those are groups that support climate research, unlike oil companies which have agendas and money to be made.

5/2/2006 12:14:58 AM

How much money has greenpeace made by scaring the public with environmental disaster?

How much money have research institutions made by scaring government officials with environmental disaster and proclaiming "This problem will be disasterous and must be studied further and we need more money to do so!"

Or do you seriously think all these organizations would get equal amounts of money by proclaiming the "environment stable and not worthy of future study"?

5/2/2006 12:57:55 AM

In your world, everthing that matters is money. In your world, money drives everything. This is the mind of republican.

By your logic, AIDS doesnt exist becuase all those researchers trying to cure it are just trying to cash in on those huge research scientist paychecks.

I mean, after all, most scientists become scientists to profit off of phantom problems, unlike oil company executives who are in it for the hydrocarbons.



[Edited on May 2, 2006 at 1:15 AM. Reason : k, you lose.]

5/2/2006 1:11:39 AM

Quote :

"In your world, everthing that matters is money. In your world, money drives everything. This is the mind of republican. "

I tremble to think what drives things in your world. Pixie Dust and Halucinagens?

The AIDS statements are truely rediculous. Do you seriously believe there is no money to be made selling cures/treatments to people that have AIDS? We don't do research because we feel like it, we do it because we expect to get something out of it. In this case, the government expects to find out how bad the coming appocolypse is going to be. If it turns out that there isn't going to be one then the money will dry up, all your researchers will have to compete for other work.

[Edited on May 2, 2006 at 1:33 AM. Reason : .,.]

5/2/2006 1:32:28 AM

Quote :

"all your researchers will have to compete for other work. "

so climate researchers continue to fabricate their findings so that they can continue to cash in on this money train that is a scientist's salary?

and you believe that?

5/2/2006 1:36:21 AM

Well, yes and no.

No in that they don't really have to fabricate anything. The data is so subjective that you could proclaim "my models predict the planet to warm 30 degrees C by 2100" and not be laughed at. Your model obviously does predict this, you aren't fabricating anything, and demonstrating that you stacked the variables in your model is too damn difficult to warrant refutation. Either way, most atmosperic effects are not sufficiently understood to model in the first place, so monkeying with these effects in your computer model is beyond reproach. No one could ever prove you wrong, at best they could proclaim your "guess" was influenced by your desired result. Again, something they could never prove.

Yes in that a scientist working on a grant gets paid hansomely, six figure salaries oftentimes, yet next to nothing once the grant runs out. As such, even scientists currently working under a grant tend to spend an inordinant amount of time working towards the next grant. A real boon to climatologists because new data is always coming in, which they can then re-run on their same old model and continue to get paid.

Nevermind the fun of it all. It is more fun, as a researcher, to have a mathematical model that predicts a coming disaster than one that predicts business as usual. As such, when you are getting started you may hope that this is the result. As most variables in your mathematical model are largely arbitrary guesses, it wouldn't take much self delusion to tend your model in the direction you preferred at the outset, while at the same time maintaining a concious belief you did your work without bias.

5/2/2006 2:09:38 AM

And what about the scientific community that reviews all work done by the climatologists? They have absolutely no bias, even by your definition of bias.

5/2/2006 2:15:51 AM

Dude, LoneSnark is insane. Like, no use arguing with that fool. These aren't even his ideas; he has just memorized Economics texts. He has an idea of how the economy theoretically works, and everything else must fit into that dynamic, regardless of how absurd things get. The only form of independent thought that exists in his ideal world involves people trying to discover inventive, creative, and innovative.........ways to make money.

In other words, if the market had a dick, LoneSnark would suck it.

5/2/2006 2:36:57 AM

As HockeyRoman:

Quote :

"How much money have greenpeace oil companies made by (the government) scaring the public with environmental Middle Eastern disaster? How much money have research institutions oil executives made by scaring government officials the market with environmental Middle Eastern disaster and proclaiming "This problem will be disasterous and must be studied capialized on further and we need more money hype to do so!" Or do you seriously think all these organizations would get equal amounts of money by proclaiming the "environment oil market stable and not worthy of future study over speculation"?"

How about now?



[Edited on May 2, 2006 at 7:52 AM. Reason : .]

5/2/2006 7:51:22 AM

Quote :

"And what about the scientific community that reviews all work done by the climatologists? They have absolutely no bias, even by your definition of bias."

Dude, your faith in the scientific community is heartenning. But like I said before, if you are 100% correct and the peer reviewers are without bias (a miracle in itself) all they can conclude is that "yes, your computer model does predict 30 degrees warming by 2100. No, we do not sufficiently understand the climate system to question the variables chosen in your simulator." The end. What can they do? They can't prove the variables were stacked. It would require someone with a bias against global warming to make such an accusation since it cannot be backed up with evidence.

Of course, 10 years on, we have more evidence now. The planet has not been warming cominsurate with the models predictions. This is why most honest estimates for 21st century warming have dropped from as much as 10 degrees to as little as 1 degree.

5/2/2006 9:33:22 AM

Quote :

". No, we do not sufficiently understand the climate system to question the variables chosen in your simulator."

A peer is someone who works in a similar or identical area of research, he or she would be able to question every single detail.

What this about me having faith in the peer review system? Its become the foundation of how research is validated. Nothing is 100% a sure thing. We dont need to be 100 percent sure that something is happening to act, yous simply must act based on the conclusions supported by the most evidence. Like the fact that the earth is rapidly warming.

[Edited on May 2, 2006 at 2:32 PM. Reason : 30,]

5/2/2006 2:30:30 PM

Quote :

"A peer is someone who works in a similar or identical area of research, he or she would be able to question every single detail."

You misunderstand, I didn't say the problem arose because the peer reviewer didn't understand but that no one had sufficient understanding to say one way or the other within reason.

5/2/2006 9:55:07 PM

then there is no problem

5/3/2006 3:37:00 PM