The smearing of Dr. Soon, climate change denier

[AFTiger 282]

If you can't break the science break the scientist and attack his funding. Dems are definitely ant-science and use politics to further their agenda.

Dem ‘Witch Hunt’ Forces Scientist Out Of Global Warming Research

Posted By Michael Bastasch On 11:22 AM 02/25/2015

An investigation by Democratic lawmakers into the sources of funding for scientists who challenge details of the greater global warming narrative has already forced one scientist to call it quits.

University of Colorado climate scientist Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr. has been targeted by Arizona Democratic Rep. Raul Grijalva, the ranking liberal on the House Natural Resources Committee, for his research challenging the claim that global warming is making weather more extreme.

This investigation, and other attacks, have forced Pielke to stop researching climate issues. He said the “incessant attacks and smears are effective, no doubt, I have already shifted all of my academic work away from climate issues.”

“I am simply not initiating any new research or papers on the topic and I have ring-fenced my slowly diminishing blogging on the subject,” Pielke wrote on his blog.

Pielke is one of seven academics under Grijalva’s investigation for allegedly taking money from the fossil fuels industry in exchange for research. Pielke says he’s never been funded by fossil fuels interests — a fact to which Grijalva already knows since Pielke disclosed as much when he testified before Congress.

Grijalva’s investigation into climate scientists who scrutinize conclusions about man-made global warming comes after the New York Times published a piece critical of Harvard-Smithsonian scientist Wei-hock Soon for not disclosing his funding from energy companies in his research.

“Companies with a direct financial interest in climate and air-quality standards are funding environmental research that influences state and federal regulation and shapes public understanding of climate scientists,” Grijalva wrote to the presidents of seven universities housing supposedly skeptical scientists.

So what’s Pielke’s connection to all of this? Grijalva’s staff wrote that Pielke “has testified numerous times before the U.S. Congress on climate change and its economic impacts.” One “2013 Senate testimony featured the claim, often repeated, that it is ‘incorrect to associate the increasing costs of disasters with the emission of greenhouse gases.’”

Why is Pielke a target? Because White House science czar John Holdren has “highlighted what he believes were serious misstatements by Prof. Pielke,” according to Grijalva’s letter to the University of Colorado.

“Congressman Grijalva doesn’t have any evidence of any wrongdoing on my part, either ethical or legal, because there is none,” Pielke wrote. “He simply disagrees with the substance of my testimony – which is based on peer-reviewed research funded by the US taxpayer, and which also happens to be the consensus of the IPCC (despite Holdren’s incorrect views).”

Holdren said Pielke’s views were “outside the mainstream.” Pielke presented evidence to the Senate that global warming is not causing weather, like hurricanes and floods, to become more frequent or extreme. Holdren, disagreed, and singled out Pielke in a six page statement saying that global warming was making the weather worse.

The main problem with Holdren’s argument is that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — which Holdren himself often defers to — has said the evidence favors Pielke’s argument that weather has not gotten more extreme.

The IPCC says that “[l]ong-term trends in economic disaster losses adjusted for wealth and population increases have not been attributed to climate change, but a role for climate change has not been excluded.”

Pielke’s views have gotten him labelled as a “climate denier” by Grijalva and some in the media. But Pielke does not deny that mankind is causing the world to warm. In fact, Pielke wrote a book calling for a carbon tax and has come out in support of the EPA’s carbon dioxide regulations.

“All of this is public record, so the smears against me must be an intentional effort to delegitimize my academic research,” Pielke wrote.

“When ‘witch hunts’ are deemed legitimate in the context of popular causes, we will have fully turned science into just another arena for the exercise of power politics,” Pielke wrote. “The result is a big loss for both science and politics.”

[homersapien 12,387]

[

The Smearing of Willie Soon

.....So far, global warming Leftists haven’t been able to find any technical flaws in the Science Bulletin paper, which you can download here. So, naturally, they have resorted to smearing its authors.....

.....This is the point I really want to make: the New York Times and other pro-government sources assume that government funding of research is lily-white, while corporate funding is inherently suspect. This is ridiculous. ....

.....That isn’t the real scandal. The real scandal is that the overwhelming majority of money spent on climate research comes from governments. Governments, most notably ours, fund climate hysteria to the tune of billions of dollars per year. Why? Because the whole point of global warming alarmism is to persuade voters to cede more control over Western economies to government. (No one actually cares about CO2 emissions from India or China, which together vastly exceed ours.).....

Yeah, nothing like a objective article on AGW. :-\

This is just another propaganda-pushing denier site.

I particularly like the parallel drawn between government and industry funding of research. That is truly delusional.

Exactly who - other than government - is better suited to provide non-biased funding for scientific research. This idea that all governments world wide are collaborating to increase their control over their own people is just crazy, paranoid anti-government nonsense.

Last I checked, most of the governments who have funded research into this and other areas are democratically elected. Are we really suppose to assume that for-profit industries have more interest in the common good than our elected governments?

"Exactly who - other than government - is better suited to provide non-biased funding for scientific research."

Homes, I am struggling with the fact you could utter such words. Please ponder the statement.

I have to go with 78 on this one. The sources of bias will find their way into government (both sides of government). Look at the deregulation of the financial industry. Leading economists were bought and paid for outside government. They weren't all from the world of academia but, some were. Some were Democrats like Larry Summers, some were Republicans like Alan Greenspan. All were influenced by the money and wound up in the government. Furthermore, all were proven to be cataclysmically wrong yet do not seem to suffer much, if any, loss of credibility.

And who exactly are the agents "paying" for government policy? They are people who will profit from influencing the outcomes.

But I agree, we do have a crisis concerning regulatory policymakers and vested interests, who regularly swap positions among government and private interests.

But that is not the same as paid influence in public scientific agencies such as NOAA, NASA and the NSF (for example). Direct conflicts of interest in research grants would be a major scandal. Furthermore, there's not even a mechanism whereby the results of such grants could be controlled or suppressed. That's not the way grants are written.

Research grants are nothing like regulatory or law-making in the fields of business, finance or politics where paid influence is business as usual. After all politics is politics.

Science is different. It's objective. You can't generate research grants designed to produce certain outcomes. They would not meet the standards of accepted scientific methods.

The proposition that research can be directly influenced to the extent a theory such as AGW could be false because it is based on bad science that was purchased is simply not possible.

And that's true even before you consider the globalized nature of science and what possible motivations a special interest would have to undergo such massive spending.

The proposition of purchased scientific results takes us right back to a globalized scientific hoax, which is absurd on it's face.

[AFTiger 282]

[homersapien 12,387]

If you can't break the science break the scientist and attack his funding. Dems are definitely ant-science and use politics to further their agenda.

Dem ‘Witch Hunt’ Forces Scientist Out Of Global Warming Research

Posted By Michael Bastasch On 11:22 AM 02/25/2015

Who is Michael Bastasch and why should be care?

[homersapien 12,387]

[AFTiger 282]

If you can't break the science break the scientist and attack his funding. Dems are definitely ant-science and use politics to further their agenda.

Dem ‘Witch Hunt’ Forces Scientist Out Of Global Warming Research

Posted By Michael Bastasch On 11:22 AM 02/25/2015

Who is Michael Bastasch and why should be care?

Michael Bastach is the author of the article about a scientist being hounded by an idiot politician. You should care because the tactics used by you and other alarmists are immoral and anti-science

[homersapien 12,387]

If you can't break the science break the scientist and attack his funding. Dems are definitely ant-science and use politics to further their agenda.

Dem ‘Witch Hunt’ Forces Scientist Out Of Global Warming Research

Posted By Michael Bastasch On 11:22 AM 02/25/2015

Who is Michael Bastasch and why should be care?

Michael Bastach is the author of the article about a scientists being hounded by an idiot politician. You should care because the tactics used by you and other alarmists are immoral and ant-science

In other words, he's just another right wing denier with a computer, same as you.

[AUFAN78 4,174]

[

The Smearing of Willie Soon

.....So far, global warming Leftists haven’t been able to find any technical flaws in the Science Bulletin paper, which you can download here. So, naturally, they have resorted to smearing its authors.....

.....This is the point I really want to make: the New York Times and other pro-government sources assume that government funding of research is lily-white, while corporate funding is inherently suspect. This is ridiculous. ....

.....That isn’t the real scandal. The real scandal is that the overwhelming majority of money spent on climate research comes from governments. Governments, most notably ours, fund climate hysteria to the tune of billions of dollars per year. Why? Because the whole point of global warming alarmism is to persuade voters to cede more control over Western economies to government. (No one actually cares about CO2 emissions from India or China, which together vastly exceed ours.).....

Yeah, nothing like a objective article on AGW. :-\

This is just another propaganda-pushing denier site.

I particularly like the parallel drawn between government and industry funding of research. That is truly delusional.

Exactly who - other than government - is better suited to provide non-biased funding for scientific research. This idea that all governments world wide are collaborating to increase their control over their own people is just crazy, paranoid anti-government nonsense.

Last I checked, most of the governments who have funded research into this and other areas are democratically elected. Are we really suppose to assume that for-profit industries have more interest in the common good than our elected governments?

"Exactly who - other than government - is better suited to provide non-biased funding for scientific research."

Homes, I am struggling with the fact you could utter such words. Please ponder the statement.

I have to go with 78 on this one. The sources of bias will find their way into government (both sides of government). Look at the deregulation of the financial industry. Leading economists were bought and paid for outside government. They weren't all from the world of academia but, some were. Some were Democrats like Larry Summers, some were Republicans like Alan Greenspan. All were influenced by the money and wound up in the government. Furthermore, all were proven to be cataclysmically wrong yet do not seem to suffer much, if any, loss of credibility.

And who exactly are the agents "paying" for government policy? They are people who will profit from influencing the outcomes.

But I agree, we do have a crisis concerning regulatory policymakers and vested interests, who regularly swap positions among government and private interests.

But that is not the same as paid influence in public scientific agencies such as NOAA, NASA and the NSF (for example). Direct conflicts of interest in research grants would be a major scandal. Furthermore, there's not even a mechanism whereby the results of such grants could be controlled or suppressed. That's not the way grants are written.

Research grants are nothing like regulatory or law-making in the fields of business, finance or politics where paid influence is business as usual. After all politics is politics.

Science is different. It's objective. You can't generate research grants designed to produce certain outcomes. They would not meet the standards of accepted scientific methods.

The proposition that research can be directly influenced to the extent a theory such as AGW could be false because it is based on bad science that was purchased is simply not possible.

And that's true even before you consider the globalized nature of science and what possible motivations a special interest would have to undergo such massive spending.

The proposition of purchased scientific results takes us right back to a globalized scientific hoax, which is absurd on it's face.

Let me pose a scenario Homes.

Let's assume I was a prime candidate for a government contract and received an invite to a very well known restaurant in D.C. During my dinner with super double top secret agent, it was suggested I could easily get the contract if super double top secret guy desired. At some point in the dinner goals of the contract were discussed. My thoughts on the matter questioned. My answer unsatisfactory. I had to pick up my tab.

Think I got the job?

[homersapien 12,387]

[

The Smearing of Willie Soon

.....So far, global warming Leftists haven’t been able to find any technical flaws in the Science Bulletin paper, which you can download here. So, naturally, they have resorted to smearing its authors.....

.....This is the point I really want to make: the New York Times and other pro-government sources assume that government funding of research is lily-white, while corporate funding is inherently suspect. This is ridiculous. ....

.....That isn’t the real scandal. The real scandal is that the overwhelming majority of money spent on climate research comes from governments. Governments, most notably ours, fund climate hysteria to the tune of billions of dollars per year. Why? Because the whole point of global warming alarmism is to persuade voters to cede more control over Western economies to government. (No one actually cares about CO2 emissions from India or China, which together vastly exceed ours.).....

Yeah, nothing like a objective article on AGW. :-\

This is just another propaganda-pushing denier site.

I particularly like the parallel drawn between government and industry funding of research. That is truly delusional.

Exactly who - other than government - is better suited to provide non-biased funding for scientific research. This idea that all governments world wide are collaborating to increase their control over their own people is just crazy, paranoid anti-government nonsense.

Last I checked, most of the governments who have funded research into this and other areas are democratically elected. Are we really suppose to assume that for-profit industries have more interest in the common good than our elected governments?

"Exactly who - other than government - is better suited to provide non-biased funding for scientific research."

Homes, I am struggling with the fact you could utter such words. Please ponder the statement.

I have to go with 78 on this one. The sources of bias will find their way into government (both sides of government). Look at the deregulation of the financial industry. Leading economists were bought and paid for outside government. They weren't all from the world of academia but, some were. Some were Democrats like Larry Summers, some were Republicans like Alan Greenspan. All were influenced by the money and wound up in the government. Furthermore, all were proven to be cataclysmically wrong yet do not seem to suffer much, if any, loss of credibility.

And who exactly are the agents "paying" for government policy? They are people who will profit from influencing the outcomes.

But I agree, we do have a crisis concerning regulatory policymakers and vested interests, who regularly swap positions among government and private interests.

But that is not the same as paid influence in public scientific agencies such as NOAA, NASA and the NSF (for example). Direct conflicts of interest in research grants would be a major scandal. Furthermore, there's not even a mechanism whereby the results of such grants could be controlled or suppressed. That's not the way grants are written.

Research grants are nothing like regulatory or law-making in the fields of business, finance or politics where paid influence is business as usual. After all politics is politics.

Science is different. It's objective. You can't generate research grants designed to produce certain outcomes. They would not meet the standards of accepted scientific methods.

The proposition that research can be directly influenced to the extent a theory such as AGW could be false because it is based on bad science that was purchased is simply not possible.

And that's true even before you consider the globalized nature of science and what possible motivations a special interest would have to undergo such massive spending.

The proposition of purchased scientific results takes us right back to a globalized scientific hoax, which is absurd on it's face.

Let me pose a scenario Homes.

Let's assume I was a prime candidate for a government contract and received an invite to a very well known restaurant in D.C. During my dinner with super double top secret agent, it was suggested I could easily get the contract if super double top secret guy desired. At some point in the dinner goals of the contract were discussed. My thoughts on the matter questioned. My answer unsatisfactory. I had to pick up my tab.

Think I got the job?

Research grants are not the same as contracts for an end product or service. Research grants simply fund research for which the outcome is unknown.

Furthermore, said research has to conform to scientifically accepted standards in order to be accepted as scientifically valid. And all that does is to get it published so that every other scientist in the field gets to critique it.

So why don't you just stay on topic and answer my question? I've asked you twice.

[AFTiger 282]

If you can't break the science break the scientist and attack his funding. Dems are definitely ant-science and use politics to further their agenda.

Dem ‘Witch Hunt’ Forces Scientist Out Of Global Warming Research

Posted By Michael Bastasch On 11:22 AM 02/25/2015

Who is Michael Bastasch and why should be care?

Michael Bastach is the author of the article about a scientists being hounded by an idiot politician. You should care because the tactics used by you and other alarmists are immoral and anti-science

In other words, he just another right wing denier with a computer, same as you.

So you don't like the writer. what do you think of the political attack on a respected scientist?

[AUFAN78 4,174]

[

The Smearing of Willie Soon

.....So far, global warming Leftists haven’t been able to find any technical flaws in the Science Bulletin paper, which you can download here. So, naturally, they have resorted to smearing its authors.....

.....This is the point I really want to make: the New York Times and other pro-government sources assume that government funding of research is lily-white, while corporate funding is inherently suspect. This is ridiculous. ....

.....That isn’t the real scandal. The real scandal is that the overwhelming majority of money spent on climate research comes from governments. Governments, most notably ours, fund climate hysteria to the tune of billions of dollars per year. Why? Because the whole point of global warming alarmism is to persuade voters to cede more control over Western economies to government. (No one actually cares about CO2 emissions from India or China, which together vastly exceed ours.).....

Yeah, nothing like a objective article on AGW. :-\

This is just another propaganda-pushing denier site.

I particularly like the parallel drawn between government and industry funding of research. That is truly delusional.

Exactly who - other than government - is better suited to provide non-biased funding for scientific research. This idea that all governments world wide are collaborating to increase their control over their own people is just crazy, paranoid anti-government nonsense.

Last I checked, most of the governments who have funded research into this and other areas are democratically elected. Are we really suppose to assume that for-profit industries have more interest in the common good than our elected governments?

"Exactly who - other than government - is better suited to provide non-biased funding for scientific research."

Homes, I am struggling with the fact you could utter such words. Please ponder the statement.

I have to go with 78 on this one. The sources of bias will find their way into government (both sides of government). Look at the deregulation of the financial industry. Leading economists were bought and paid for outside government. They weren't all from the world of academia but, some were. Some were Democrats like Larry Summers, some were Republicans like Alan Greenspan. All were influenced by the money and wound up in the government. Furthermore, all were proven to be cataclysmically wrong yet do not seem to suffer much, if any, loss of credibility.

And who exactly are the agents "paying" for government policy? They are people who will profit from influencing the outcomes.

But I agree, we do have a crisis concerning regulatory policymakers and vested interests, who regularly swap positions among government and private interests.

But that is not the same as paid influence in public scientific agencies such as NOAA, NASA and the NSF (for example). Direct conflicts of interest in research grants would be a major scandal. Furthermore, there's not even a mechanism whereby the results of such grants could be controlled or suppressed. That's not the way grants are written.

Research grants are nothing like regulatory or law-making in the fields of business, finance or politics where paid influence is business as usual. After all politics is politics.

Science is different. It's objective. You can't generate research grants designed to produce certain outcomes. They would not meet the standards of accepted scientific methods.

The proposition that research can be directly influenced to the extent a theory such as AGW could be false because it is based on bad science that was purchased is simply not possible.

And that's true even before you consider the globalized nature of science and what possible motivations a special interest would have to undergo such massive spending.

The proposition of purchased scientific results takes us right back to a globalized scientific hoax, which is absurd on it's face.

Let me pose a scenario Homes.

Let's assume I was a prime candidate for a government contract and received an invite to a very well known restaurant in D.C. During my dinner with super double top secret agent, it was suggested I could easily get the contract if super double top secret guy desired. At some point in the dinner goals of the contract were discussed. My thoughts on the matter questioned. My answer unsatisfactory. I had to pick up my tab.

Think I got the job?

Research grants are not the same as contracts for an end product or service. Research grants simply fund research for which the outcome is unknown.

Furthermore, said research has to conform to scientifically accepted standards in order to be accepted as scientifically valid. And all that does is to get it published so that every other scientist in the field gets to critique it.

So why don't you just stay on topic and answer my question? I've asked you twice.

You missed my point altogether. Maybe I wasn't clear. My argument wasn't "who" could better provide non-biased funding. But rather your assumption that government funding was non-biased. And correct me if I misread, but non-biased funding were your very words initially. That term is not limited to grants.

[Weegle777 78]

So, if you guys question a topic, you label yourselves "free-thinking intellectuals", but if others that are just as educated as yourselves question this one particular topic, which by the way, has just as many highly educated scientists providing evidence against GW as there are providing evidence for it, are labeled by you as "unteachable", "ignorant", or a "denier"?

[AUDub 12,028]

So, if you guys question a topic, you label yourselves "free-thinking intellectuals", but if others that are just as educated as yourselves question this one particular topic, which by the way, has just as many highly educated scientists providing evidence against GW as there are providing evidence for it, are labeled by you as "unteachable", "ignorant", or a "denier"?

[homersapien 12,387]

[

The Smearing of Willie Soon

.....So far, global warming Leftists haven’t been able to find any technical flaws in the Science Bulletin paper, which you can download here. So, naturally, they have resorted to smearing its authors.....

.....This is the point I really want to make: the New York Times and other pro-government sources assume that government funding of research is lily-white, while corporate funding is inherently suspect. This is ridiculous. ....

.....That isn’t the real scandal. The real scandal is that the overwhelming majority of money spent on climate research comes from governments. Governments, most notably ours, fund climate hysteria to the tune of billions of dollars per year. Why? Because the whole point of global warming alarmism is to persuade voters to cede more control over Western economies to government. (No one actually cares about CO2 emissions from India or China, which together vastly exceed ours.).....

Yeah, nothing like a objective article on AGW. :-\

This is just another propaganda-pushing denier site.

I particularly like the parallel drawn between government and industry funding of research. That is truly delusional.

Exactly who - other than government - is better suited to provide non-biased funding for scientific research. This idea that all governments world wide are collaborating to increase their control over their own people is just crazy, paranoid anti-government nonsense.

Last I checked, most of the governments who have funded research into this and other areas are democratically elected. Are we really suppose to assume that for-profit industries have more interest in the common good than our elected governments?

"Exactly who - other than government - is better suited to provide non-biased funding for scientific research."

Homes, I am struggling with the fact you could utter such words. Please ponder the statement.

I have to go with 78 on this one. The sources of bias will find their way into government (both sides of government). Look at the deregulation of the financial industry. Leading economists were bought and paid for outside government. They weren't all from the world of academia but, some were. Some were Democrats like Larry Summers, some were Republicans like Alan Greenspan. All were influenced by the money and wound up in the government. Furthermore, all were proven to be cataclysmically wrong yet do not seem to suffer much, if any, loss of credibility.

And who exactly are the agents "paying" for government policy? They are people who will profit from influencing the outcomes.

But I agree, we do have a crisis concerning regulatory policymakers and vested interests, who regularly swap positions among government and private interests.

But that is not the same as paid influence in public scientific agencies such as NOAA, NASA and the NSF (for example). Direct conflicts of interest in research grants would be a major scandal. Furthermore, there's not even a mechanism whereby the results of such grants could be controlled or suppressed. That's not the way grants are written.

Research grants are nothing like regulatory or law-making in the fields of business, finance or politics where paid influence is business as usual. After all politics is politics.

Science is different. It's objective. You can't generate research grants designed to produce certain outcomes. They would not meet the standards of accepted scientific methods.

The proposition that research can be directly influenced to the extent a theory such as AGW could be false because it is based on bad science that was purchased is simply not possible.

And that's true even before you consider the globalized nature of science and what possible motivations a special interest would have to undergo such massive spending.

The proposition of purchased scientific results takes us right back to a globalized scientific hoax, which is absurd on it's face.

Let me pose a scenario Homes.

Let's assume I was a prime candidate for a government contract and received an invite to a very well known restaurant in D.C. During my dinner with super double top secret agent, it was suggested I could easily get the contract if super double top secret guy desired. At some point in the dinner goals of the contract were discussed. My thoughts on the matter questioned. My answer unsatisfactory. I had to pick up my tab.

Think I got the job?

Research grants are not the same as contracts for an end product or service. Research grants simply fund research for which the outcome is unknown.

Furthermore, said research has to conform to scientifically accepted standards in order to be accepted as scientifically valid. And all that does is to get it published so that every other scientist in the field gets to critique it.

So why don't you just stay on topic and answer my question? I've asked you twice.

You missed my point altogether. Maybe I wasn't clear. My argument wasn't "who" could better provide non-biased funding. But rather your assumption that government funding was non-biased. And correct me if I misread, but non-biased funding were your very words initially. That term is not limited to grants.

I never said government funding was perfect, I said it was unbiased as a general truth. If you assert it is inherently biased you need to make a case.

But the basic question was, who else?

Who - other than a democratic government - is better positioned institutionally to fund basic scientific research on the scale it needs to be funded?

[homersapien 12,387]

So, if you guys question a topic, you label yourselves "free-thinking intellectuals", but if others that are just as educated as yourselves question this one particular topic, which by the way, has just as many highly educated scientists providing evidence against GW as there are providing evidence for it, are labeled by you as "unteachable", "ignorant", or a "denier"?

Not exactly. :-\

I will respond since I will admit to using those - or similar terms - in the past, but in every case, I applied it to a specific proposition. To characterize that as applying it to any and all arguments is disingenuous and not fair.

The rest of you post is simply factually wrong.

[Weegle777 78]

So, if you guys question a topic, you label yourselves "free-thinking intellectuals", but if others that are just as educated as yourselves question this one particular topic, which by the way, has just as many highly educated scientists providing evidence against GW as there are providing evidence for it, are labeled by you as "unteachable", "ignorant", or a "denier"?

You at least could have used the "liar liar pants on fire" addage. The "I don't understand your post" line makes your intelligence come into question.

[AUDub 12,028]

So, if you guys question a topic, you label yourselves "free-thinking intellectuals", but if others that are just as educated as yourselves question this one particular topic, which by the way, has just as many highly educated scientists providing evidence against GW as there are providing evidence for it, are labeled by you as "unteachable", "ignorant", or a "denier"?

You at least could have used the "liar liar pants on fire" addage. The "I don't understand your post" line makes your intelligence come into question.

I can't help that your post is so factually off the wall. Note the part I bolded.

[Weegle777 78]

You only say that because it's a cause you are for.

[Weegle777 78]

I'm guilty of that sometimes as well.

[AUDub 12,028]

You only say that because it's a cause you are for.

Let's see proof that there are "just as many highly educated scientists providing evidence against GW as there are providing evidence for it."

[AUFAN78 4,174]

[

The Smearing of Willie Soon

.....So far, global warming Leftists haven’t been able to find any technical flaws in the Science Bulletin paper, which you can download here. So, naturally, they have resorted to smearing its authors.....

.....This is the point I really want to make: the New York Times and other pro-government sources assume that government funding of research is lily-white, while corporate funding is inherently suspect. This is ridiculous. ....

.....That isn’t the real scandal. The real scandal is that the overwhelming majority of money spent on climate research comes from governments. Governments, most notably ours, fund climate hysteria to the tune of billions of dollars per year. Why? Because the whole point of global warming alarmism is to persuade voters to cede more control over Western economies to government. (No one actually cares about CO2 emissions from India or China, which together vastly exceed ours.).....

Yeah, nothing like a objective article on AGW. :-\

This is just another propaganda-pushing denier site.

I particularly like the parallel drawn between government and industry funding of research. That is truly delusional.

Exactly who - other than government - is better suited to provide non-biased funding for scientific research. This idea that all governments world wide are collaborating to increase their control over their own people is just crazy, paranoid anti-government nonsense.

Last I checked, most of the governments who have funded research into this and other areas are democratically elected. Are we really suppose to assume that for-profit industries have more interest in the common good than our elected governments?

"Exactly who - other than government - is better suited to provide non-biased funding for scientific research."

Homes, I am struggling with the fact you could utter such words. Please ponder the statement.

I have to go with 78 on this one. The sources of bias will find their way into government (both sides of government). Look at the deregulation of the financial industry. Leading economists were bought and paid for outside government. They weren't all from the world of academia but, some were. Some were Democrats like Larry Summers, some were Republicans like Alan Greenspan. All were influenced by the money and wound up in the government. Furthermore, all were proven to be cataclysmically wrong yet do not seem to suffer much, if any, loss of credibility.

And who exactly are the agents "paying" for government policy? They are people who will profit from influencing the outcomes.

But I agree, we do have a crisis concerning regulatory policymakers and vested interests, who regularly swap positions among government and private interests.

But that is not the same as paid influence in public scientific agencies such as NOAA, NASA and the NSF (for example). Direct conflicts of interest in research grants would be a major scandal. Furthermore, there's not even a mechanism whereby the results of such grants could be controlled or suppressed. That's not the way grants are written.

Research grants are nothing like regulatory or law-making in the fields of business, finance or politics where paid influence is business as usual. After all politics is politics.

Science is different. It's objective. You can't generate research grants designed to produce certain outcomes. They would not meet the standards of accepted scientific methods.

The proposition that research can be directly influenced to the extent a theory such as AGW could be false because it is based on bad science that was purchased is simply not possible.

And that's true even before you consider the globalized nature of science and what possible motivations a special interest would have to undergo such massive spending.

The proposition of purchased scientific results takes us right back to a globalized scientific hoax, which is absurd on it's face.

Let me pose a scenario Homes.

Let's assume I was a prime candidate for a government contract and received an invite to a very well known restaurant in D.C. During my dinner with super double top secret agent, it was suggested I could easily get the contract if super double top secret guy desired. At some point in the dinner goals of the contract were discussed. My thoughts on the matter questioned. My answer unsatisfactory. I had to pick up my tab.

Think I got the job?

Research grants are not the same as contracts for an end product or service. Research grants simply fund research for which the outcome is unknown.

Furthermore, said research has to conform to scientifically accepted standards in order to be accepted as scientifically valid. And all that does is to get it published so that every other scientist in the field gets to critique it.

So why don't you just stay on topic and answer my question? I've asked you twice.

You missed my point altogether. Maybe I wasn't clear. My argument wasn't "who" could better provide non-biased funding. But rather your assumption that government funding was non-biased. And correct me if I misread, but non-biased funding were your very words initially. That term is not limited to grants.

I never said government funding was perfect, I said it was unbiased as a general truth. If you assert it is inherently biased you need to make a case. I didn't say inherently biased. My scenario was the case. It happens!

But the basic question was, who else? "Who?" Not my argument.

Who - other than a democratic government - is better positioned institutionally to fund basic scientific research on the scale it needs to be funded? Again, "who" is not my argument.

So, I hope I was clear that I have reason to believe there is bias in government funding. That's all.

[homersapien 12,387]

[

The Smearing of Willie Soon

.....So far, global warming Leftists haven’t been able to find any technical flaws in the Science Bulletin paper, which you can download here. So, naturally, they have resorted to smearing its authors.....

.....This is the point I really want to make: the New York Times and other pro-government sources assume that government funding of research is lily-white, while corporate funding is inherently suspect. This is ridiculous. ....

.....That isn’t the real scandal. The real scandal is that the overwhelming majority of money spent on climate research comes from governments. Governments, most notably ours, fund climate hysteria to the tune of billions of dollars per year. Why? Because the whole point of global warming alarmism is to persuade voters to cede more control over Western economies to government. (No one actually cares about CO2 emissions from India or China, which together vastly exceed ours.).....

Yeah, nothing like a objective article on AGW. :-\

This is just another propaganda-pushing denier site.

I particularly like the parallel drawn between government and industry funding of research. That is truly delusional.

Exactly who - other than government - is better suited to provide non-biased funding for scientific research. This idea that all governments world wide are collaborating to increase their control over their own people is just crazy, paranoid anti-government nonsense.

Last I checked, most of the governments who have funded research into this and other areas are democratically elected. Are we really suppose to assume that for-profit industries have more interest in the common good than our elected governments?

"Exactly who - other than government - is better suited to provide non-biased funding for scientific research."

Homes, I am struggling with the fact you could utter such words. Please ponder the statement.

I have to go with 78 on this one. The sources of bias will find their way into government (both sides of government). Look at the deregulation of the financial industry. Leading economists were bought and paid for outside government. They weren't all from the world of academia but, some were. Some were Democrats like Larry Summers, some were Republicans like Alan Greenspan. All were influenced by the money and wound up in the government. Furthermore, all were proven to be cataclysmically wrong yet do not seem to suffer much, if any, loss of credibility.

And who exactly are the agents "paying" for government policy? They are people who will profit from influencing the outcomes.

But I agree, we do have a crisis concerning regulatory policymakers and vested interests, who regularly swap positions among government and private interests.

But that is not the same as paid influence in public scientific agencies such as NOAA, NASA and the NSF (for example). Direct conflicts of interest in research grants would be a major scandal. Furthermore, there's not even a mechanism whereby the results of such grants could be controlled or suppressed. That's not the way grants are written.

Research grants are nothing like regulatory or law-making in the fields of business, finance or politics where paid influence is business as usual. After all politics is politics.

Science is different. It's objective. You can't generate research grants designed to produce certain outcomes. They would not meet the standards of accepted scientific methods.

The proposition that research can be directly influenced to the extent a theory such as AGW could be false because it is based on bad science that was purchased is simply not possible.

And that's true even before you consider the globalized nature of science and what possible motivations a special interest would have to undergo such massive spending.

The proposition of purchased scientific results takes us right back to a globalized scientific hoax, which is absurd on it's face.

Let me pose a scenario Homes.

Let's assume I was a prime candidate for a government contract and received an invite to a very well known restaurant in D.C. During my dinner with super double top secret agent, it was suggested I could easily get the contract if super double top secret guy desired. At some point in the dinner goals of the contract were discussed. My thoughts on the matter questioned. My answer unsatisfactory. I had to pick up my tab.

Think I got the job?

Research grants are not the same as contracts for an end product or service. Research grants simply fund research for which the outcome is unknown.

Furthermore, said research has to conform to scientifically accepted standards in order to be accepted as scientifically valid. And all that does is to get it published so that every other scientist in the field gets to critique it.

So why don't you just stay on topic and answer my question? I've asked you twice.

You missed my point altogether. Maybe I wasn't clear. My argument wasn't "who" could better provide non-biased funding. But rather your assumption that government funding was non-biased. And correct me if I misread, but non-biased funding were your very words initially. That term is not limited to grants.

I never said government funding was perfect, I said it was unbiased as a general truth. If you assert it is inherently biased you need to make a case. I didn't say inherently biased. My scenario was the case. It happens!

But the basic question was, who else? "Who?" Not my argument.

Who - other than a democratic government - is better positioned institutionally to fund basic scientific research on the scale it needs to be funded? Again, "who" is not my argument.

So, I hope I was clear that I have reason to believe there is bias in government funding. That's all.

Well, it's certainly clear you are evading my question. :-\

[AUFAN78 4,174]

[

The Smearing of Willie Soon

.....So far, global warming Leftists haven’t been able to find any technical flaws in the Science Bulletin paper, which you can download here. So, naturally, they have resorted to smearing its authors.....

.....This is the point I really want to make: the New York Times and other pro-government sources assume that government funding of research is lily-white, while corporate funding is inherently suspect. This is ridiculous. ....

.....That isn’t the real scandal. The real scandal is that the overwhelming majority of money spent on climate research comes from governments. Governments, most notably ours, fund climate hysteria to the tune of billions of dollars per year. Why? Because the whole point of global warming alarmism is to persuade voters to cede more control over Western economies to government. (No one actually cares about CO2 emissions from India or China, which together vastly exceed ours.).....

Yeah, nothing like a objective article on AGW. :-\

This is just another propaganda-pushing denier site.

I particularly like the parallel drawn between government and industry funding of research. That is truly delusional.

Exactly who - other than government - is better suited to provide non-biased funding for scientific research. This idea that all governments world wide are collaborating to increase their control over their own people is just crazy, paranoid anti-government nonsense.

Last I checked, most of the governments who have funded research into this and other areas are democratically elected. Are we really suppose to assume that for-profit industries have more interest in the common good than our elected governments?

"Exactly who - other than government - is better suited to provide non-biased funding for scientific research."am

Homes, I am struggling with the fact you could utter such words. Please ponder the statement.

I have to go with 78 on this one. The sources of bias will find their way into government (both sides of government). Look at the deregulation of the financial industry. Leading economists were bought and paid for outside government. They weren't all from the world of academia but, some were. Some were Democrats like Larry Summers, some were Republicans like Alan Greenspan. All were influenced by the money and wound up in the government. Furthermore, all were proven to be cataclysmically wrong yet do not seem to suffer much, if any, loss of credibility.

And who exactly are the agents "paying" for government policy? They are people who will profit from influencing the outcomes.

But I agree, we do have a crisis concerning regulatory policymakers and vested interests, who regularly swap positions among government and private interests.

But that is not the same as paid influence in public scientific agencies such as NOAA, NASA and the NSF (for example). Direct conflicts of interest in research grants would be a major scandal. Furthermore, there's not even a mechanism whereby the results of such grants could be controlled or suppressed. That's not the way grants are written.

Research grants are nothing like regulatory or law-making in the fields of business, finance or politics where paid influence is business as usual. After all politics is politics.

Science is different. It's objective. You can't generate research grants designed to produce certain outcomes. They would not meet the standards of accepted scientific methods.

The proposition that research can be directly influenced to the extent a theory such as AGW could be false because it is based on bad science that was purchased is simply not possible.

And that's true even before you consider the globalized nature of science and what possible motivations a special interest would have to undergo such massive spending.

The proposition of purchased scientific results takes us right back to a globalized scientific hoax, which is absurd on it's face.

Let me pose a scenario Homes.

Let's assume I was a prime candidate for a government contract and received an invite to a very well known restaurant in D.C. During my dinner with super double top secret agent, it was suggested I could easily get the contract if super double top secret guy desired. At some point in the dinner goals of the contract were discussed. My thoughts on the matter questioned. My answer unsatisfactory. I had to pick up my tab.

Think I got the job?

Research grants are not the same as contracts for an end product or service. Research grants simply fund research for which the outcome is unknown.

Furthermore, said research has to conform to scientifically accepted standards in order to be accepted as scientifically valid. And all that does is to get it published so that every other scientist in the field gets to critique it.

So why don't you just stay on topic and answer my question? I've asked you twice.

You missed my point altogether. Maybe I wasn't clear. My argument wasn't "who" could better provide non-biased funding. But rather your assumption that government funding was non-biased. And correct me if I misread, but non-biased funding were your very words initially. That term is not limited to grants.

I never said government funding was perfect, I said it was unbiased as a general truth. If you assert it is inherently biased you need to make a case. I didn't say inherently biased. My scenario was the case. It happens!

But the basic question was, who else? "Who?" Not my argument.

Who - other than a democratic government - is better positioned institutionally to fund basic scientific research on the scale it needs to be funded? Again, "who" is not my argument.

So, I hope I was clear that I have reason to believe there is bias in government funding. That's all.

Well, it's certainly clear you are evading my question. :-\

Well I've stated multiple times that question of "who" was not my issue. Ask someone that cares.

[Weegle777 78]

You only say that because it's a cause you are for.

:laugh:/>

Let's see proof that there are "just as many highly educated scientists providing evidence against GW as there are providing evidence for it."

You have been provided with tons of articles in this and many other threads in this forum with highly educated scientists who have researched the topic.

And without fail, when that proof is provided, simply because it goes against your beliefs, you regard it as nonsense, and "Oh, THAT particular scientist isn't credible!", or "THAT publication is just another denier journal!".

I'm prepared for the, "I don't understand this post." response.

[AUDub 12,028]

You only say that because it's a cause you are for.

:laugh:/>

Let's see proof that there are "just as many highly educated scientists providing evidence against GW as there are providing evidence for it."

You have been provided with tons of articles in this and many other threads in this forum with highly educated scientists who have researched the topic.

And without fail, when that proof is provided, simply because it goes against your beliefs, you regard it as nonsense, and "Oh, THAT particular scientist isn't credible!", or "THAT publication is just another denier journal!".

I'm prepared for the, "I don't understand this post." response.

So you won't be offering any proof. Duly noted. Have a nice day!