Zombie Science

[Abraham3]

Virtually 100% of the world's climate scientists buy that ""man-made" line" so, when you say no one is buying it, we don't buy YOU or your blatant lies.

Now, where did you say climate scientists get their paychecks again?

Oh, yeah! Conservative foundations that were expropriated by lock-steppin' Gore liberals!

What was I thinkin'!!!

Climate scientists generally get their paychecks from the colleges and universities at which they work. Others are employees of the government. In neither case do they receive income from research funding - that is a meme that very accurately identifies deniers with no familiarity whatsoever with research funding. Research grants pay for the conduct of research. It is not some sort of reward paid to scientists for having come to some predetermined conclusion. THAT would be the way things work in pseudo-science organizations like the Heartland Institute, Climate Depot, Climate Audit, CO2 is Green, and other completely bogus "research" institutions set up by funders like the Searle Freedom Trust, the John William Pope Foundation, the Howard Charitable Foundation, the Sarah Scaife Foundation, the Koch Brothers and ExxonMobil.

ps: how well do you think your butterflies are going to hold up to a 2-3C temperature rise, changes in rainfall, seasonal timing and a 1 meter rise in sea level?

 

[bripat9643]

Virtually 100% of the world's climate scientists buy that ""man-made" line" so, when you say no one is buying it, we don't buy YOU or your blatant lies.

Now, where did you say climate scientists get their paychecks again?

Oh, yeah! Conservative foundations that were expropriated by lock-steppin' Gore liberals!

What was I thinkin'!!!

Climate scientists generally get their paychecks from the colleges and universities at which they work. Others are employees of the government. In neither case do they receive income from research funding - that is a meme that very accurately identifies deniers with no familiarity whatsoever with research funding. Research grants pay for the conduct of research. It is not some sort of reward paid to scientists for having come to some predetermined conclusion. THAT would be the way things work in pseudo-science organizations like the Heartland Institute, Climate Depot, Climate Audit, CO2 is Green, and other completely bogus "research" institutions set up by funders like the Searle Freedom Trust, the John William Pope Foundation, the Howard Charitable Foundation, the Sarah Scaife Foundation, the Koch Brothers and ExxonMobil.

ps: how well do you think your butterflies are going to hold up to a 2-3C temperature rise, changes in rainfall, seasonal timing and a 1 meter rise in sea level?

Anyone who has been to college understands that professors in the sciences who don't get research funding are dead ducks - losers. They won't ever get a chance to move to a more prestigious university. If they don't have tenure, they will never get it. They won't ever had grad students working for them. They will lose their jobs.

 

[mamooth]

Awwww, c'mon admiral. An "ice free arctic" was predicted by 2013...! OOooooooops!

So even though I specifically tell you _not_ to bother with your dishonest cherrypicking routine, you still immediately run off and try your dishonest cherrypicking routine. But then, it is all you've got. You need some stupid excuse to keep lying big by claiming everyone predicted no arctic ice, being that you haven't got the guts or honesty to admit you're peddling idiot propaganda on behalf of your cult.

You're a clown, Westwall. And flac is a clown suckup for applauding your clown show. That's why the whole planet is laughing at you, of course. Not with you, at you. The funny part of it all is how you believe you're not clowns.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Now, where did you say climate scientists get their paychecks again?

Oh, yeah! Conservative foundations that were expropriated by lock-steppin' Gore liberals!

What was I thinkin'!!!

Climate scientists generally get their paychecks from the colleges and universities at which they work. Others are employees of the government. In neither case do they receive income from research funding - that is a meme that very accurately identifies deniers with no familiarity whatsoever with research funding. Research grants pay for the conduct of research. It is not some sort of reward paid to scientists for having come to some predetermined conclusion. THAT would be the way things work in pseudo-science organizations like the Heartland Institute, Climate Depot, Climate Audit, CO2 is Green, and other completely bogus "research" institutions set up by funders like the Searle Freedom Trust, the John William Pope Foundation, the Howard Charitable Foundation, the Sarah Scaife Foundation, the Koch Brothers and ExxonMobil.

ps: how well do you think your butterflies are going to hold up to a 2-3C temperature rise, changes in rainfall, seasonal timing and a 1 meter rise in sea level?

Anyone who has been to college understands that professors in the sciences who don't get research funding are dead ducks - losers. They won't ever get a chance to move to a more prestigious university. If they don't have tenure, they will never get it. They won't ever had grad students working for them. They will lose their jobs.

SO you realize that our position has a super power in science depends greatly on the public sector. Your solution is to just kill it.

Real smart.

 

[Abraham3]

Now, where did you say climate scientists get their paychecks again?

Oh, yeah! Conservative foundations that were expropriated by lock-steppin' Gore liberals!

What was I thinkin'!!!

Climate scientists generally get their paychecks from the colleges and universities at which they work. Others are employees of the government. In neither case do they receive income from research funding - that is a meme that very accurately identifies deniers with no familiarity whatsoever with research funding. Research grants pay for the conduct of research. It is not some sort of reward paid to scientists for having come to some predetermined conclusion. THAT would be the way things work in pseudo-science organizations like the Heartland Institute, Climate Depot, Climate Audit, CO2 is Green, and other completely bogus "research" institutions set up by funders like the Searle Freedom Trust, the John William Pope Foundation, the Howard Charitable Foundation, the Sarah Scaife Foundation, the Koch Brothers and ExxonMobil.

ps: how well do you think your butterflies are going to hold up to a 2-3C temperature rise, changes in rainfall, seasonal timing and a 1 meter rise in sea level?

Anyone who has been to college understands that professors in the sciences who don't get research funding are dead ducks - losers. They won't ever get a chance to move to a more prestigious university. If they don't have tenure, they will never get it. They won't ever had grad students working for them. They will lose their jobs.

What's required for a college professor to keep his job and achieve tenure is publication. It is possible to do research and publish without research grants. And I assume that you agree with the point that I've been trying unsuccessfully to get across to a number of people here: that researchers do not get wealthy from research grants; that the money does NOT go into their pockets; that the world's climate scientists are not being driven by greed to falsify their research results.

 

[bripat9643]

Climate scientists generally get their paychecks from the colleges and universities at which they work. Others are employees of the government. In neither case do they receive income from research funding - that is a meme that very accurately identifies deniers with no familiarity whatsoever with research funding. Research grants pay for the conduct of research. It is not some sort of reward paid to scientists for having come to some predetermined conclusion. THAT would be the way things work in pseudo-science organizations like the Heartland Institute, Climate Depot, Climate Audit, CO2 is Green, and other completely bogus "research" institutions set up by funders like the Searle Freedom Trust, the John William Pope Foundation, the Howard Charitable Foundation, the Sarah Scaife Foundation, the Koch Brothers and ExxonMobil.

ps: how well do you think your butterflies are going to hold up to a 2-3C temperature rise, changes in rainfall, seasonal timing and a 1 meter rise in sea level?

Anyone who has been to college understands that professors in the sciences who don't get research funding are dead ducks - losers. They won't ever get a chance to move to a more prestigious university. If they don't have tenure, they will never get it. They won't ever had grad students working for them. They will lose their jobs.

What's required for a college professor to keep his job and achieve tenure is publication. It is possible to do research and publish without research grants. And I assume that you agree with the point that I've been trying unsuccessfully to get across to a number of people here: that researchers do not get wealthy from research grants; that the money does NOT go into their pockets; that the world's climate scientists are not being driven by greed to falsify their research results.

Publishing anything in the physical sciences is impossible without research. Do you imagine professors just sit around in their offices dreaming up facts to publish? How do you do research without equipment and supplies?

Researchers make plenty of money indirectly off of research grants. For one thing, it's a big promotion for their careers. If they didn't bring in research dollars, universities would be laying off professors by the thousands. In addition, professors can receive tens of thousands of dollars in outside income. As an example, consider the record of James Hansen:

Dr. James Hansen?s growing financial scandal, now over a million dollars of outside income | Watts Up With That?

NASA records released to resolve litigation filed by the American Tradition Institute reveal that Dr. James E. Hansen, an astronomer, received approximately $1.6 million in outside, direct cash income in the past five years for work related to — and, according to his benefactors, often expressly for — his public service as a global warming activist within NASA.

This does not include six-figure income over that period in travel expenses to fly around the world to receive money from outside interests. As specifically detailed below, Hansen failed to report tens of thousands of dollars in global travel provided to him by outside parties — including to London, Paris, Rome, Oslo, Tokyo, the Austrian Alps, Bilbao, California, Australia and elsewhere, often business or first-class and also often paying for his wife as well — to receive honoraria to speak about the topic of his taxpayer-funded employment, or get cash awards for his activism and even for his past testimony and other work for NASA.

If it wasn't for the billions government spends on so-called "climate research" thousands of professors would be out of a job. That's the bottom line.

 

[westwall]

Awwww, c'mon admiral. An "ice free arctic" was predicted by 2013...! OOooooooops!

So even though I specifically tell you _not_ to bother with your dishonest cherrypicking routine, you still immediately run off and try your dishonest cherrypicking routine. But then, it is all you've got. You need some stupid excuse to keep lying big by claiming everyone predicted no arctic ice, being that you haven't got the guts or honesty to admit you're peddling idiot propaganda on behalf of your cult.

You're a clown, Westwall. And flac is a clown suckup for applauding your clown show. That's why the whole planet is laughing at you, of course. Not with you, at you. The funny part of it all is how you believe you're not clowns.

No admiral, the clown is you. There are plenty more claims of an ice free arctic out there. As far as cherry picking goes though, you're the champion, you trot out a single study that ran multiple GCM's and ONE of those models showed cooling in the Antarctic (which confuses the hell out of the researchers) and you trot that POS out as proof that the conmen...er climatologists "predicted" cooling in the Antarctic.

Piss off you lying sack of dog crap. Just piss off. You are the most useless parrot on this board.

 

[westwall]

Climate scientists generally get their paychecks from the colleges and universities at which they work. Others are employees of the government. In neither case do they receive income from research funding - that is a meme that very accurately identifies deniers with no familiarity whatsoever with research funding. Research grants pay for the conduct of research. It is not some sort of reward paid to scientists for having come to some predetermined conclusion. THAT would be the way things work in pseudo-science organizations like the Heartland Institute, Climate Depot, Climate Audit, CO2 is Green, and other completely bogus "research" institutions set up by funders like the Searle Freedom Trust, the John William Pope Foundation, the Howard Charitable Foundation, the Sarah Scaife Foundation, the Koch Brothers and ExxonMobil.

ps: how well do you think your butterflies are going to hold up to a 2-3C temperature rise, changes in rainfall, seasonal timing and a 1 meter rise in sea level?

Anyone who has been to college understands that professors in the sciences who don't get research funding are dead ducks - losers. They won't ever get a chance to move to a more prestigious university. If they don't have tenure, they will never get it. They won't ever had grad students working for them. They will lose their jobs.

What's required for a college professor to keep his job and achieve tenure is publication. It is possible to do research and publish without research grants. And I assume that you agree with the point that I've been trying unsuccessfully to get across to a number of people here: that researchers do not get wealthy from research grants; that the money does NOT go into their pockets; that the world's climate scientists are not being driven by greed to falsify their research results.

Please point to a SINGLE research project that has been accomplished without grant money. A single fucking one. I'll be waiting till hell freezes over before you find one... junior.

 

[Meister]

Virtually 100% of the world's climate scientists buy that ""man-made" line" so, when you say no one is buying it, we don't buy YOU or your blatant lies.

No they don't

 

[Meister]

In the time that we have been sailing ships, it has never melted to where it is now. In 2007, the Northwest Passage was open. It has opened up again since then.

NEVER??? Come on roxie. We're not your grandchildren and this isn't a fairytale.

 

[Abraham3]

Virtually 100% of the world's climate scientists buy that ""man-made" line" so, when you say no one is buying it, we don't buy YOU or your blatant lies.

No they don't

That would be another blantant lie.

 

[Meister]

Virtually 100% of the world's climate scientists buy that ""man-made" line" so, when you say no one is buying it, we don't buy YOU or your blatant lies.

No they don't

That would be another blantant lie.

No it isn't.

 

[Abraham3]

Show us data that says something different. And it would be nice if the data was as complete and as a repeated as the data that says 97% believe AGW.

 

[Meister]

Show us data that says something different. And it would be nice if the data was as complete and as a repeated as the data that says 97% believe AGW.

IPCC scientists?

 

[Abraham3]

A little laughing emoticon does not constitute evidence. I trust you have something better.

ps: When you use the term "IPCC scientists" it indicates that you don't have even a basic understanding of how the IPCC works.

 

[Meister]

A little laughing emoticon does not constitute evidence. I trust you have something better.

ps: When you use the term "IPCC scientists" it indicates that you don't have even a basic understanding of how the IPCC works.

when I state "IPCC scientists", it means I understand exactly how the IPCC works.
You deserve no further respect. You have had your ass handed to you time after time on this board by people who are far smarter on this subject than you or I.

 

[percysunshine]

Yes, energy sector stooges refer to it as "Zombie" science.

Don't let your lying eyes, ears and other senses fool ya.

This crazy climate is NOT the result of burning fossil fuels.

"This crazy climate is NOT the result of burning fossil fuels"


Did I read that correctly?

Was I just transported to an alternate quasi-parallel universe where Sallow is a political conservative?

Taze me man ... I can't deal with it.

chuckle

.

 

[Abraham3]

There was something odd going on a few posts back. A post by someone else included a hypertext link (in a graphic) that took you to Sallow's profile. I don't see it now, but at the time I know I thought it made no sense at all. Perhaps someone is doing some impersonation.

 

[Abraham3]

Anyone who has been to college understands that professors in the sciences who don't get research funding are dead ducks - losers. They won't ever get a chance to move to a more prestigious university. If they don't have tenure, they will never get it. They won't ever had grad students working for them. They will lose their jobs.

What's required for a college professor to keep his job and achieve tenure is publication. It is possible to do research and publish without research grants. And I assume that you agree with the point that I've been trying unsuccessfully to get across to a number of people here: that researchers do not get wealthy from research grants; that the money does NOT go into their pockets; that the world's climate scientists are not being driven by greed to falsify their research results.

Publishing anything in the physical sciences is impossible without research. Do you imagine professors just sit around in their offices dreaming up facts to publish? How do you do research without equipment and supplies?

Publishable research can be done these days in a number of fields with nothing more than a computer and an internet connection. Schools fund a significant amount of research out of their own pockets and the government does it with tax dollars.

Still, my primary point is unchallenged. Research grant money is not paid to researchers to stick in their pockets.

Researchers make plenty of money indirectly off of research grants.

That is a mischaracterization. Plenty of researchers lose money in the process as well. We have all heard stories of researchers who mismanage their grants and simply run out of money before accomplishing their research goals or who look for something novel but find only the already known. A researcher might propose a novel method of inquiry only to find that it does not successfully do what he had hoped it would do and the question being investigated remains a question. None of these situations is going to make a scientist more likely to receive future research funding or improve their standing with their employer. The idea that conducting research is some kind of guaranteed cash cow is specious and unsupportable.

For one thing, it's a big promotion for their careers. If they didn't bring in research dollars, universities would be laying off professors by the thousands. In addition, professors can receive tens of thousands of dollars in outside income.

The largest financier of university operations is college football. The second is tuition. Professors are hired and paid to teach students. Schools gain prestige from successful research and having successful and respected researchers on their staff. Such prestige can bring in more research grants but, again, research grants pay for the conduct of research. It is not money anyone is putting directly into their pockets

As an example, consider the record of James Hansen:

Yes, let's

Dr. James Hansen?s growing financial scandal, now over a million dollars of outside income

NASA records released to resolve litigation filed by the American Tradition Institute reveal that Dr. James E. Hansen, an astronomer, received approximately $1.6 million in outside, direct cash income in the past five years for work related to — and, according to his benefactors, often expressly for — his public service as a global warming activist within NASA.

This does not include six-figure income over that period in travel expenses to fly around the world to receive money from outside interests. As specifically detailed below, Hansen failed to report tens of thousands of dollars in global travel provided to him by outside parties — including to London, Paris, Rome, Oslo, Tokyo, the Austrian Alps, Bilbao, California, Australia and elsewhere, often business or first-class and also often paying for his wife as well — to receive honoraria to speak about the topic of his taxpayer-funded employment, or get cash awards for his activism and even for his past testimony and other work for NASA.

No where in there do I see that Hansen was paid ANY of that money in the form of research grants.

If it wasn't for the billions government spends on so-called "climate research" thousands of professors would be out of a job. That's the bottom line.

You've run the horse over with the cart. That research is funded and those climate scientists are hired because our governments and the expert scientists they listen to, have identified a pressing and threatening climate issue in response to which improvements in our knowledge of climate systems and climate functions, via research, are needed. The problem with your point of view is that you've decided - without evidence - that there is no global warming or that humans are not responsible or that it presents to us no threat and thus the money being spent on such research is a waste and - again without evidence - the process must be corrupt.

The conclusions you present you arrived at long before you collected any evidence to support them. I know that because you still have no evidence.

 

[westwall]

What's required for a college professor to keep his job and achieve tenure is publication. It is possible to do research and publish without research grants. And I assume that you agree with the point that I've been trying unsuccessfully to get across to a number of people here: that researchers do not get wealthy from research grants; that the money does NOT go into their pockets; that the world's climate scientists are not being driven by greed to falsify their research results.

Publishing anything in the physical sciences is impossible without research. Do you imagine professors just sit around in their offices dreaming up facts to publish? How do you do research without equipment and supplies?

Publishable research can be done these days in a number of fields with nothing more than a computer and an internet connection. Schools fund a significant amount of research out of their own pockets and the government does it with tax dollars.

Still, my primary point is unchallenged. Research grant money is not paid to researchers to stick in their pockets.



That is a mischaracterization. Plenty of researchers lose money in the process as well. We have all heard stories of researchers who mismanage their grants and simply run out of money before accomplishing their research goals or who look for something novel but find only the already known. A researcher might propose a novel method of inquiry only to find that it does not successfully do what he had hoped it would do and the question being investigated remains a question. None of these situations is going to make a scientist more likely to receive future research funding or improve their standing with their employer. The idea that conducting research is some kind of guaranteed cash cow is specious and unsupportable.



The largest financier of university operations is college football. The second is tuition. Professors are hired and paid to teach students. Schools gain prestige from successful research and having successful and respected researchers on their staff. Such prestige can bring in more research grants but, again, research grants pay for the conduct of research. It is not money anyone is putting directly into their pockets



Yes, let's

Dr. James Hansen?s growing financial scandal, now over a million dollars of outside income

No where in there do I see that Hansen was paid ANY of that money in the form of research grants.

If it wasn't for the billions government spends on so-called "climate research" thousands of professors would be out of a job. That's the bottom line.

You've run the horse over with the cart. That research is funded and those climate scientists are hired because our governments and the expert scientists they listen to, have identified a pressing and threatening climate issue in response to which improvements in our knowledge of climate systems and climate functions, via research, are needed. The problem with your point of view is that you've decided - without evidence - that there is no global warming or that humans are not responsible or that it presents to us no threat and thus the money being spent on such research is a waste and - again without evidence - the process must be corrupt.

The conclusions you present you arrived at long before you collected any evidence to support them. I know that because you still have no evidence.

Actually, the horse cart ran you over about 17 years ago, when the global temp stopped rising even though the CO2 levels continued to rise at a prodigious rate. Sceptics began questioning the theory when that began....and of course when we realized the shoddy type of work that was being put out....that was a major turning point for me. And then, when they resorted to outright falsification of data that sealed their doom.

And it is you that has no evidence. We have LOADS of evidence that your theory is kaput. You have nothing to support it but the same tired old GCM's that have been proven to be worse than flipping a coin.

But keep on keepin on by all means! You're nothing if not entertaining when you melt down.