patrick.net

* academics DO have incentive to pursue certain well-funded research areas and also to withhold or manipulate data to conform to the expectations of the customer - this is called conflict of interest and it would be incredibly ignorant to assume that it does not exist within climate science. many actually contend that COI dominates climate science today because of the government's current interest level and the business opportunities that follow. the assumption that climate change is man-made is a fucking joke considering the age of the planet compared to duration of data collection.

A grant is a grant. They put forward their research proposal and get funding or not. Once they have the funding, who exactly are they beholden to? They don't profit from the grant - it simply allows them to pursue the areas they are interested in. You are talking about the overwhelming majority of people working in the field and are trying to make some kind of mileage out of a supposed conflict of interest. It is the scientists in academia who have the least conflict of interest. Look at those scientists working for oil etc. for the real problem.

* tenure DOES NOT equal permanent job stability, in fact there are many cases where disagreeing with the popular leftist group-think will get you shit canned. this could easily apply to climate science as it does to gay rights. notice that my original point of new academics searching for jobs being forced into a mould was never countered.

We are talking about climatology. Show me examples where a scientist has lost their tenure based on actual research they've done rather than say voicing homophobic beliefs or the like (and that obviously run contrary to the type of written guidelines you see at universities these days).

* government has the obligation to regulate business in cases where such regulation protects the people. e.g. dumping toxic waste that may cause higher cancer rates in nearby communities. it does not have the authority to use a grand-scale unproven global theory to exert itself over every industry and individual activity that it deems "unclean and contributory to the global theory" while incentivizing those it favors.

Unproven according to whom? When 97% of the peer-reviewed papers on the subject run contrary to what you are saying, then tell me where it gets much more 'proven' than that. Just because you don't want to accept it, doesn't mean that science hasn't, and hey, who should we put more trust in, you who knows nothing about the science involved, or the people who actually dedicate their lives to doing the research?

35

Y 2015 Oct 11, 8:52am

Which answers the question of conflict of interest.
If enough headway is not made during the timeframe of the first grant, successive grants (read "paychecks") are in jeopardy. Time to massage the numbers for personal security??

A grant is a grant. They put forward their research proposal and get funding or not.

36

Bigsby 2015 Oct 11, 8:56am

SoftShell says

Which answers the question of conflict of interest.

If enough headway is not made during the timeframe of the first grant, successive grants (read "paychecks") are in jeopardy. Time to massage the numbers for personal security??

Grants aren't paychecks for tenured professors, are they? They're funding for research of interest to them. And what do you think a grant proposal entails? They aren't saying that 'I'm going to prove global warming by doing X,' are they? The scientists do very specific research that contributes to overall understanding of what is happening.

37

tatupu70 2015 Oct 11, 9:27am

Like when CO2 goes from 300 ppm to 400 ppm means we're all going to die? Any idea what the optimum level of CO2 is for plant growth?

A quick google search says ~1500ppm is best for plant growth. Unfortunately, best for plants doesn't equal best for humans.

38 anonymous 2015 Oct 11, 9:44am

Unproven according to whom? When 97% of the peer-reviewed papers on the subject run contrary to what you are saying, then tell me where it gets much more 'proven' than that. Just because you don't want to accept it, doesn't mean that science hasn't, and hey, who should we put more trust in, you who knows nothing about the science involved, or the people who actually dedicate their lives to doing the research?

see my post about the new secular church. the basic assumption of this research that climate change is man-made is egregious. trying to claim proven understanding about weather with a limited set of data compared to the age of the planet is absolute nonsense.

39

Bigsby 2015 Oct 11, 9:55am

see my post about the new secular church. the basic assumption of this research that climate change is man-made is egregious. trying to claim proven understanding about weather with a limited set of data compared to the age of the planet is absolute nonsense.

'The new secular church?'You mean science rather than religion? What would your comments be if we were talking about evolution? That it's only a 'theory'?
You claiming that it is a nonsense is the only nonsense here. This has nothing to do with assumptions and everything to do with hard science. You are dismissing thousands upon thousands of peer-reviewed papers based on what exactly?

40 anonymous 2015 Oct 11, 9:58am

anonymous says

Climate bad - financial services (Banks, Wall Street, etc.) good. Is this how it works ?

nobody is saying that. different topic altogether. most people here would agree that lax regulation of wall street is a serious problem.

41 anonymous 2015 Oct 11, 9:58am

'The new secular church?'You mean science rather than religion?

no, science AS religion.

42

indigenous 2015 Oct 11, 10:01am

most people here would agree that lax regulation of wall street is a serious problem.

And most people would be wrong.

43

Bigsby 2015 Oct 11, 10:02am

no, science AS religion.

Yawn. That is a meaningless quip devoid of any understanding of how science actually works.

44 anonymous 2015 Oct 11, 10:06am

Yawn. That is a meaningless quip devoid of any understanding of how science actually works.

no, science is 2 + 2 = 4.

it is not an evangelism of a small amount of data with a firm conclusion that everyone needs to stop driving cars and start living in an apartment for the rest of their lives or else the planet will become un-inhabitable.

45 anonymous 2015 Oct 11, 10:08am

indigenous says

And most people would be wrong.

so you're a big fan of insider trading and money laundering for drug cartels? fascinating.

46

indigenous 2015 Oct 11, 10:11am

so you're a big fan of insider trading and money laundering for drug cartels? fascinating.

No, the problem was in the bailouts, not regulation. The propaganda says that the problem was in derivatives not being regulated. But if AIG would have been allowed to fail then there would not have been a problem.

47

Bigsby 2015 Oct 11, 10:12am

no, science is 2 + 2 = 4.

it is not an evangelism of a small amount of data with a firm conclusion that everyone needs to stop driving cars and start living in an apartment for the rest of their lives or else the planet will become inhabitable.

Science research is 2+2=4, is it? Ha, ha, ha. What is the point of having a discussion with you if you make a ridiculous comment like that?

And a small amount of data? What? Again, it's a mountain of data that you are dismissing out of hand based on what exactly?

48 anonymous 2015 Oct 11, 10:14am

indigenous says

No, the problem was in the bailouts, not regulation. The propaganda says that the problem was in derivatives not being regulated. But if AIG would have been allowed to fail then there would not have been a problem.

there shouldn't be a need to do a bail-out, and these situations ought to be prevented by regulation. if something is too big to fail, it is too big to exist in the first place. that's the crux of the argument.

49

indigenous 2015 Oct 11, 10:17am

and these situations ought to be prevented by regulation.

It already is it is called the market.

50 anonymous 2015 Oct 11, 10:18am

Research science is 2+2=4, is it? Ha, ha,ha. What is the point of having a discussion with you if you make a ridiculous comment like that?

And a small amount of data? What? It's a mountain of data that you are dismissing out of hand based on what exactly?

dude, the earth is estimated at 4.5 billion years old. get a fucking clue.

51

Bigsby 2015 Oct 11, 10:30am

You post a response to me and then put me on ignore. Pretty fucking cowardly.

52 mell 2015 Oct 11, 11:46am

indigenous says

landtof says

so you're a big fan of insider trading and money laundering for drug cartels? fascinating.

No, the problem was in the bailouts, not regulation. The propaganda says that the problem was in derivatives not being regulated. But if AIG would have been allowed to fail then there would not have been a problem.

You're both right. If the TBTFs were allowed to fail we would not have the parasitic, FED-backed monopolies skimming money away from the middle-class. And in some cases there was clear cut fraud which should have been prosecuted, but Obummer and his minions abolished the rule of law.

53

bdrasin 2015 Oct 11, 1:08pm

Ok you win, I'm back for another round

bdrasin says

Right. So university climate scientists are stupid and corrupt. They couldn't get industry jobs, and are embezzling their grants for personal use.

not what i said, and you are certainly trolling at this point. they don't want to (or socially can't) function inside industry - have you ever known an academic? i do, as very close family friends but they are train wrecks. so yes, they are completely dependent on university funding to perpetually put off becoming a full blown adult.

Why yes I do! My father is a (now emeritus) professor of Mathematics at a major research university. Most of the adults I knew growing up were university professors, mostly in Math, Statistics, Engineering, and physical sciences. Several of these relationships grew into adult friendships and I'm still in contact with quite a few of them. Several of my high school friends are so talented and driven that they are now tenured University faculty themselves. And I have my own 20 year career in the private sector to compare it with (banking, maritime logistics and software engineering if you care). So no, I do not share your blanket assessment of academics; the great majority of the ones I know are highly intelligent and driven to achieve, and I have no doubt (*NONE*) that they would have thrived in business or technology jobs if that is where they had chosen to direct their attention. Want to know another of my secrets? Not all of them are particularly liberal

bdrasin says

They also must be doing a hell of a good job of keeping the news of all these tenured faculty who got sacked from getting out

you're a real piece of shit with no clue what he/she is talking about.

(watches the arrows bounce off)

a quick search of the cases listed on the FIRE website reveals:

Marquette University: Faculty Member Facing Loss of Tenure for Opinions on Blog

https://www.thefire.org/cases/marquette-university-faculty-member-facing-loss-of-tenure-for-opinions-on-blog/

I'd not heard of this case. From what I read the case is still pending and will be decided by a committee http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/24308/. If he does lose the case (I hope he wins, FWIW) it will be the first time I've ever heard of such a thing and I've known a LOT of profs.
The reasons I have heard of tenure being revoked:
* having sex with a student (by far the most common)
* financial impropriety (holding two academic jobs without telling, or embezzling grant money)
* one guy hadn't published or taught his classes in 15 years (made his grad students do everything) and was running a slumlord business on the side

In every one of these cases it took an expensive multi-year investigation for the school to get rid of them. It's certainly not the case in general that opposing gay marriage will cost you tenure; take for example this guy - he's a good friend of mine although he's dead wrong on this particular issue: https://www.math.purdue.edu/~gottlieb/Law/gaymarriage.html

nice try again mis-characterizing my post due to the fact that your smarmy attempt to uncover "deniers" as morons has backfired on you. it is because of civil unrest and economic distress that governments seek more control, not the other way around.

Ok, then you again are left with an empty bag! Let's say you are right:
1) climate science professors are motivated by the threat of losing their grants and tenure
threatened by:
2) grant-issuing bodies and university administrators who are motivated by board positions in green tech
bribed by:
3) Business/government leaders (masters of the universe types), motivated by ??? Again, all of the motivations seem to be in the other direction. What possible incentive do they have to impose unpopular policies or have to negotiate with other nations? I can see the incentives the other way, because it means they can offer cheap gas, lower taxes, and less regulation which of course the people want.

So you *STILL* haven't given anything which could be considered an incentive for this large fraud. I thought I had finally understood that the enviro-academic-biggov complex was doing this on purpose to wreak havoc on the economy. But if that's not it then what is it?

p.s. I fully expect your next move will be to insult my family. Go right ahead; they don't care what you think of them either.

54 anonymous 2015 Oct 11, 7:05pm

bdrasin says

So you *STILL* haven't given anything which could be considered an incentive

bro, come on.

MORE CONTROL / LESS FREEDOM. these folks are on a crusade to protect the world from other people. researchers follow the money, businesses gobble up the government largess, and the politicians get carte blanche to intervene as they see fit.

55

Bigsby 2015 Oct 11, 7:59pm

Bigsby says

You post a response to me and then put me on ignore.

Apparently, he's tired of your trolling!!! Smart guy!!

As you're the forum's resident expert on trolling, point me towards my comments to him that count as trolling in your book.

56

Bigsby 2015 Oct 11, 8:06pm

As you can see, there's a long way to go to get to a dangerous level.

So, why is the IPCC, the scientists and the alarmists lying to the general public?

You post a chart showing that we have a long way to go before everyone will have health issues from breathing. And that is evidence of what in terms of climate change?

57

Bigsby 2015 Oct 11, 8:07pm

Just EVERY post you made in this thread, as starters...

You NEVER back up your statements with ANY proof, data, links, charts, etc. All we see is your delusional "opinions"...

You know what they say about "opinions", right?

My 'delusional opinions' shared by 97% of published peer-reviewed papers?

58

Bigsby 2015 Oct 11, 8:49pm

A whole 43 papers. Out of how many tens of thousands? And which 'several journals' were problematic?

Issues with a handful of papers doesn't then allow you to say that ALL research is unreliable. The overwhelming weight of evidence, CIC. The overwhelming weight of evidence....., which of course, you ignore.

59

tatupu70 2015 Oct 12, 5:11am

OK, if 1500 ppm is best for plant growth, what do you think the plants are doing with the current level of approx. 390's ppm that we have now?

Just looked out my window and it appears they are growing.

So, it appears, by this chart, that we're having a 2 ppm rise per year of what is a TRACE gas in the atmosphere. That doesn't really sound "alarming", does it??

Now, let's look at what's considered to be "safe" levels of CO2. You already established above, that plants and trees do best when it's in the 1500 ppm range.

Well, it may not sound alarming to one with no scientific background such as yourself. Very small changes in concentration of trace gases can have HUGE effects on toxicity, or in this case, Earth's atmosphere.

The table you posted again shows your ignorance. Nobody is worried about the toxic effects of small changes of CO2 concentration. What the data shows is that small changes in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere have a large influence on Earth's weather due to the greenhouse effect.

60 anonymous 2015 Oct 12, 7:41am

Regardless of what anyone says about global warming, it all comes down to polluting the earth. So, what difference does it make if we can hopefully all agree that polluting the earth is bad, and that clean energy is good. I don't understand why anyone (except for oil/gas companies and the politicians in their back pocket) can argue that fact and not want to push for clean energy.

61 mell 2015 Oct 12, 8:12am

debyne says

Regardless of what anyone says about global warming, it all comes down to polluting the earth. So, what difference does it make if we can hopefully all agree that polluting the earth is bad, and that clean energy is good. I don't understand why anyone (except for oil/gas companies and the politicians in their back pocket) can argue that fact and not want to push for clean energy.

Agreed, but CO2 would be the dumbest way to start with as it's a minor pollutant (some argue it is not a pollutant at all).

62 anonymous 2015 Oct 12, 8:33am

debyne says

why anyone (except for oil/gas companies and the politicians in their back pocket) can argue that fact and not want to push for clean energy.

i have no involvement in those industries, and support curbing pollution as well as conserving fossil fuels by utilizing more efficient technology - but the boogeyman narrative of "a planet on the brink" solely attributed to human activity is BULLSHIT.

when the environmentalists, research scientists, green industry, politicians, and the united nations come together to force change upon the world - you bet your ass there will be an intrusion on individual freedoms. further, that change is going to have an associated cost and who do you think is going to pay for it?

just look at what is happening in california since the green-aid went down the gullet.

63

bdrasin 2015 Oct 12, 8:40am

BTW, I'm STILL waiting on your answer to this question:

Ironman says

Answer my question first. What's the largest percentage in the greenhouse gas category?

The answer he's looking for is "water vapor"; see http://grist.org/climate-energy/water-vapor-accounts-for-almost-all-of-the-greenhouse-effect/

64

indigenous 2015 Oct 12, 8:40am

"just look at what is happening in california since the green-aid went down the gullet."

What is that?

65

bdrasin 2015 Oct 12, 8:44am

Which answers the question of conflict of interest.

If enough headway is not made during the timeframe of the first grant, successive grants (read "paychecks") are in jeopardy. Time to massage the numbers for personal security??

Grants aren't paychecks for tenured professors, are they? They're funding for research of interest to them. And what do you think a grant proposal entails? They aren't saying that 'I'm going to prove global warming by doing X,' are they? The scientists do very specific research that contributes to overall understanding of what is happening.

You've got it exactly right. In fact misappropriating grant money for personal use is something that CAN get you fired. Winning grants can be highly prestigious and further someone's career by allowing them to publish, attend conferences, etc but any financial incentives will be indirect and down the line (in the form of a promotion or moving to a higher paying department elsewhere). If you don't have tenure, winning grants can help you get it. A lot.

66

tatupu70 2015 Oct 12, 9:41am

bdrasin says

The answer he's looking for is "water vapor"; see http://grist.org/climate-energy/water-vapor-accounts-for-almost-all-of-the-greenhouse-effect/

I know. He's been over this before. It's a distraction.

He continues to post that CO2 is a trace gas in our atmosphere like it's some sort of breakthrough that no scientist has realized. It's basically the typical Republican argument that common sense trumps science. Another reason people like him are leading us back into the dark ages.

67

tatupu70 2015 Oct 12, 11:07am

Sure thing, that's why left-wing radical blog sites (not scientific sites) are constantly used by the Libbies to justify their Global Warming scam...

Nice job!!

Huh? Non-scientific sites? You're completely delusional. Every scientific site is in agreement on climate science.

68

bdrasin 2015 Oct 12, 12:12pm

tatupu70 says

Huh? Non-scientific sites? You're completely delusional. Every scientific site is in agreement on climate science.

Then why are you libbies always quoting left-wing radical sites like grist.org, thinkprogress, Skeptical Science and more as the "authorities" and bible on G.W.? That kinda' destroys your argument completely...

Here's another non, scientific, left-wing radical source (written by scientists from Scripps Institution of Oceanography, San Diego and Environmental Systems Science Centre, University of Reading) which says the same thing. Go ahead and read it, it's only 34 pages not counting references: http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~jnorris/reprints/02_Norris_and_Slingo.pdf

69

tatupu70 2015 Oct 12, 12:14pm

Then why are you libbies always quoting left-wing radical sites like grist.org, thinkprogress, Skeptical Science and more as the "authorities" and bible on G.W.? That kinda' destroys your argument completely...

Uh, we're not. I usually see NASA data, NOAA data, and peer reviewed papers on here.