a factor in the climate (if they really are), and will continue to do so for some time to come.

The Jet Stream? Yeah, that changes all of the time too. That's why they call the earth's environment "dynamic." It changes, fluctuates, oscillates, and so on.

The reality is that the biggest driver of that environment is the one thing we can't change, and that is the Sun. Or maybe you're gonna blame that on an expansion of the human population as well? The reality is that some of the best data as it relates to "climate change" has more to do with the output of the Sun than anything Man has ever produced.

Someone did a calculation some time back, and pointed out that the seven-some billion people on the earth could easily fit into an area the size of Texas, with their own home, and a reasonably-sized yard.

As an FYI - the US is one of the few nations in the world who actually re-forests anything they farm. Plus, there is little if any hard evidence that proves that trees are better O2 exchangers than most plant material. From what I read, algae is better than all of them combined.

There is a certain amount of irony to your "well reasoned" and "well researched" nonsense, especially as it comes to climate change, and sea levels. You get these pseudo-scientists to run around screaming at the top of their lungs about how sea levels are going to change dramatically, and flooding large portions of the world.

Yet these same people sneer at the Bible and the story of Noah for basically telling the same tale.

Is seems, Victor, that for all your talk about lacking the belief in a religion or God, you're just simply blindly following one type of faith, as opposed to another. Except this one doesn't place any demands on your character, it just simply asks you to fart less...

Yeah. That's a winner in my book.
jpotts
13 years ago

Strange... the homeless man on the corner saying his theory on time-travel will change the world wasn't funded by federal grants either....:-k 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔


You do realize that someone could potentially not have a federal grant for any of the following reasons:
1 - They do a crappy job of presenting their research goals (see "community college")
2 - Their research goals don't seem plausible (see "homeless man on the corner")
3 - Their research is not in any way novel (doing the same research over and over again expecting to get a different answer)


All sorts of research gets funded, some researcher not getting funding is not a sign of a conspiracy. It's more likely a sign that he's a questionable scientist.

victor809 wrote:



The people who give out these grants generally are far dumber than your average plumber (this all assumes that plumbers are dumb...an opinion which rapidly changes when you can't flix the clog in your toilet).

And the people who follow-up and audit these grants are generally only a little smarter then the people to hand them out.

And the process by which grants are handed out is both subjective, and often intensely political. That's because people are involved int he process, and it is not a lottery. To think otherwise is to live in a land of delusion.

There are lots of questionalble scientists who get grants...mainly for investigating "climate change." After all, people pushing Junk Science gotta to make a living somehow. Right?
daveincincy
13 years ago
^
are you saying that the people handing out grants may be about as well ejumuhcated as the people you call at the IRS with a tax question? :-"

I got 99 problems, but climate-change ain't one.
victor809
13 years ago

Yeah.

And it is even grander hubris when you ignore that there are just as many (if not more) scientists that outright reject the notion of man-made cliemate change, or that any such climate change exists in the first place.

Just because they wear a lab coat, and have a few charts they can point at, doesn't mean that they are any better at predicting the future of Mankind then some scruffy robe-clad prophet coming out of a desert storm in the Middle East. Proof is in the pudding, Victor.

When one of those so-called scientists can show me how CO2 - which is heavier than the air around it - can make the trip MILES into the upper atmosphere while defying gravity, and an exponential loss of energy, to accumulate and create this "massive" greenhouse effect, then maybe I'll listen. So until they get GPS for molecules real soon, I'm gonna go with basic science and say that these scientific doom-and-gloomers are completely full of crap.

Now maybe you work in a field where you can say "it's possible," and that's proof enough for you. For many of us who actually have to show results...well...we have a bit of a higher standard.



Funny.

Changing water flow? So...um...the Mississippi now drains into the Great Lakes? Or the course of the Nile has reversed? I'm a little confused where you get this whole "water flow" argument from.

Sea currents changing? Is that it? Well, I hate to point this out to you, but sea currents change ALL OF THE TIME. They did so before man became a factor in the climate (if they really are), and will continue to do so for some time to come.

The Jet Stream? Yeah, that changes all of the time too. That's why they call the earth's environment "dynamic." It changes, fluctuates, oscillates, and so on.

The reality is that the biggest driver of that environment is the one thing we can't change, and that is the Sun. Or maybe you're gonna blame that on an expansion of the human population as well? The reality is that some of the best data as it relates to "climate change" has more to do with the output of the Sun than anything Man has ever produced.

Someone did a calculation some time back, and pointed out that the seven-some billion people on the earth could easily fit into an area the size of Texas, with their own home, and a reasonably-sized yard.

As an FYI - the US is one of the few nations in the world who actually re-forests anything they farm. Plus, there is little if any hard evidence that proves that trees are better O2 exchangers than most plant material. From what I read, algae is better than all of them combined.

There is a certain amount of irony to your "well reasoned" and "well researched" nonsense, especially as it comes to climate change, and sea levels. You get these pseudo-scientists to run around screaming at the top of their lungs about how sea levels are going to change dramatically, and flooding large portions of the world.

Yet these same people sneer at the Bible and the story of Noah for basically telling the same tale.

Is seems, Victor, that for all your talk about lacking the belief in a religion or God, you're just simply blindly following one type of faith, as opposed to another. Except this one doesn't place any demands on your character, it just simply asks you to fart less...

Yeah. That's a winner in my book.

jpotts wrote:



Your apology is accepted.

Anyway, since you're inability to understand math has been well established years ago (no, I didn't forget that you can't manage simple equations). I don't think your conclusion that more scientists reject climate change (If I recall, a study of ACTUAL scientists, found the opposite). If you've got evidence otherwise, prove it.

Your entire decision NOT to believe climate scientists is because they can't demonstrate to you how C02 gets into the upper atmosphere, since it's denser than 02? Seriously? That's the most idiotic statement on this entire board. Seriously?

Seriously?

Since in your world, our entire atmosphere is a strata of gasses based on their chemical weight, we live in a 100% C02 environment. With N2 and O2 on top. Any rocket that makes it off the ground (impossible since fire can't burn without oxygen) will detonate our entire upper atmosphere which suddenly consists only of oxygen molecules.

The rest of your argument is of similar layers of nonsense.
victor809
13 years ago

The people who give out these grants generally are far dumber than your average plumber (this all assumes that plumbers are dumb...an opinion which rapidly changes when you can't flix the clog in your toilet).

And the people who follow-up and audit these grants are generally only a little smarter then the people to hand them out.

And the process by which grants are handed out is both subjective, and often intensely political. That's because people are involved int he process, and it is not a lottery. To think otherwise is to live in a land of delusion.

There are lots of questionalble scientists who get grants...mainly for investigating "climate change." After all, people pushing Junk Science gotta to make a living somehow. Right?

jpotts wrote:




Yes... far dumber than your average PhD educated plumber.

Don't let reality interrupt your fantasy.

(insert boring argument about how potts is convinced he's more intelligent than every PhD educated individual in the world, blah blah blah)....

regardless of your conviction that you're smarter than all the PhDs out there, to acquire a PhD, one has to study a topic somewhat intensely, and most likely has greater information on the topic than your average cigar forum poster. (no! Impossible!)
Users browsing this topic