There seems to be some confusion about the use of the word “consensus” and the term “scientific consensus” in this thread. As most people here are smart enough to know, words sometimes have more then one definition and can be modified by context. Here is the Mirriam-Webster definition of consensus:
1a general agreement (syn unanimity)
1b the judgement arrived at by most of those concerned
2 group solidarity in sentiment and belief
Before anyone comes in with guns blazing about the synonym, remember that synonyms are words with identical or similar meanings. In the case of a consensus, the number of parties in agreement has to be close enough to unanimity that the words are close enough in meaning to be a consensus.
Now for the term “scientific consensus.” Scientific consensus means that the majority of scientists and scientific communities in the relevant field are in agreement. 100% agreement is not required, after all you will never have 100% agreement in anything, but 97-98% is most certainly enough to call a scientific consensus.
A popular tactic now is to point out that scientific consensuses have on occasion been wrong, so we should not us them at all. This is incredibly stupid. Just because scientists have been wrong about something else, completely unrelated to climate change, does not mean that climate scientists are wrong here. If you want to come up with an argument against the idea of AGW, then the only way to do so honestly is to disprove the science being used to back up the scientific consensus.
This will not be done by deliberately misunderstanding fairly basic words and phrases and arguing about them or quoting an article from a biased news site (here’s a tip, if it ends in .com it is biased one way or the other. No one will ever care about anything that is not a peer reviewed study). This can only be done by either analyzing the studies being used to back up claims of AGW and finding major flaws in methodology and conclusions (remember, there are hundreds or maybe thousands and just because a few of them have flaws does not mean they all do so you will have to go through all of them).
A theoretically easier way is with research that disproves the vast body of work showing evidence for AGW. I am not aware of any that do so. If anyone would like to provide one, either for or against, I will gladly look it over and even discuss it with some of my friends who are climatologists. I am actually neutral on this matter. If you are not educated enough in the relevant fields to understand the studies that are used as evidence for or against AGW, then you are not really making an informed opinion on the matter. All you are doing is parroting someone who shares your belief without really understanding how and why that person came to that conclusion (this applies to both sides), which is fine as far as it goes, but at least be honest about your position.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
What if global warming is all a hoax and we create a better world for nothing?[/quote]
The problem is that this is more of a political issue then anything. Reducing pollution levels, which is a worthy goal regardless of whether AGW is happening or not due to the dangers of pollution, will be a very expensive undertaking. It will temporarily hurt the profits of large companies (perhaps for an extended period of time). It will not happen overnight and it will not be cheap. This also holds true on a smaller level. Buying things that are more environmentally healthy, like cars that produce less harmful emissions and other appliances and items that, through design and production techniques are less harmful tend to be more expensive. Most people are not willing to do that and so will jump on any reason not to. If someone has to make the decision between buying frivolous entertainment items or status symbols that most Americans seem to think they need or environmentally friendly items, most will choose the frivolous entertainment items or status symbols.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
What if global warming is all a hoax and we create a better world for nothing?[/quote]
The problem is that this is more of a political issue then anything. Reducing pollution levels, which is a worthy goal regardless of whether AGW is happening or not due to the dangers of pollution, will be a very expensive undertaking. It will temporarily hurt the profits of large companies (perhaps for an extended period of time). It will not happen overnight and it will not be cheap. This also holds true on a smaller level. Buying things that are more environmentally healthy, like cars that produce less harmful emissions and other appliances and items that, through design and production techniques are less harmful tend to be more expensive. Most people are not willing to do that and so will jump on any reason not to. If someone has to make the decision between buying frivolous entertainment items or status symbols that most Americans seem to think they need or environmentally friendly items, most will choose the frivolous entertainment items or status symbols.[/quote]
[quote]Makavali wrote:
What if global warming is all a hoax and we create a better world for nothing?[/quote]
nice.[/quote]
Yall see a “better world”, I see world of false alternatives. Most ‘green’ initiatives, are just pollution transfer. Nobody’s thinking outside the box at least nobody with any pull, and they are just trying to replace archaic designs with different technology in the same archaic design.
There is no need for a power grid, structures can be built with a combination of solar and natural gas generators to fulfill all their power needs with out the 50% loss of a grid.
We can’t totally get rid of the grid, but we can reduce it by huge percentages.
What does it matter if you run a wind farm or a coal plant? The coal plant pollutes, the wind farm scares thousands of acres of nature.
BTW, there is a process called ‘coal gassification’ that totally eliminates the emissions of of coal, but because it was not what the environmental politicists wanted, they squashed it. Same with nuclear power, which is all the rage now, was quashed by environmentalists.
If you look historically, the biggest impediment to clean energy is the environmental movement.
The other problem is this myth that if we act ‘green’ the problem will suddenly go away or the Earth will stop warming… Bullshit. That’s the arroagance of thinking you’re in control and you’re not.
It stands to reason that every living thing on the planet will affect the planet. No arguement there. But the Earth is in a warming phase. If you got rid of all the CO2 in the world, it would still be warming. When the warming cycle peaks, it will begin cooling. Ultimately, we not in control of the climate, the Earth is.
Do humans have any effect? No doubt. What is in doubt is how much. The myth that the Earth will just continue to warm indefinitely is pure horse shit. The climate cycles. That will continure for few billion more years. Or if our iron core cools, we lose our magnetic field and we’re done because we cannot then sustain an atmosphere.
One day the planet will be to hot, but it won’t have anything to do with us and every living thing on the planet will be dead before it does. The prediction is 5 billion years from now, when the sun starts run out of gas.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
What if global warming is all a hoax and we create a better world for nothing?[/quote]
The problem is that this is more of a political issue then anything. Reducing pollution levels, which is a worthy goal regardless of whether AGW is happening or not due to the dangers of pollution, will be a very expensive undertaking. It will temporarily hurt the profits of large companies (perhaps for an extended period of time). It will not happen overnight and it will not be cheap. This also holds true on a smaller level. Buying things that are more environmentally healthy, like cars that produce less harmful emissions and other appliances and items that, through design and production techniques are less harmful tend to be more expensive. Most people are not willing to do that and so will jump on any reason not to. If someone has to make the decision between buying frivolous entertainment items or status symbols that most Americans seem to think they need or environmentally friendly items, most will choose the frivolous entertainment items or status symbols.[/quote]
I’ll take a Mustang GT 500 Super Snake any day of the week, thank you very much…
It has nothing to do with status, it’s just an awesome machine.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
What if global warming is all a hoax and we create a better world for nothing?[/quote]
The problem is that this is more of a political issue then anything. Reducing pollution levels, which is a worthy goal regardless of whether AGW is happening or not due to the dangers of pollution, will be a very expensive undertaking. It will temporarily hurt the profits of large companies (perhaps for an extended period of time). It will not happen overnight and it will not be cheap. This also holds true on a smaller level. Buying things that are more environmentally healthy, like cars that produce less harmful emissions and other appliances and items that, through design and production techniques are less harmful tend to be more expensive. Most people are not willing to do that and so will jump on any reason not to. If someone has to make the decision between buying frivolous entertainment items or status symbols that most Americans seem to think they need or environmentally friendly items, most will choose the frivolous entertainment items or status symbols.[/quote]
I’ll take a Mustang GT 500 Super Snake any day of the week, thank you very much…
It has nothing to do with status, it’s just an awesome machine.[/quote]
I am not claiming any moral high ground here (when I get my license to drive I am buying a 69 camero) I am just pointing out the real reasons why people do not want to reduce pollution levels. I know there are better options out there as far as far as how much pollution the vehicle will produce and was produced in it’s manufacturing but I want one. I am just being honest.
Global warming is one more myth perpetuated by the left. Not unlike their many other myths such as the rich are not paying their fair share in taxes when in fact the top 10% of income earners pay 70% of all federal taxes.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
What if global warming is all a hoax and we create a better world for nothing?[/quote]
The problem is that this is more of a political issue then anything. Reducing pollution levels, which is a worthy goal regardless of whether AGW is happening or not due to the dangers of pollution, will be a very expensive undertaking. It will temporarily hurt the profits of large companies (perhaps for an extended period of time). It will not happen overnight and it will not be cheap. This also holds true on a smaller level. Buying things that are more environmentally healthy, like cars that produce less harmful emissions and other appliances and items that, through design and production techniques are less harmful tend to be more expensive. Most people are not willing to do that and so will jump on any reason not to. If someone has to make the decision between buying frivolous entertainment items or status symbols that most Americans seem to think they need or environmentally friendly items, most will choose the frivolous entertainment items or status symbols.[/quote]
I’ll take a Mustang GT 500 Super Snake any day of the week, thank you very much…
It has nothing to do with status, it’s just an awesome machine.[/quote]
I am not claiming any moral high ground here (when I get my license to drive I am buying a 69 camero) I am just pointing out the real reasons why people do not want to reduce pollution levels. I know there are better options out there as far as far as how much pollution the vehicle will produce and was produced in it’s manufacturing but I want one. I am just being honest.
[/quote]
Being a car guy, I am more than happy to assist you in your quest.
'69 Camaro is kind of generic. Are you looking for an original/ restored, numbers matching car, or like a ‘resto-mod’ where it keeps the look of the old, but drives new?
The former is really, really expensive, the latter still expensive, but easier to get.
Muscle cars, unfortunately, are at a premium right now. Prices have jumped 20,000% (literally) in the last 10 years.
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
There seems to be some confusion about the use of the word “consensus” and the term “scientific consensus” in this thread. As most people here are smart enough to know, words sometimes have more then one definition and can be modified by context. Here is the Mirriam-Webster definition of consensus:
1a general agreement (syn unanimity)
1b the judgement arrived at by most of those concerned
2 group solidarity in sentiment and belief
Before anyone comes in with guns blazing about the synonym, remember that synonyms are words with identical or similar meanings. In the case of a consensus, the number of parties in agreement has to be close enough to unanimity that the words are close enough in meaning to be a consensus.
Now for the term “scientific consensus.” Scientific consensus means that the majority of scientists and scientific communities in the relevant field are in agreement. 100% agreement is not required, after all you will never have 100% agreement in anything, but 97-98% is most certainly enough to call a scientific consensus.
A popular tactic now is to point out that scientific consensuses have on occasion been wrong, so we should not us them at all. This is incredibly stupid. Just because scientists have been wrong about something else, completely unrelated to climate change, does not mean that climate scientists are wrong here. If you want to come up with an argument against the idea of AGW, then the only way to do so honestly is to disprove the science being used to back up the scientific consensus.
This will not be done by deliberately misunderstanding fairly basic words and phrases and arguing about them or quoting an article from a biased news site (here’s a tip, if it ends in .com it is biased one way or the other. No one will ever care about anything that is not a peer reviewed study). This can only be done by either analyzing the studies being used to back up claims of AGW and finding major flaws in methodology and conclusions (remember, there are hundreds or maybe thousands and just because a few of them have flaws does not mean they all do so you will have to go through all of them).
A theoretically easier way is with research that disproves the vast body of work showing evidence for AGW. I am not aware of any that do so. If anyone would like to provide one, either for or against, I will gladly look it over and even discuss it with some of my friends who are climatologists. I am actually neutral on this matter. If you are not educated enough in the relevant fields to understand the studies that are used as evidence for or against AGW, then you are not really making an informed opinion on the matter. All you are doing is parroting someone who shares your belief without really understanding how and why that person came to that conclusion (this applies to both sides), which is fine as far as it goes, but at least be honest about your position.
[/quote]
You’re missing several things here:
The official position of virtually all state governments is a confirmation of AGW.
The confirmation of AGW directly supports the expansion of the scope and magnitude of state intervention.
Grants apportioned to study the climate are decided upon by the very bureaucratic administrations that directly benefit from it’s confirmation.
The state can squeeze out studies with a hypothesis unfavorable toward their political position. They can do this by redirecting research funds from the private market in an unlimited capacity.
You are limiting the scope of who is counted to determine a consensus to those who are educated by state sponsored schools and universities, qualified by state regulated standards, and subsidized by a state funded institutions with a confirmation bias.
All of the data used to study global temperatures is gathered and parsed by state agencies or state licensed private monopolies.
Claiming that there is a consensus among climate scientists today is analogous to claiming their is a consensus among astrologists in the early years of astronomy.
You cannot reliably determine the legitimacy of the source data, much less the methods being used in it’s analysis.
The official position of virtually all state governments is a confirmation of AGW.
The confirmation of AGW directly supports the expansion of the scope and magnitude of state intervention.
Grants apportioned to study the climate are decided upon by the very bureaucratic administrations that directly benefit from it’s confirmation.
The state can squeeze out studies with a hypothesis unfavorable toward their political position. They can do this by redirecting research funds from the private market in an unlimited capacity.
You are limiting the scope of who is counted to determine a consensus to those who are educated by state sponsored schools and universities, qualified by state regulated standards, and subsidized by a state funded institutions with a confirmation bias.
All of the data used to study global temperatures is gathered and parsed by state agencies or state licensed private monopolies.
Claiming that there is a consensus among climate scientists today is analogous to claiming their is a consensus among astrologists in the early years of astronomy.
You cannot reliably determine the legitimacy of the source data, much less the methods being used in it’s analysis.[/quote]
I am not missing anything. I have been a scientist for a long time now, I am very familiar with how funding for scientific research works (by the way, government funding doesn’t even account for half of the funding for scientific research in America), and I am also familiar with the process of independent review for studies. Anybody can get funding for a study, even a biased one, because there will always be powerful and rich men and women who want science to back up their claims. That is why we have peer reviewed journals which do not depend on biased funding, and getting funding for an experiment by no means guarantees that it will pass peer review. This is just one of the steps in the process that keeps scientists honest.
When a study is submitted for peer review, one must include not only conclusions but methods, selection criteria and describe the entire experiment in excruciating detail as well as the conclusions drawn from the data. This makes it very easy to find and tear apart bad studies that use flawed methodology and other things to support biased conclusions. You can talk about funding and all that stuff you said in your post, but all the information used to support global warming can be found in reputable journals, so go ahead and show me the flaws in the studies and the misrepresentations of facts. Bias is fairly easy to spot in scientific articles, and I have a lot of experience at it.
Being a car guy, I am more than happy to assist you in your quest.
'69 Camaro is kind of generic. Are you looking for an original/ restored, numbers matching car, or like a ‘resto-mod’ where it keeps the look of the old, but drives new?
The former is really, really expensive, the latter still expensive, but easier to get.
Muscle cars, unfortunately, are at a premium right now. Prices have jumped 20,000% (literally) in the last 10 years. [/quote]
I am going to do this as a resto-mod car. It will be easier and take less time then a completely original, numbers matching car. I haven’t done much planning on it yet though. I don’t think I will be able to start until next summer though, what with the wedding coming up and all.
The official position of virtually all state governments is a confirmation of AGW.
The confirmation of AGW directly supports the expansion of the scope and magnitude of state intervention.
Grants apportioned to study the climate are decided upon by the very bureaucratic administrations that directly benefit from it’s confirmation.
The state can squeeze out studies with a hypothesis unfavorable toward their political position. They can do this by redirecting research funds from the private market in an unlimited capacity.
You are limiting the scope of who is counted to determine a consensus to those who are educated by state sponsored schools and universities, qualified by state regulated standards, and subsidized by a state funded institutions with a confirmation bias.
All of the data used to study global temperatures is gathered and parsed by state agencies or state licensed private monopolies.
Claiming that there is a consensus among climate scientists today is analogous to claiming their is a consensus among astrologists in the early years of astronomy.
You cannot reliably determine the legitimacy of the source data, much less the methods being used in it’s analysis.[/quote]
I am not missing anything. I have been a scientist for a long time now, I am very familiar with how funding for scientific research works (by the way, government funding doesn’t even account for half of the funding for scientific research in America), and I am also familiar with the process of independent review for studies. Anybody can get funding for a study, even a biased one, because there will always be powerful and rich men and women who want science to back up their claims. That is why we have peer reviewed journals which do not depend on biased funding, and getting funding for an experiment by no means guarantees that it will pass peer review. This is just one of the steps in the process that keeps scientists honest.
When a study is submitted for peer review, one must include not only conclusions but methods, selection criteria and describe the entire experiment in excruciating detail as well as the conclusions drawn from the data. This makes it very easy to find and tear apart bad studies that use flawed methodology and other things to support biased conclusions. You can talk about funding and all that stuff you said in your post, but all the information used to support global warming can be found in reputable journals, so go ahead and show me the flaws in the studies and the misrepresentations of facts. Bias is fairly easy to spot in scientific articles, and I have a lot of experience at it.[/quote]
You still don’t seem to understand that the government funding preferentially AGW supporting studies by definition displaces funding from studies with a contradictory hypothesis.
The total volume of research supporting AGW is only compelling if it’s otherwise unchallenged by an equally compelling volume of contradictory research.
Further, peer reviews being deficient of contradictory opinions(read: lacking confirmation bias), means that the peer review process only rejects part of the studies that would otherwise be rejected.
Regarding your statement about government funding less than half of U.S. research:
It’s no different than the way government creates morale hazard in other industries, scientific research isn’t immune.
It only takes a marginal displacement to create a miss-allocation of resources and information.
Sub-prime was a tiny part of real estate, but it was enough to drive a bubble with the rating agencies being completely fooled in their evaluations.
The fact that you’re a long-time scientist and are personally confident of the veracity of the peer review process is irrelevant. In fact, it’s a good contrarian indicator.
Funny enough, the nature of government intervention and it’s most devastating effect is actually not that it creates a specific dislocation but that it destroys the information available for people to make a rational decision.
I mean if you want a great example, you need to look no further than this very site and the bodybuilding world.
Tell me: What’s the consensus on the long term effects of using AAS?
Are you going to claim that the medical community has a legitimate consensus on this topic?
Or are you going to claim that they don’t have a consensus that’s worth acting upon?
How is it you end up with AAS as a controlled substance with such a vocal T-Nation community there to oppose it?
Oh wait…
You still don’t seem to understand that the government funding preferentially AGW supporting studies by definition displaces funding from studies with a contradictory hypothesis. [/quote]
No, you do not seem to understand how scientific experiments work. You can come up with a hypothesis (i.e. something is causing something else) and then design an experiment to test that hypothesis, that is it. The experiment will do one of two things: disprove the hypothesis or prove the hypothesis. We do not go into experiments knowing the outcomes of them like you seem to think we do. It is possible to use flawed methodology and misrepresent data, which is why we have peer review and other ways of preventing and catching those kinds of studies.
It is really not possible to go to someone and say “If you give me money for this experiment, I will show that AGW is happening.” The only way to make that claim is if you are going in knowing you are going to skew the results in favor of that conclusion, which will be caught either in peer review or by scientists reading the journals (this is a kind of symbiotic relationship that tends to prevent journals from deliberately allowing flawed studies through the peer review process). The studies are out there, go ahead and show me where the methodology and conclusions are wrong or flawed in some way.
[quote]
The total volume of research supporting AGW is only compelling if it’s otherwise unchallenged by an equally compelling volume of contradictory research.
Further, peer reviews being deficient of contradictory opinions(read: lacking confirmation bias), means that the peer review process only rejects part of the studies that would otherwise be rejected. [/quote]
Like I have said, there are more then enough industries and politicians with a lot to gain by disproving AGW that there is plenty of money out there to fund the research of scientists who disagree with AGW, but like I said it does not matter what the personal opinion of a scientist is since it is not possible to know the outcome of a scientific experiment beforehand unless one is planning to deliberately skew the study, and it is very easy to spot those. Most grad students are capable of doing so. Go ahead and go through the studies and find them. In fact, you can also look up many studies that failed peer review. If there is in fact a massive conspiracy to prevent studies that disprove AGW, then that means there will be many studies put out independently by researchers that you could look up and provide. I will be happy to look them over and tell you if they in fact should have passed peer review.
If you cannot, then there is no massive worldwide conspiracy involving hundreds, possibly thousands, scientific journals, dozens of different governments, hundreds of government agencies around the world (remember, the US is not the only place where scientific experiments are done), thousands of scientists, as well as the cooperation of an unknown number of lay media outlets.
[quote]
Regarding your statement about government funding less than half of U.S. research:
It’s no different than the way government creates morale hazard in other industries, scientific research isn’t immune.
It only takes a marginal displacement to create a miss-allocation of resources and information.
Sub-prime was a tiny part of real estate, but it was enough to drive a bubble with the rating agencies being completely fooled in their evaluations.
The fact that you’re a long-time scientist and are personally confident of the veracity of the peer review process is irrelevant. In fact, it’s a good contrarian indicator. [/quote]
No, my time as a scientist means that I know what I am talking about. You see, we have two very important things at public universities that prevent people from affecting the type of research being done: Tenure and unrestricted grant money. Tenure is a lifelong employment contract that essentially gives senior scientists the freedom to explore controversial ideas without the threat of being fired for them. Unrestricted grant money is exactly what it sounds like, we get to use it for whatever we want. Unrestricted grant money usually comes along with agreeing to do research on a topic that is not really seen as potentially useful by the granting institution. For example, say I want money from NIS to study quark gluon plasmas, but there is no real expectation of applications coming from that research. There is a lot of interest in nanotechnology, so I could offer to do some research into nanotech in exchange for a few million dollars of unrestricted grant money. I can now do whatever I want with that money and there is nothing the NIS can say or do about it.
[quote]
Funny enough, the nature of government intervention and it’s most devastating effect is actually not that it creates a specific dislocation but that it destroys the information available for people to make a rational decision. [/quote]
So now we have governments of nations all over the world destroying scientific studies? Come on, try to be serious. When a study fails peer review, many scientists will still put their work out on the internet for people to see, it is actually becoming very popular. I will be happy to look over any study that is not peer reviewed as well as ones that are. It will be more productive then talking about conspiracies on a scale that even Fox Mulder would have trouble believing.
I am not a biologist or involved in the medical field, so I am not off the top of my head familiar with what you are talking about. If you want to provide any evidence (i.e. studies) that demonstrate what you are talking about I will be happy to look them over and consult with people like my fiance who is a biologist on the matter.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
What if global warming is all a hoax and we create a better world for nothing?[/quote]
nice.[/quote]
In practice, not very.
Or did you miss all the usual suspects crawling out of the woodwork, claiming that we all should use bikes instead of cars, stop eating meat and generally repent for our sins because the end is nigh?
At least they have not burned books or art so far, but there is nothing “nice” about the impulse and it gets even less nice if those mini Savonarolas get their way.
You still don’t seem to understand that the government funding preferentially AGW supporting studies by definition displaces funding from studies with a contradictory hypothesis. [/quote]
No, you do not seem to understand how scientific experiments work. You can come up with a hypothesis (i.e. something is causing something else) and then design an experiment to test that hypothesis, that is it. The experiment will do one of two things: disprove the hypothesis or prove the hypothesis. We do not go into experiments knowing the outcomes of them like you seem to think we do. It is possible to use flawed methodology and misrepresent data, which is why we have peer review and other ways of preventing and catching those kinds of studies.
It is really not possible to go to someone and say “If you give me money for this experiment, I will show that AGW is happening.” The only way to make that claim is if you are going in knowing you are going to skew the results in favor of that conclusion, which will be caught either in peer review or by scientists reading the journals (this is a kind of symbiotic relationship that tends to prevent journals from deliberately allowing flawed studies through the peer review process). The studies are out there, go ahead and show me where the methodology and conclusions are wrong or flawed in some way.
[quote]
The total volume of research supporting AGW is only compelling if it’s otherwise unchallenged by an equally compelling volume of contradictory research.
Further, peer reviews being deficient of contradictory opinions(read: lacking confirmation bias), means that the peer review process only rejects part of the studies that would otherwise be rejected. [/quote]
Like I have said, there are more then enough industries and politicians with a lot to gain by disproving AGW that there is plenty of money out there to fund the research of scientists who disagree with AGW, but like I said it does not matter what the personal opinion of a scientist is since it is not possible to know the outcome of a scientific experiment beforehand unless one is planning to deliberately skew the study, and it is very easy to spot those. Most grad students are capable of doing so. Go ahead and go through the studies and find them. In fact, you can also look up many studies that failed peer review. If there is in fact a massive conspiracy to prevent studies that disprove AGW, then that means there will be many studies put out independently by researchers that you could look up and provide. I will be happy to look them over and tell you if they in fact should have passed peer review.
If you cannot, then there is no massive worldwide conspiracy involving hundreds, possibly thousands, scientific journals, dozens of different governments, hundreds of government agencies around the world (remember, the US is not the only place where scientific experiments are done), thousands of scientists, as well as the cooperation of an unknown number of lay media outlets.
[quote]
Regarding your statement about government funding less than half of U.S. research:
It’s no different than the way government creates morale hazard in other industries, scientific research isn’t immune.
It only takes a marginal displacement to create a miss-allocation of resources and information.
Sub-prime was a tiny part of real estate, but it was enough to drive a bubble with the rating agencies being completely fooled in their evaluations.
The fact that you’re a long-time scientist and are personally confident of the veracity of the peer review process is irrelevant. In fact, it’s a good contrarian indicator. [/quote]
No, my time as a scientist means that I know what I am talking about. You see, we have two very important things at public universities that prevent people from affecting the type of research being done: Tenure and unrestricted grant money. Tenure is a lifelong employment contract that essentially gives senior scientists the freedom to explore controversial ideas without the threat of being fired for them. Unrestricted grant money is exactly what it sounds like, we get to use it for whatever we want. Unrestricted grant money usually comes along with agreeing to do research on a topic that is not really seen as potentially useful by the granting institution. For example, say I want money from NIS to study quark gluon plasmas, but there is no real expectation of applications coming from that research. There is a lot of interest in nanotechnology, so I could offer to do some research into nanotech in exchange for a few million dollars of unrestricted grant money. I can now do whatever I want with that money and there is nothing the NIS can say or do about it.
[quote]
Funny enough, the nature of government intervention and it’s most devastating effect is actually not that it creates a specific dislocation but that it destroys the information available for people to make a rational decision. [/quote]
So now we have governments of nations all over the world destroying scientific studies? Come on, try to be serious. When a study fails peer review, many scientists will still put their work out on the internet for people to see, it is actually becoming very popular. I will be happy to look over any study that is not peer reviewed as well as ones that are. It will be more productive then talking about conspiracies on a scale that even Fox Mulder would have trouble believing.
I am not a biologist or involved in the medical field, so I am not off the top of my head familiar with what you are talking about. If you want to provide any evidence (i.e. studies) that demonstrate what you are talking about I will be happy to look them over and consult with people like my fiance who is a biologist on the matter.[/quote]
LOL, provide studies about something something that is banned from being studied?
…and then you’re gonna go consult with some token biologists who will tell you what? That it’s unethical to do a long term study on dangerous steroids because…studies show it’s dangerous?
You’re fucking hopeless.
It’s alright though, because their will be no “unrestricted grants” or tenure based “freedom” to explore controversial ideas without [getting] fired) when the student loan bubble pops and your university goes bankrupt.
At that point you and your tenured peers will be no more regarded as experts than someone without a public education.
You still don’t seem to understand that the government funding preferentially AGW supporting studies by definition displaces funding from studies with a contradictory hypothesis. [/quote]
No, you do not seem to understand how scientific experiments work. You can come up with a hypothesis (i.e. something is causing something else) and then design an experiment to test that hypothesis, that is it. The experiment will do one of two things: disprove the hypothesis or prove the hypothesis. We do not go into experiments knowing the outcomes of them like you seem to think we do. It is possible to use flawed methodology and misrepresent data, which is why we have peer review and other ways of preventing and catching those kinds of studies.
It is really not possible to go to someone and say “If you give me money for this experiment, I will show that AGW is happening.” The only way to make that claim is if you are going in knowing you are going to skew the results in favor of that conclusion, which will be caught either in peer review or by scientists reading the journals (this is a kind of symbiotic relationship that tends to prevent journals from deliberately allowing flawed studies through the peer review process). The studies are out there, go ahead and show me where the methodology and conclusions are wrong or flawed in some way.
[quote]
The total volume of research supporting AGW is only compelling if it’s otherwise unchallenged by an equally compelling volume of contradictory research.
Further, peer reviews being deficient of contradictory opinions(read: lacking confirmation bias), means that the peer review process only rejects part of the studies that would otherwise be rejected. [/quote]
Like I have said, there are more then enough industries and politicians with a lot to gain by disproving AGW that there is plenty of money out there to fund the research of scientists who disagree with AGW, but like I said it does not matter what the personal opinion of a scientist is since it is not possible to know the outcome of a scientific experiment beforehand unless one is planning to deliberately skew the study, and it is very easy to spot those. Most grad students are capable of doing so. Go ahead and go through the studies and find them. In fact, you can also look up many studies that failed peer review. If there is in fact a massive conspiracy to prevent studies that disprove AGW, then that means there will be many studies put out independently by researchers that you could look up and provide. I will be happy to look them over and tell you if they in fact should have passed peer review.
If you cannot, then there is no massive worldwide conspiracy involving hundreds, possibly thousands, scientific journals, dozens of different governments, hundreds of government agencies around the world (remember, the US is not the only place where scientific experiments are done), thousands of scientists, as well as the cooperation of an unknown number of lay media outlets.
[quote]
Regarding your statement about government funding less than half of U.S. research:
It’s no different than the way government creates morale hazard in other industries, scientific research isn’t immune.
It only takes a marginal displacement to create a miss-allocation of resources and information.
Sub-prime was a tiny part of real estate, but it was enough to drive a bubble with the rating agencies being completely fooled in their evaluations.
The fact that you’re a long-time scientist and are personally confident of the veracity of the peer review process is irrelevant. In fact, it’s a good contrarian indicator. [/quote]
No, my time as a scientist means that I know what I am talking about. You see, we have two very important things at public universities that prevent people from affecting the type of research being done: Tenure and unrestricted grant money. Tenure is a lifelong employment contract that essentially gives senior scientists the freedom to explore controversial ideas without the threat of being fired for them. Unrestricted grant money is exactly what it sounds like, we get to use it for whatever we want. Unrestricted grant money usually comes along with agreeing to do research on a topic that is not really seen as potentially useful by the granting institution. For example, say I want money from NIS to study quark gluon plasmas, but there is no real expectation of applications coming from that research. There is a lot of interest in nanotechnology, so I could offer to do some research into nanotech in exchange for a few million dollars of unrestricted grant money. I can now do whatever I want with that money and there is nothing the NIS can say or do about it.
[quote]
Funny enough, the nature of government intervention and it’s most devastating effect is actually not that it creates a specific dislocation but that it destroys the information available for people to make a rational decision. [/quote]
So now we have governments of nations all over the world destroying scientific studies? Come on, try to be serious. When a study fails peer review, many scientists will still put their work out on the internet for people to see, it is actually becoming very popular. I will be happy to look over any study that is not peer reviewed as well as ones that are. It will be more productive then talking about conspiracies on a scale that even Fox Mulder would have trouble believing.
I am not a biologist or involved in the medical field, so I am not off the top of my head familiar with what you are talking about. If you want to provide any evidence (i.e. studies) that demonstrate what you are talking about I will be happy to look them over and consult with people like my fiance who is a biologist on the matter.[/quote]
LOL, provide studies about something something that is banned from being studied?
…and then you’re gonna go consult with some token biologists who will tell you what? That it’s unethical to do a long term study on dangerous steroids because…studies show it’s dangerous?
You’re fucking hopeless.
It’s alright though, because their will be no “unrestricted grants” or tenure based “freedom” to explore controversial ideas without [getting] fired) when the student loan bubble pops and your university goes bankrupt.
At that point you and your tenured peers will be no more regarded as experts than someone without a public education.[/quote]
He works in a field that has no political overtones whatsoever.
I doubt that he ever has, does, or will experience what you describe.
He will just go on his merry way, studying things that about 0,00001 % actually understand and where less than 1% care to have an opinion about and more power to him.
If you want someone who knows something about the influence of prevailing opinion and government grants on science he is simply not your guy.
LOL, provide studies about something something that is banned from being studied? [/quote]
Since when is anybody banned from studying global warming? I was unaware of this. Are you familiar with the X-files? You remind me of The Lone Gunmen from the X-files. Now I have to break out my DVD collection.
[quote]
…and then you’re gonna go consult with some token biologists who will tell you what? That it’s unethical to do a long term study on dangerous steroids because…studies show it’s dangerous? [/quote]
Yes, because when I want to know about something, I talk to people who are well educated in that field. I am not going to call an auto mechanic to fix my plumbing, I am going to call a plumber.
[quote]
You’re fucking hopeless.
It’s alright though, because their will be no “unrestricted grants” or tenure based “freedom” to explore controversial ideas without [getting] fired) when the student loan bubble pops and your university goes bankrupt.
At that point you and your tenured peers will be no more regarded as experts than someone without a public education.[/quote]
Go ahead and hold your breath waiting for that to happen. In the meantime, I will be watching the X-files while I work on making contributions to science and hope the Science Gestapo doesn’t come into my house and break my whiteboards and burn my notebooks.
You still don’t seem to understand that the government funding preferentially AGW supporting studies by definition displaces funding from studies with a contradictory hypothesis. [/quote]
No, you do not seem to understand how scientific experiments work. You can come up with a hypothesis (i.e. something is causing something else) and then design an experiment to test that hypothesis, that is it. The experiment will do one of two things: disprove the hypothesis or prove the hypothesis. We do not go into experiments knowing the outcomes of them like you seem to think we do. It is possible to use flawed methodology and misrepresent data, which is why we have peer review and other ways of preventing and catching those kinds of studies.
It is really not possible to go to someone and say “If you give me money for this experiment, I will show that AGW is happening.” The only way to make that claim is if you are going in knowing you are going to skew the results in favor of that conclusion, which will be caught either in peer review or by scientists reading the journals (this is a kind of symbiotic relationship that tends to prevent journals from deliberately allowing flawed studies through the peer review process). The studies are out there, go ahead and show me where the methodology and conclusions are wrong or flawed in some way.
[quote]
The total volume of research supporting AGW is only compelling if it’s otherwise unchallenged by an equally compelling volume of contradictory research.
Further, peer reviews being deficient of contradictory opinions(read: lacking confirmation bias), means that the peer review process only rejects part of the studies that would otherwise be rejected. [/quote]
Like I have said, there are more then enough industries and politicians with a lot to gain by disproving AGW that there is plenty of money out there to fund the research of scientists who disagree with AGW, but like I said it does not matter what the personal opinion of a scientist is since it is not possible to know the outcome of a scientific experiment beforehand unless one is planning to deliberately skew the study, and it is very easy to spot those. Most grad students are capable of doing so. Go ahead and go through the studies and find them. In fact, you can also look up many studies that failed peer review. If there is in fact a massive conspiracy to prevent studies that disprove AGW, then that means there will be many studies put out independently by researchers that you could look up and provide. I will be happy to look them over and tell you if they in fact should have passed peer review.
If you cannot, then there is no massive worldwide conspiracy involving hundreds, possibly thousands, scientific journals, dozens of different governments, hundreds of government agencies around the world (remember, the US is not the only place where scientific experiments are done), thousands of scientists, as well as the cooperation of an unknown number of lay media outlets.
[quote]
Regarding your statement about government funding less than half of U.S. research:
It’s no different than the way government creates morale hazard in other industries, scientific research isn’t immune.
It only takes a marginal displacement to create a miss-allocation of resources and information.
Sub-prime was a tiny part of real estate, but it was enough to drive a bubble with the rating agencies being completely fooled in their evaluations.
The fact that you’re a long-time scientist and are personally confident of the veracity of the peer review process is irrelevant. In fact, it’s a good contrarian indicator. [/quote]
No, my time as a scientist means that I know what I am talking about. You see, we have two very important things at public universities that prevent people from affecting the type of research being done: Tenure and unrestricted grant money. Tenure is a lifelong employment contract that essentially gives senior scientists the freedom to explore controversial ideas without the threat of being fired for them. Unrestricted grant money is exactly what it sounds like, we get to use it for whatever we want. Unrestricted grant money usually comes along with agreeing to do research on a topic that is not really seen as potentially useful by the granting institution. For example, say I want money from NIS to study quark gluon plasmas, but there is no real expectation of applications coming from that research. There is a lot of interest in nanotechnology, so I could offer to do some research into nanotech in exchange for a few million dollars of unrestricted grant money. I can now do whatever I want with that money and there is nothing the NIS can say or do about it.
[quote]
Funny enough, the nature of government intervention and it’s most devastating effect is actually not that it creates a specific dislocation but that it destroys the information available for people to make a rational decision. [/quote]
So now we have governments of nations all over the world destroying scientific studies? Come on, try to be serious. When a study fails peer review, many scientists will still put their work out on the internet for people to see, it is actually becoming very popular. I will be happy to look over any study that is not peer reviewed as well as ones that are. It will be more productive then talking about conspiracies on a scale that even Fox Mulder would have trouble believing.
I am not a biologist or involved in the medical field, so I am not off the top of my head familiar with what you are talking about. If you want to provide any evidence (i.e. studies) that demonstrate what you are talking about I will be happy to look them over and consult with people like my fiance who is a biologist on the matter.[/quote]
LOL, provide studies about something something that is banned from being studied?
…and then you’re gonna go consult with some token biologists who will tell you what? That it’s unethical to do a long term study on dangerous steroids because…studies show it’s dangerous?
You’re fucking hopeless.
It’s alright though, because their will be no “unrestricted grants” or tenure based “freedom” to explore controversial ideas without [getting] fired) when the student loan bubble pops and your university goes bankrupt.
At that point you and your tenured peers will be no more regarded as experts than someone without a public education.[/quote]
He works in a field that has no political overtones whatsoever.
I doubt that he ever has, does, or will experience what you describe.
He will just go on his merry way, studying things that about 0,00001 % actually understand and where less than 1% care to have an opinion about and more power to him.
If you want someone who knows something about the influence of prevailing opinion and government grants on science he is simply not your guy.[/quote]
I did my best to explain the unintended consequences of central planning and he claims I’m describing a pre-meditated world-wide conspiracy. It’s just sad really.
You still don’t seem to understand that the government funding preferentially AGW supporting studies by definition displaces funding from studies with a contradictory hypothesis. [/quote]
No, you do not seem to understand how scientific experiments work. You can come up with a hypothesis (i.e. something is causing something else) and then design an experiment to test that hypothesis, that is it. The experiment will do one of two things: disprove the hypothesis or prove the hypothesis. We do not go into experiments knowing the outcomes of them like you seem to think we do. It is possible to use flawed methodology and misrepresent data, which is why we have peer review and other ways of preventing and catching those kinds of studies.
It is really not possible to go to someone and say “If you give me money for this experiment, I will show that AGW is happening.” The only way to make that claim is if you are going in knowing you are going to skew the results in favor of that conclusion, which will be caught either in peer review or by scientists reading the journals (this is a kind of symbiotic relationship that tends to prevent journals from deliberately allowing flawed studies through the peer review process). The studies are out there, go ahead and show me where the methodology and conclusions are wrong or flawed in some way.
[quote]
The total volume of research supporting AGW is only compelling if it’s otherwise unchallenged by an equally compelling volume of contradictory research.
Further, peer reviews being deficient of contradictory opinions(read: lacking confirmation bias), means that the peer review process only rejects part of the studies that would otherwise be rejected. [/quote]
Like I have said, there are more then enough industries and politicians with a lot to gain by disproving AGW that there is plenty of money out there to fund the research of scientists who disagree with AGW, but like I said it does not matter what the personal opinion of a scientist is since it is not possible to know the outcome of a scientific experiment beforehand unless one is planning to deliberately skew the study, and it is very easy to spot those. Most grad students are capable of doing so. Go ahead and go through the studies and find them. In fact, you can also look up many studies that failed peer review. If there is in fact a massive conspiracy to prevent studies that disprove AGW, then that means there will be many studies put out independently by researchers that you could look up and provide. I will be happy to look them over and tell you if they in fact should have passed peer review.
If you cannot, then there is no massive worldwide conspiracy involving hundreds, possibly thousands, scientific journals, dozens of different governments, hundreds of government agencies around the world (remember, the US is not the only place where scientific experiments are done), thousands of scientists, as well as the cooperation of an unknown number of lay media outlets.
[quote]
Regarding your statement about government funding less than half of U.S. research:
It’s no different than the way government creates morale hazard in other industries, scientific research isn’t immune.
It only takes a marginal displacement to create a miss-allocation of resources and information.
Sub-prime was a tiny part of real estate, but it was enough to drive a bubble with the rating agencies being completely fooled in their evaluations.
The fact that you’re a long-time scientist and are personally confident of the veracity of the peer review process is irrelevant. In fact, it’s a good contrarian indicator. [/quote]
No, my time as a scientist means that I know what I am talking about. You see, we have two very important things at public universities that prevent people from affecting the type of research being done: Tenure and unrestricted grant money. Tenure is a lifelong employment contract that essentially gives senior scientists the freedom to explore controversial ideas without the threat of being fired for them. Unrestricted grant money is exactly what it sounds like, we get to use it for whatever we want. Unrestricted grant money usually comes along with agreeing to do research on a topic that is not really seen as potentially useful by the granting institution. For example, say I want money from NIS to study quark gluon plasmas, but there is no real expectation of applications coming from that research. There is a lot of interest in nanotechnology, so I could offer to do some research into nanotech in exchange for a few million dollars of unrestricted grant money. I can now do whatever I want with that money and there is nothing the NIS can say or do about it.
[quote]
Funny enough, the nature of government intervention and it’s most devastating effect is actually not that it creates a specific dislocation but that it destroys the information available for people to make a rational decision. [/quote]
So now we have governments of nations all over the world destroying scientific studies? Come on, try to be serious. When a study fails peer review, many scientists will still put their work out on the internet for people to see, it is actually becoming very popular. I will be happy to look over any study that is not peer reviewed as well as ones that are. It will be more productive then talking about conspiracies on a scale that even Fox Mulder would have trouble believing.
I am not a biologist or involved in the medical field, so I am not off the top of my head familiar with what you are talking about. If you want to provide any evidence (i.e. studies) that demonstrate what you are talking about I will be happy to look them over and consult with people like my fiance who is a biologist on the matter.[/quote]
LOL, provide studies about something something that is banned from being studied?
…and then you’re gonna go consult with some token biologists who will tell you what? That it’s unethical to do a long term study on dangerous steroids because…studies show it’s dangerous?
You’re fucking hopeless.
It’s alright though, because their will be no “unrestricted grants” or tenure based “freedom” to explore controversial ideas without [getting] fired) when the student loan bubble pops and your university goes bankrupt.
At that point you and your tenured peers will be no more regarded as experts than someone without a public education.[/quote]
He works in a field that has no political overtones whatsoever.
I doubt that he ever has, does, or will experience what you describe.
He will just go on his merry way, studying things that about 0,00001 % actually understand and where less than 1% care to have an opinion about and more power to him.
If you want someone who knows something about the influence of prevailing opinion and government grants on science he is simply not your guy.[/quote]
I did my best to explain the unintended consequences of central planning and he claims I’m describing a pre-meditated world-wide conspiracy. It’s just sad really.[/quote]
Then you turn him to public choice theory and if he ever gets around to actually dip into it you have a convert.