CERN Finds “Significant” Cosmic Ray Cloud Effect (1 Viewer)

[bluefrog]

For one, most of the people I know doing climate research (and I'm not in the field, but I AM pretty heavily into R&D/S&T) are looking for grants to continue their research, which may have the motivation you describe ("we just want to understand the science better!") but also comes with strings from the funding sources. So there's a potential conflict of interest b/c of how mainstream the "science" has been broadcast (unlike, say, string theory grants or gene mapping research, etc) and an implicit requirement to "prove" whatever action has been proposed has a scientific basis. "Reduce emissions 60%! Increase gas mileage! Go to electric cars! No 'smoke' allowed to come out of reactors! Sign Kyoto!"

This is a two way street. There are also conflicts of interests from sources of funding specifically to disprove AGW.

No self respecting scientist would take grant money with the stipulation that the research has to prove a certain ideology.

 

[Denny Crane]

This is a two way street. There are also conflicts of interests from sources of funding specifically to disprove AGW.

No self respecting scientist would take grant money with the stipulation that the research has to prove a certain ideology.

They adopt the ideology because they were taught 97% of scientist voted that the truth is ... And because they can see that getting the funding is easier.

Like, if I wanted to start a business and the govt. would give me $1B to do X, I'd do X.

 

[Masbee]

This is a two way street. There are also conflicts of interests from sources of funding specifically to disprove AGW.

No self respecting scientist would take grant money with the stipulation that the research has to prove a certain ideology.

How naive.

Dumb as a rock gangsters know better than to walk into a shop and demand money or we break your legs.

Just talk about the hapless shop owners in the "unprotected" neighborhood nearby who are suffering fires, theft and assaults and how unfortunate that all is. After being established, they don't even have to say that much.

Similarly, with BIG organizations (Govt, Business, etc.) that hold purse strings, they (and they are NOT scientists) effectively control everything. Scientists are free to do their research as they like - ON THEIR OWN DIME. And a dime is about all most have. If they want to do real research they need money. And money almost never comes without strings. The more politically important or charged the research the more strings.

And, the BIG's with the money don't have to say anything. Nothing at all. They are established. They are known. What they want and what they need is known. The scientists that give them that get the most money.

 

[mobes23]

If what you guys are saying about scientists is true, then why did they react so strongly against the Bush administration revising their findings? The guy held the purse strings and wanted them to discount climate change, but scientists generally reacted strongly against it.

And for what it's worth, funding controls what research gets the money, but it generally does not get to magically say what data the research will yield. Some of you guys have a really skewed idea of how scientists actually work. Granted, it's far from a perfect process, but it's not nearly as biased as you propose.

 

[bluefrog]

They adopt the ideology because they were taught 97% of scientist voted that the truth is ... And because they can see that getting the funding is easier.

Like, if I wanted to start a business and the govt. would give me $1B to do X, I'd do X.

Just to be clear: it's OK to question the science of global warming. Scientists are normally skeptics by nature.

The grant proposal process is nothing like you portray.

Usually proposals are reviewed by a board of scientists, many of which aren't even in the same field (the bias must extend to all scientists!). They're job is purely to evaluate your hypothesis and methods to ensure they are scientifically sound. They have no stake in whether your results support or dispute a theory.

 

[barfo]

Similarly, with BIG organizations (Govt, Business, etc.) that hold purse strings, they (and they are NOT scientists) effectively control everything.

Actually, the people who decide which scientists get government funding are indeed scientists. In most cases, government research proposals are scored by a panel of mostly non-governmental scientists. While there is room on the margins for shenanigans by non-scientific administrators, the proposals with good scores from the review panels generally get funded, and those that don't, don't.

Where government can swing things is to fund or defund entire areas of research (stem cells, for example). But that's very different than beating down individual scientists because they don't hew to the company line.

Corporations, of course, are free to fund whomever they want, and to explicitly choose those who support their viewpoint, so bias is more likely in corporate research. There is nevertheless corporate research that is fairly unbiased.

barfo

 

[Masbee]

Actually, the people who decide which scientists get government funding are indeed scientists.
barfo

And who do you suppose, picks which scientists are on those panels?

 

[Denny Crane]

And who do you suppose, picks which scientists are on those panels?

And those scientists want a big reputation for their organization fir some subject, so the next round of grants is easy.

 

[mobes23]

bluefrog's got it right, for what it's worth.

 

[MARIS61]

Follow the money... It made the cover of Time Magazine.

LOL

The 1970's equivalent of People Magazine.

 

[MARIS61]

How naive.

Dumb as a rock gangsters know better than to walk into a shop and demand money or we break your legs.

Just talk about the hapless shop owners in the "unprotected" neighborhood nearby who are suffering fires, theft and assaults and how unfortunate that all is. After being established, they don't even have to say that much.

Similarly, with BIG organizations (Govt, Business, etc.) that hold purse strings, they (and they are NOT scientists) effectively control everything. Scientists are free to do their research as they like - ON THEIR OWN DIME. And a dime is about all most have. If they want to do real research they need money. And money almost never comes without strings. The more politically important or charged the research the more strings.

And, the BIG's with the money don't have to say anything. Nothing at all. They are established. They are known. What they want and what they need is known. The scientists that give them that get the most money.

I'd say you are at least as naive as he since you don't believe in the existence of honest men with courage.

If I ever woke up with as negative and hopeless an outlook as you have, and as low an opinion of my fellow man, I'd just shoot myself.

 

[MARIS61]

Let me guess... those guys at CERN work for the oil industry.

Not too far off.

They work for the nuclear industry.

 

[barfo]

And who do you suppose, picks which scientists are on those panels?

Uh, the Trilateral Commission?

Here's an example of the process (NIH).

barfo

 

[barfo]

And those scientists want a big reputation for their organization fir some subject, so the next round of grants is easy.

I don't even understand what you are trying to insinuate here. What is "their organization"?

barfo

 

[jlprk]

It's funny to read people who are always in favor of whatever will maximize profits for business, posting that scientists are biased in favor of their own economic good.

Compared to businessmen, scientists are saints. To find the truth, I'll trust science over business any day.

So where are your posts about how scentists working for the Defense Dept. are politically slanted and killing people just to earn a paycheck? I thought that you're against such things? Not consistent, are we?

 

[Denny Crane]

I don't even understand what you are trying to insinuate here. What is "their organization"?

barfo

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf
http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2010/04/08/climate-money/

 

[Denny Crane]

Dwight Eisenhower, in his famous "military industrial complex" speech also said:

“Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”

 

[barfo]

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf
http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2010/04/08/climate-money/

Yes, I understand that you think there is a giant conspiracy, probably funded by the ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF GOLD that was under WTC7.

You didn't answer my question, though.

barfo

 

[bluefrog]

Yes, I understand that you think there is a giant conspiracy, probably funded by the ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF GOLD that was under WTC7.

Not only a giant conspiracy but one that cuts across all scientific disciplines since scientists from all fields sit on panels that award funding for climate research. Never mind that there are government sponsored studies that dispute AGW (the scientific merit of theses studies must have been so strong that they overcame the institutional bias).

 

[Denny Crane]

Yes, I understand that you think there is a giant conspiracy, probably funded by the ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF GOLD that was under WTC7.

You didn't answer my question, though.

barfo

I fully answered your strawman question, but you don't like the answer.

 

[barfo]

I fully answered your strawman question, but you don't like the answer.

My strawman question? That's amusing. I was asking what something you typed meant. That's not anywhere near the definition of a strawman.

barfo

 

[bluefrog]

My strawman question? That's amusing. I was asking what something you typed meant. That's not anywhere near the definition of a strawman.

barfo

I think "Big Science" is the "their organization" he's referring to.

From the links Denny provided "Big Science" includes but is not limited to:
NASA
NOAA
NSF
EPA
IPCC
American Meteorological Society
National Center for Atmospheric Research
The UK Meteorological Office
World Wildlife Fund
Woods Hole Research Center
Potsdam Institute
Climate Action Network
America’s National Academy of Science
German Marshall Fund
National Environmental Trust
United Nations Environmental Program
World Meteorological Organization
Pennsylvania State University
Stanford University
University of Chicago
Havard University
Yale University
(basically all universities)
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research
European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasting
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
Brookings Institute
Scripps Oceanographic Institute
ENRON
Lehman Brothers
The China Sustainable Energy Program
The European Climate Foundation
Foundation Center
ClimateWorks
California Environmental Associates
Packard Foundation
The Energy Foundation
William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
The Grousbeck Family Foundation
The Kresge Foundation
The McKnight Foundation
The Mertz Gilmore Foundation
The David and Lucile Packard Foundation
The Pisces Foundation
The Schmidt Family Foundation
The TOSA Foundation
Institute for the Study of the Globe at the University of Paris

 

[barfo]

I think "Big Science" is the "their organization" he's referring to.

From the links Denny provided "Big Science" includes but is not limited to:
NASA
NOAA
NSF
EPA
IPCC
American Meteorological Society
National Center for Atmospheric Research
The UK Meteorological Office
World Wildlife Fund
Woods Hole Research Center
Potsdam Institute
Climate Action Network
America’s National Academy of Science
German Marshall Fund
National Environmental Trust
United Nations Environmental Program
World Meteorological Organization
Pennsylvania State University
Stanford University
University of Chicago
Havard University
Yale University
(basically all universities)
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research
European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasting
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
Brookings Institute
Scripps Oceanographic Institute
ENRON
Lehman Brothers
The China Sustainable Energy Program
The European Climate Foundation
Foundation Center
ClimateWorks
California Environmental Associates
Packard Foundation
The Energy Foundation
William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
The Grousbeck Family Foundation
The Kresge Foundation
The McKnight Foundation
The Mertz Gilmore Foundation
The David and Lucile Packard Foundation
The Pisces Foundation
The Schmidt Family Foundation
The TOSA Foundation
Institute for the Study of the Globe at the University of Paris

Heh. I believe CERN would have to be near the top of any "big science" list.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

There you go. A list of "their organizations."

I did answer your question by providing one example, climateworks.

Like I've posted a few times now, follow the money. Every org on that list determine or assume AGW first, then fund the "science" to "prove" it.

 

[bluefrog]

There you go. A list of "their organizations."

I did answer your question by providing one example, climateworks.

Like I've posted a few times now, follow the money. Every org on that list determine or assume AGW first, then fund the "science" to "prove" it.

There are a few points you need to consider.

- Climate research doesn't exist in it's own little bubble. It is subject to the same scrutiny and rigor as any other scientific discipline.

- AGW is the dominant paradigm for climate research. Similar to plate tectonics with geology, string theory with theoretical physics or evolution with biology it has become the dominant paradigm because of empirical evidence, confirmed by numerous studies. There are competing theories, each supported by various studies, but they are disjointed and don't form cohesive picture of climate like AGW.

- The "follow the money" argument you repeat implies that scientists conduct studies to support AGW simply because it will get them funding. The reality is that it is difficult to get funding for any research that goes against a dominant theory. If you submitted a proposal to disprove the theory of relativity you better have some damn good evidence and a bullet proof experiment to convince a panel of scientists to fund that study.

- You fail to see (or admit) the "follow the money" applies to all climate research. There is a lot of funding (and less competition) from numerous organizations willing to pay for research that disproves AGW. Is this research not invalidated by the conflicts of interest? These scientists too claim more study (and money) are needed to see the big picture.

 

[Denny Crane]

I don't fail to see conflicts of interest among industry funded researchers at all. I just don't see any distinction between the scientific brilliance of one over another. I've specifically asked whether some chemist at Dow Chemical is any less worth listening to about chemistry than some academic.

In fact, I have fewer doubts about the industry guys because their work has to translate into real world results or the company goes under. Where the academic is highly tied to politics of the govt. kind.

That said, I find it ridiculous to think the private sector scientists everywhere would bury their own observations of impending doom of the species. Quite the opposite if you consider GM pre govt. takeover being the world leader in ethanol and alternate fuel vehicles, BP doing a lot of alternative energy initiatives, and so on.

 

[bluefrog]

I don't fail to see conflicts of interest among industry funded researchers at all. I just don't see any distinction between the scientific brilliance of one over another. I've specifically asked whether some chemist at Dow Chemical is any less worth listening to about chemistry than some academic.

In fact, I have fewer doubts about the industry guys because their work has to translate into real world results or the company goes under. Where the academic is highly tied to politics of the govt. kind.

Is this just climate research or do you trust industry over academia in all research?

Is Marlboro sponsored research on the hazards of smoking trustworthy because it has to translate into real world results?

Also, your ignoring the fact that there is government sponsored research that does not support AGW and there's industry sponsored research which supports AGW. Which do we trust?

That said, I find it ridiculous to think the private sector scientists everywhere would bury their own observations of impending doom of the species. Quite the opposite if you consider GM pre govt. takeover being the world leader in ethanol and alternate fuel vehicles, BP doing a lot of alternative energy initiatives, and so on.

Why does AGW have to equal " impending doom of the species"? You're buying into and perpetuating the sensationalism that hurts climate science.

 

[Masbee]

Uh, the Trilateral Commission?

Here's an example of the process (NIH).

barfo

http://truthfrequencynews.com/?p=10555

And here is one perspective on how it has been corrupted.

 

[Masbee]

It's funny to read people who are always in favor of whatever will maximize profits for business, posting that scientists are biased in favor of their own economic good.

Compared to businessmen, scientists are saints. To find the truth, I'll trust science over business any day.

So where are your posts about how scentists working for the Defense Dept. are politically slanted and killing people just to earn a paycheck? I thought that you're against such things? Not consistent, are we?

Money corrupts. That is universal. It is a neverending battle that all organization and instituions must wage.

Money corruption is relative. Paycheck to paycheck working Joe's can be "bought" for far, far less than a captian of business who won't blink an eye unless there is $1 Billion in it for them.

We are not talking about capitalists in this thread. That is another conversation. We are talking about BLIND trust of the institiutions of science.

 

[Denny Crane]

Is this just climate research or do you trust industry over academia in all research?

Is Marlboro sponsored research on the hazards of smoking trustworthy because it has to translate into real world results?

Also, your ignoring the fact that there is government sponsored research that does not support AGW and there's industry sponsored research which supports AGW. Which do we trust?



Why does AGW have to equal " impending doom of the species"? You're buying into and perpetuating the sensationalism that hurts climate science.

I don't blindly trust either type of scientist more than the other, particularly.

I don't exactly consider medicine to be science. It has a major statistical component to it vs the absolutes of science. Like you inject nicotine in 100 rats and 60% get cancer - it doesn't at all mean that the nicotine causes cancer. It means there's a 60% chance it may help induce it.

Science is e=mc^2.

I see the objective of the AGW crowd to make radical changes to society. It's almost entirely politically or philosophically motivated. Almost, because they're abusing science as the selling point for it.

Take the IPCC, for example. The papers are written by scientists, then reviewed and EDITED by politicians. Even if this weren't true, the dire forecasts in it (like Gore's PowerPoint presentation) just aren't happening.

The reliance upon data models to predict even short term reality flies in the face of reason. They don't work for simple things like a budget, the economy, vehicle safety, the weather... The climate is so ridiculously complex that it can't be modeled in any way that should be taken seriously.