Science 101

[Oddball]

You mean like the creationists and AGW deniers do?

AGW skeptics don't have any hypothesis...They just question those of the cultist scaremongers.

Such a shame that the "question authority" crowd of the '60s and beyond has become the appeal to authority gang of today.

Since we're being told that the majority now believes AGW is overblown, doesn't that make YOU and the other skeptics the "authority"? Can't we question the skeptic/denier "faith" that we can't possibly be doing anything to the climate of something as large as Earth? How is THAT not cultish?!?!

I'm being told nothing....I'm looking at the information that warmist moonbats are peddling and find it sadly lacking.

And I'm not the one here professing my faith in the say-so of a bunch of ivory-tower-dwelling academic elites, you are.

Once again....

 

[Wry Catcher]

Can I gets a $1,000,000 gubmint grant to have a crack team of college professor navel gazers flesh out the implications of both them possibilities?

If you know the right person or people you surely can.

Here's just a tiny sampling of the ways government spends our money:

Without authorization, for instance, the feds spent $19.6 million annually on the International Fund for Ireland. Sounds like a noble cause, but the money went for projects like pony-trekking centers and golf videos.

Congressional budget-cutters spared the $440,000 spent annually to have attendants push buttons on the fully automated Capitol Hill elevators used by Representatives and Senators.

Last year, the National Endowment for the Humanities spent $4.2 million to conduct a nebulous “National Conversation on Pluralism and Identity.” Obviously, talk radio wasn’t considered good enough.

The Pentagon and Central Intelligence Agency channeled some $11 million to psychics who might provide special insights about various foreign threats. This was the disappointing “Stargate” program.

The Department of Education spent $34 million supposedly helping Americans become better shoppers and homemakers. Wasn’t it about time?

The federal government proposed spending $14 million for a new Army Museum, although there already were 47 Army Museums around the country. We helped stop that idea.

Dubious government spending schemes abound since bureaucrats play with other people’s money. For example, the National Institutes of Mental Health (NIMH) spent $70,029 to see if the degu, a diurnal South American rodent, can help us better understand jet lag . . . they spent $77,826 to study “Coping with Change in Czechoslovakia” . . . $100,271 to see if volunteering is good for older people . . . $124,910 to reduce “School Phobia” in children . . . $161,913 to study “Israeli reactions to SCUD Attacks during the Gulf War” . . . and $187,042 to study the quality of life in Hawaii.

Over the years, political wrangling twists the most noble-sounding government programs beyond recognition. For example, the Social Security Administration’s $25 billion a year Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program. Almost 250,000 children qualify for SSI checks because they can’t participate in “age appropriate activities.” Worse, thousands of prisoners get SSI checks relating to their alleged disabilities—costing taxpayers about $20 million a year.

That’s not all. In Denver, the government reportedly sent $160,000 to recipients at their “official address”—a tavern. A San Francisco addict used his SSI check to buy drugs, which he subsequently sold on the street for a profit. A Van Nuys, California, alcoholic received a $26,000 SSI check, then spent the money on a van and two cars which he subsequently wrecked while driving drunk. Los Angeles SSI recipients reportedly faked mental illness and had a doctor concoct false medical records, so they could pocket $45,000 worth of checks. An estimated 79,000 alcoholics and drug addicts are believed to spend SSI checks—some $360 million annually—on their habits.

Again and again, programs aimed at the poor are captured by well-heeled interest groups. For example, the Commerce Department’s U.S. Travel and Tourism Administration (USTTA) gave away $440,000 in so-called “disaster relief” to Western ski resort operators when there wasn’t much snow.
Most Outrageous Government Waste | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty

So the AGW proponents who receive those cushy grants know how to word the data to keep the myth going and keep all that lovely grant money flowing to them.

Have you ever read an RFP? Have you ever written a grant? Some of what you write is true, there is waste in government and oversight can be sparse.
You point out things which support your political POV, I notice no mention of government largess given to large corportions or specific industries. Is that by design, or simply oversight?

 

[Wry Catcher]

The real science 101

Introduction to the Scientific Method

 

[Foxfyre]

Can I gets a $1,000,000 gubmint grant to have a crack team of college professor navel gazers flesh out the implications of both them possibilities?

If you know the right person or people you surely can.

Here's just a tiny sampling of the ways government spends our money:

Without authorization, for instance, the feds spent $19.6 million annually on the International Fund for Ireland. Sounds like a noble cause, but the money went for projects like pony-trekking centers and golf videos.

Congressional budget-cutters spared the $440,000 spent annually to have attendants push buttons on the fully automated Capitol Hill elevators used by Representatives and Senators.

Last year, the National Endowment for the Humanities spent $4.2 million to conduct a nebulous “National Conversation on Pluralism and Identity.” Obviously, talk radio wasn’t considered good enough.

The Pentagon and Central Intelligence Agency channeled some $11 million to psychics who might provide special insights about various foreign threats. This was the disappointing “Stargate” program.

The Department of Education spent $34 million supposedly helping Americans become better shoppers and homemakers. Wasn’t it about time?

The federal government proposed spending $14 million for a new Army Museum, although there already were 47 Army Museums around the country. We helped stop that idea.

Dubious government spending schemes abound since bureaucrats play with other people’s money. For example, the National Institutes of Mental Health (NIMH) spent $70,029 to see if the degu, a diurnal South American rodent, can help us better understand jet lag . . . they spent $77,826 to study “Coping with Change in Czechoslovakia” . . . $100,271 to see if volunteering is good for older people . . . $124,910 to reduce “School Phobia” in children . . . $161,913 to study “Israeli reactions to SCUD Attacks during the Gulf War” . . . and $187,042 to study the quality of life in Hawaii.

Over the years, political wrangling twists the most noble-sounding government programs beyond recognition. For example, the Social Security Administration’s $25 billion a year Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program. Almost 250,000 children qualify for SSI checks because they can’t participate in “age appropriate activities.” Worse, thousands of prisoners get SSI checks relating to their alleged disabilities—costing taxpayers about $20 million a year.

That’s not all. In Denver, the government reportedly sent $160,000 to recipients at their “official address”—a tavern. A San Francisco addict used his SSI check to buy drugs, which he subsequently sold on the street for a profit. A Van Nuys, California, alcoholic received a $26,000 SSI check, then spent the money on a van and two cars which he subsequently wrecked while driving drunk. Los Angeles SSI recipients reportedly faked mental illness and had a doctor concoct false medical records, so they could pocket $45,000 worth of checks. An estimated 79,000 alcoholics and drug addicts are believed to spend SSI checks—some $360 million annually—on their habits.

Again and again, programs aimed at the poor are captured by well-heeled interest groups. For example, the Commerce Department’s U.S. Travel and Tourism Administration (USTTA) gave away $440,000 in so-called “disaster relief” to Western ski resort operators when there wasn’t much snow.
Most Outrageous Government Waste | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty

So the AGW proponents who receive those cushy grants know how to word the data to keep the myth going and keep all that lovely grant money flowing to them.

Have you ever read an RFP? Have you ever written a grant? Some of what you write is true, there is waste in government and oversight can be sparse.
You point out things which support your political POV, I notice no mention of government largess given to large corportions or specific industries. Is that by design, or simply oversight?

I pointed out what was in the article and linked the rest. You're certainly capable of posting evidence for whatever burr you have under your saddle aren't you? Or do you just use implied red herrings to denigrate evidence of what all Americans should disapprove of and denounce regardless of their ideology or POV?

And yes I have read a LOT of RFP's for a lot of different things. And I have written dozens of grant requests.

Once in Kansas, the large agency I headed, among many other things, ran a preschool which due to circumstances had mostly students of rather low income parents. First three grant requests for funding for preschool for low income kids - rejected. Then we put our heads together and figured out the problem. I submitted the exact same grant request with the exact same wording except that we substituted 'pre-delinquent' for 'low income'. The grant sailed right through and we got what we requested.

Our program actually had merit, but merit really isn't the issue in most of these things. It's who you know and what buttons you push that determines the worth of the request. I would have been ashamed and disgusted with myself to ask for taxpayer funding of those items listed in that article though. So should you.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Or option "C": wet your finger, stick it in the wind and go with the flow of the dough, er, grant money.


Seriously, repeat the experiment under the exact same conditions. If the data refutes it again, reevaluate the methodology, adjust accordingly and try again. . . .

 

[Wry Catcher]

If you know the right person or people you surely can.

Here's just a tiny sampling of the ways government spends our money:



So the AGW proponents who receive those cushy grants know how to word the data to keep the myth going and keep all that lovely grant money flowing to them.

Have you ever read an RFP? Have you ever written a grant? Some of what you write is true, there is waste in government and oversight can be sparse.
You point out things which support your political POV, I notice no mention of government largess given to large corportions or specific industries. Is that by design, or simply oversight?

I pointed out what was in the article and linked the rest. You're certainly capable of posting evidence for whatever burr you have under your saddle aren't you? Or do you just use implied red herrings to denigrate evidence of what all Americans should disapprove of and denounce regardless of their ideology or POV?

And yes I have read a LOT of RFP's for a lot of different things. And I have written dozens of grant requests.

Once in Kansas, the large agency I headed, among many other things, ran a preschool which due to circumstances had mostly students of rather low income parents. First three grant requests for funding for preschool for low income kids - rejected. Then we put our heads together and figured out the problem. I submitted the exact same grant request with the exact same wording except that we substituted 'pre-delinquent' for 'low income'. The grant sailed right through and we got what we requested.

Our program actually had merit, but merit really isn't the issue in most of these things. It's who you know and what buttons you push that determines the worth of the request. I would have been ashamed and disgusted with myself to ask for taxpayer funding of those items listed in that article though. So should you.

At first I was skeptical, then your final paragraph made it clear to me you have worked with and on grants. I too learned in my first successful effort. Later, when I applied for a collaborative grant, funding private and public sector partners on domestic violence issues I added the phrase 'Faith Based' in sentences where I referenced Women's Progam's, 12 Step-programs, The Courts, Victim-Witness Programs, District, Attroney, etc. Every time I referenced our partners I made sure to include 'Faith Based' partners; the GWB administration gave us money to run two programs for years; we did a lot of good for families and children including saving lives.

I also managed the grants until I retired and made sure what we did meet the outcomes, and when we didn't, tweaked programs and shared the results with the Dept. of Justice on both the state and federal level. When one of our partners forged data I confronted the director who fired the staff, returned some funding and wrote a letter of apology.

 

[Foxfyre]

What are you supposed to do when the data does not validate your hypothesis:

a. Get a new hypothesis

b. adjust the data to match you hypothesis?

You mean like the creationists and AGW deniers do?

AGW skeptics don't have any hypothesis...They just question those of the cultist scaremongers.

Such a shame that the "question authority" crowd of the '60s and beyond has become the appeal to authority gang of today.

I take a gentle exception to this. As an AGW skeptic. . . .

I have read what the AGW proponents say and what the skeptical scientists say and so far the skeptical scientists seem to have a better argument.

I have followed some of the money and it almost always winds up in the hands of the AGW proponents which tends to make me wonder if they are doing real science or if they are providing a product for money.

I have studied basic science indicating wide anomalies in climate over the eons in which Planet Earth has existed and I have a hard time believing that we can pluck a couple of hundred years out of all those billions of years and hold them up as a significant trend about anything. Most especially since they can't make their climate models work over the couple of hundred years for which we have data. We should trust them that they can use the same flawed models to predict the future?

I have not seen persuasive evidence that global warming is of sufficient danger to warrant taking away our rights, choices, options, and opportunities. Even if it is, there is so little that we can do to change it, I would prefer to see our resources being channeled to help people adapt to and prosper with climate change rather than trying to control the climate which I think is very unwise for us to do.

I am unwilling to consign whole populations to more generations of crushing poverty by denying them the ability to exploit their natural resources as we have done to achieve prosperity, clean water, clean air, clean soil, and a better quality of life for all. If we have concern for the environment we will stop trying to punish those who already enjoy a clean environment and try to help people become prosperous so that they will also care about a clean environment.

As for climate overall, that has generally done pretty much whatever it wanted for a long time and I don't think that is likely to change.'

And that is my hypothesis and I think it is shared by many, if not most AGW skeptics.

 

[konradv]

AGW skeptics don't have any hypothesis...They just question those of the cultist scaremongers.

Such a shame that the "question authority" crowd of the '60s and beyond has become the appeal to authority gang of today.

Since we're being told that the majority now believes AGW is overblown, doesn't that make YOU and the other skeptics the "authority"? Can't we question the skeptic/denier "faith" that we can't possibly be doing anything to the climate of something as large as Earth? How is THAT not cultish?!?!

I'm being told nothing....I'm looking at the information that warmist moonbats are peddling and find it sadly lacking.

And I'm not the one here professing my faith in the say-so of a bunch of ivory-tower-dwelling academic elites, you are.

Once again....

I'm not professing faith, just looking at the logic and science of the situation. You're the one asking us to take on faith that what we're seeing is normal. What makes you think that, when the properties of GHGs are well known and their concentrations have been increasing? Where the heck do you think the extra trapped energy is going? You never answer those questions. preferring to give us "data" from like-minded blogs. I'm not interested in your cherry-picked info, as long as you continue to be logic-impaired, since it's obviously chosen for political rather than scientific reasons.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

This post bears repeating . . . again and again and again. . . .

I take a gentle exception to this. As an AGW skeptic. . . .

I have read what the AGW proponents say and what the skeptical scientists say and so far the skeptical scientists seem to have a better argument.

I have followed some of the money and it almost always winds up in the hands of the AGW proponents which tends to make me wonder if they are doing real science or if they are providing a product for money.

I have studied basic science indicating wide anomalies in climate over the eons in which Planet Earth has existed and I have a hard time believing that we can pluck a couple of hundred years out of all those billions of years and hold them up as a significant trend about anything. Most especially since they can't make their climate models work over the couple of hundred years for which we have data. We should trust them that they can use the same flawed models to predict the future?

I have not seen persuasive evidence that global warming is of sufficient danger to warrant taking away our rights, choices, options, and opportunities. Even if it is, there is so little that we can do to change it, I would prefer to see our resources being channeled to help people adapt to and prosper with climate change rather than trying to control the climate which I think is very unwise for us to do.

I am unwilling to consign whole populations to more generations of crushing poverty by denying them the ability to exploit their natural resources as we have done to achieve prosperity, clean water, clean air, clean soil, and a better quality of life for all. If we have concern for the environment we will stop trying to punish those who already enjoy a clean environment and try to help people become prosperous so that they will also care about a clean environment.

As for climate overall, that has generally done pretty much whatever it wanted for a long time and I don't think that is likely to change.'

And that is my hypothesis and I think it is shared by many, if not most AGW skeptics.