A Bigger Threat Even Than The Debt Crisis?

[Methinkshe]

It's not the New Year yet. I'll stop when we get there (and it'll be a relief).

If you take a look at my post a little up the page you'll see that I've put in some links to the funding that's been handed out by the UK National Environment Research Council, so we can see what people are actually doing research on. I don't think it's as bad as you claim.

I didn't mean to imply that adding a global warming rider to application for research funds was the ONLY way of getting funds, only that it greatly improves the chances of success.

It was the same a few years ago with smoking. Any research that set out to prove that your cat would get lung cancer of you smoked in the house was more likely to attract funding than a project that set out to prove that smoking didn't harm household pets.

Okay, I'm being facetiouos in terms of my imaginary projects, but the principle is undeniable.

Projects that set out to prove bandwagon science will always attract more funding than than projects that set out to disprove bandwagon science, because when it is government that is awarding funds they have a vested interest in supporting the end result that allows an excuse for ever more taxation.

Oh. If it's the financiers that are in charge then they're bound to **** things up, so we've probably not got anything to worry about.

Lol! I agree with you there!

[Scunnered]

I didn't mean to imply that adding a global warming rider to application for research funds was the ONLY way of getting funds, only that it greatly improves the chances of success.

I think you implied exactly that. In fact, you didn't just imply it, you said it quite explicitly:

if he wanted money to, say, study the habitat of the lesser-spotted garbage-warbler (or whatever) he would describe the project in terms of studying the creature with regard to climate change/global warming. That was the only way to stand any chance of being awarded research funds

It was the same a few years ago with smoking. Any research that set out to prove that your cat would get lung cancer of you smoked in the house was more likely to attract funding than a project that set out to prove that smoking didn't harm household pets.

Okay, I'm being facetiouos in terms of my imaginary projects, but the principle is undeniable.

I'm still not convinced. It's quite interesting to browse through the grants on the NERC website. Like I said, I think there's plenty in there that's not got much relation to climate change.

Projects that set out to prove bandwagon science will always attract more funding than than projects that set out to disprove bandwagon science, because when it is government that is awarding funds they have a vested interest in supporting the end result that allows an excuse for ever more taxation.

Hmmm. I think that's a bit circular, and I'm not sure there's any way that you could either prove or disprove it.

Anyway, I have a strong suspicion that the UK government may start cutting back on research funding over the next few years in order to recoup some of this money that they've been using to bail out the bankers, so this whole argument may become rather academic (haha).

[Methinkshe]

I think you implied exactly that. In fact, you didn't just imply it, you said it quite explicitly:

Without wishing to get into the mechanics of argument, I was speaking of a research scientist who believed that this was the only way to secure funding. I wasn't offering my personal opinion. My personal opinion is that tagging a global warming rider on the end of a research project WILL help to attract funding in the present climate (pun notwithstanding) hence my subsequent post.

I'm still not convinced. It's quite interesting to browse through the grants on the NERC website. Like I said, I think there's plenty in there that's not got much relation to climate change.

Hmmm. I think that's a bit circular, and I'm not sure there's any way that you could either prove or disprove it.

Anyway, I have a strong suspicion that the UK government may start cutting back on research funding over the next few years in order to recoup some of this money that they've been using to bail out the bankers, so this whole argument may become rather academic (haha).

Governments the world over will ALWAYS fund any and every "science" that will deliver the answers that suit their policies.

The only way to avoid this is, imo, for science to once again become the province of the amateur enthusiast; the Newtons, Mendels, etc. As soon as government or business or finance has a finger in the pie, all results become suspect.

[bogbrush]

Exxon, GM, Peabody, Chrysler etc will pay those scientists a lot more than stingey academia if they are prepared to 'read from the correct script'

and that's where you show you don't understand the thing.

Which companies desperately need a new margin? Who dreams of the chance to be able to bring out a new design/model for which they can claim huge premiums for R&D?

Car manufacturers. They LOVE MMGW. It's their last hope.

Edited December 27, 2008 by bogbrush

[LiveinHope]

Were all those on this thread who deny MMGW equally vociferous about denying the HP bubble, or were you in the other camp then? I expect from your knowledge of the field through research, you were right.

[bogbrush]

Were all those on this thread who deny MMGW equally vociferous about denying the HP bubble, or were you in the other camp then? I expect from your knowledge of the field through research, you were right.

I might suggest that belief in the governement line on HPI required acceptance of all sorts of cod statistics and governent encouragement, whereas belief in an impending HPC required some scepticism about other factors and ulterior motives.

I'll leave you to work out which group I think are more likely to believe in MMGW or not.

[roadtoruin]

Governments the world over will ALWAYS fund any and every "science" that will deliver the answers that suit their policies.

The only way to avoid this is, imo, for science to once again become the province of the amateur enthusiast; the Newtons, Mendels, etc. As soon as government or business or finance has a finger in the pie, all results become suspect.

Oh, not the old amateur enthusiast again - that'll really make us competitive...

Forgetting that non-starter because we no longer live in the 18th century, having worked in sciencific research, governmental and private, for 25 years, there are of course some projects that are undertaken to support certain policies, e.g. you might look at epidemiology of a disease to support a vaccination project.

However, I've never myself seen the scientific work itself compromised on a pure research project. Obviously if you don't like the results its quite possible to quietly shelve them, but that's not the same as falsifying. I don't have direct experience of research associated with global warming, though I believe the concern that drives the research to be genuine. It's fairly obvious there's no devious taxation-goal or one-world government conspiracy behind it; the footdragging of the US on climate change shows that.

[Kurt Barlow]

and that's where you show you don't understand the thing.

Which companies desperately need a new margin? Who dreams of the chance to be able to bring out a new design/model for which they can claim huge premiums for R&D?

Car manufacturers. They LOVE MMGW. It's their last hope.

GM and Chrysler don't as they put all their R&D into gas gusslers.

Which is why they is fecked

In comparison to the Jap and European car manufacturers who are somewhat less fecked.

What cracks me up about you Bogbrush is your rhetoric implies you are onto something the rest of us don't know

Hey - want to me to let in on the biggest of biggest scams - well listen here I will enlighten you

You are quite new here so unless you have been lurking for months you won't know that every 1-2 months someone like you starts the same thread along the lines of - Climate change is a tax scam, Global Warming is a myth, or Al Gore is a greater threat to mankind than Hitler, blah blah blah..........

The global warming threads are always started by the denialists - infact Im not aware of any of those of us who accept the science starting a thread to say - its happening we must do something.

[Kurt Barlow]

Oh, not the old amateur enthusiast again - that'll really make us competitive...

Forgetting that non-starter because we no longer live in the 18th century, having worked in sciencific research, governmental and private, for 25 years, there are of course some projects that are undertaken to support certain policies, e.g. you might look at epidemiology of a disease to support a vaccination project.

However, I've never myself seen the scientific work itself compromised on a pure research project. Obviously if you don't like the results its quite possible to quietly shelve them, but that's not the same as falsifying. I don't have direct experience of research associated with global warming, though I believe the concern that drives the research to be genuine. It's fairly obvious there's no devious taxation-goal or one-world government conspiracy behind it; the footdragging of the US on climate change shows that.

I know someone who lead a major project for a large corporation. Results were not as the corporation desired and some pressure was applied to massage results. Said friend refused but agreed to be bound by a confidentiality clause so results were quietly shelved.

[Kurt Barlow]

I think you have broken your New Year's resolution before we've even got there!

The strings are being pulled by the global shadow financial system that has a vested interest in uniting the world around a single cause so as to prepare the way for a one world government.

Edited to add the following link:

The Science of Climate Change: What does it Really Tell Us?

You must be using some real $hit hot search engine to find quality links like that one

[bogbrush]

GM and Chrysler don't as they put all their R&D into gas gusslers.

Which is why they is fecked

In comparison to the Jap and European car manufacturers who are somewhat less fecked.

What cracks me up about you Bogbrush is your rhetoric implies you are onto something the rest of us don't know

Hey - want to me to let in on the biggest of biggest scams - well listen here I will enlighten you

You are quite new here so unless you have been lurking for months you won't know that every 1-2 months someone like you starts the same thread along the lines of - Climate change is a tax scam, Global Warming is a myth, or Al Gore is a greater threat to mankind than Hitler, blah blah blah..........

The global warming threads are always started by the denialists - infact Im not aware of any of those of us who accept the science starting a thread to say - its happening we must do something.

It cracks you up that I haven't been in the club as long? Well, long enough to know that far from being "onto something the rest of us don't know", the majority of individuals posting on this thread share the view it's a load of old balls to tax us.

Al Gore is just a man whose claim to fame is to lose an unloseable election, then find something lucrative to do.

"denialists" - oh, you're such a devotee aren't you?

Anyway, you keep the faith. Carry on believeing in MMGW, the Millenium Bug, Avian Flu Pandemics, whatever else they feed you. I just BET you're in favour of increased spending on asteroid tracking, aren't you? Go on, be honest.

[bogbrush]

I know someone who lead a major project for a large corporation. Results were not as the corporation desired and some pressure was applied to massage results. Said friend refused but agreed to be bound by a confidentiality clause so results were quietly shelved.

Was it the IPCC?

[roadtoruin]

I know someone who lead a major project for a large corporation. Results were not as the corporation desired and some pressure was applied to massage results. Said friend refused but agreed to be bound by a confidentiality clause so results were quietly shelved.

Well, yes,that's exactly how it works (and confidentiality clause = official secrets act). I've seen Govt research results that were the reverse of what was hoped for published in a backwater - but at least they were published, not concealed. In my view the most impartial science is often the Govt sponsored sector, as the commercial imperative is reduced. Most of the really dodgy VI-sponsored science is done in the private sector, mainly in the pharmaceutical industry. I don't know the figures, but I suspect climate research is small beer compared to multinational pharmaceutical research.

[laurejon]

The earth is as we know getting warmer, and that is not disputed.

However what is disputed is Mans involvement and what he can do to stop it.

Taxing people does not stop it, the fossil fuels will still be burnt up, but will go to the highest bidder along with the taxes.

So in reality the Worlds Governments are trying to make a new economy of it, even talking about tax on animals.

I think its that case that this new unelected and mysterious undercover global government are now on their last legs. They have bust the worlds financial system, they have invaded several soveriegn nations trampling on international laws, and now they are trying to sell us Global Warming as a man made event that can only be averted by paying more tax.

Well I think its now getting to the point whereby many people in the world are now sick and tired of listening to this endless broadcast of doomsday predictions, the bogeyman predictions, and the many other predictions that our Governments have been peddling as truth, when in fact they are complete falsehoods.

Their time is now up, and Brown had better get his election declared very soon as I think the public will not wait much longer to get him out. He is said to have studied history, and I hope he is familier as to what the public have done with the worlds tyrants when they refuse to leave office and hold onto power when they are not wanted.

[Kurt Barlow]

It cracks you up that I haven't been in the club as long? Well, long enough to know that far from being "onto something the rest of us don't know", the majority of individuals posting on this thread share the view it's a load of old balls to tax us.

Al Gore is just a man whose claim to fame is to lose an unloseable election, then find something lucrative to do.

"denialists" - oh, you're such a devotee aren't you?

Anyway, you keep the faith. Carry on believeing in MMGW, the Millenium Bug, Avian Flu Pandemics, whatever else they feed you. I just BET you're in favour of increased spending on asteroid tracking, aren't you? Go on, be honest.

Again and again - you lose the scientific arguement so introduce the old standby - Its a tax scam to rob us innit and refer to a few celebs (sincerely or cynically it does not matter) who have jumped on the bandwagon......

Anyway I bet I spend far less time worrying about environmental issues than you do spouting off as above

On the subject of the Millenium bug - I understand it was a very real threat that was dealt with by preventative action - perhaps give that a thought

And one day there will be a flu pandemic as there has been on numerous occasions before.

[Methinkshe]

You must be using some real $hit hot search engine to find quality links like that one

Actually, I didn't use a search engine.

No matter.

However, I will say that I have greater faith in the objectivity of the well-informed, subject-passionate and observationally knowledgeable than in wheeled-before-the-camera so called "experts" who are, after all, no different from the former except that for one reason or another they have found public prominence and a voice.

Let me have the amateur any day. And by amateur, I don't mean uneducated, I mean the man who pursues a passion for its own sake and not to earn a living.

I have listened for too long to so-called science that changes its mind every decade or less.

I've lived through the "scientific" advice re cot death that says babies should be laid to sleep on their backs their fronts their sides, with or without heating, with or without this or that and, do you know what? I don't give a toss what any expert says. I worked out that what my mother's mother's mother passed on was probably quite good advice since one or more were still around to give it!

[roadtoruin]

However, I will say that I have greater faith in the objectivity of the well-informed, subject-passionate and observationally knowledgeable than in wheeled-before-the-camera so called "experts" who are, after all, no different from the former except that for one reason or another they have found public prominence and a voice.

Let me have the amateur any day. And by amateur, I don't mean uneducated, I mean the man who pursues a passion for its own sake and not to earn a living.

Most scientists in research are motivated by the work. It's certainly not the money; if you worked in science you'd know the score - they (e.g. pHd students and post-docs) work thousands of unpaid hours for the love of it (unpaid - oh yes, that's amateur isn't it?) Lots of that early amateur stuff performed by Lord Snooty in his library was embarrassing rubbish by the way, and often uncovered as fraudulent.

I've lived through the "scientific" advice re cot death that says babies should be laid to sleep on their backs their fronts their sides, with or without heating, with or without this or that and, do you know what? I don't give a toss what any expert says. I worked out that what my mother's mother's mother passed on was probably quite good advice since one or more were still around to give it!

So your experience brings the whole foundation of science down? Mother's mothers mother means squat. Babies have always died from cot death. In the past they had more children and just put things like cot-death down to bad luck. Nowadays they try to do something about it. Don't know what your point is really, it's the mothers who gave the toss and drove the research. Male scientists would never have bothered. Fact is that heart monitors have helped families with a history of cot-death to avoid another, something your old mothers best advice definitely wouldn't have been able to do.

[Methinkshe]

Most scientists in research are motivated by the work. It's certainly not the money; if you worked in science you'd know the score - they (e.g. pHd students and post-docs) work thousands of unpaid hours for the love of it (unpaid - oh yes, that's amateur isn't it?) Lots of that early amateur stuff performed by Lord Snooty in his library was embarrassing rubbish by the way, and often uncovered as fraudulent.

So your experience brings the whole foundation of science down? Mother's mothers mother means squat. Babies have always died from cot death. In the past they had more children and just put things like cot-death down to bad luck. Nowadays they try to do something about it. Don't know what your point is really, it's the mothers who gave the toss and drove the research. Male scientists would never have bothered. Fact is that heart monitors have helped families with a history of cot-death to avoid another, something your old mothers best advice definitely wouldn't have been able to do.

I am not a scientist but my daughter-in-law, for instance, is engaged in cutting-edge science re stem cell research. She's utterly lovely and is passionate about her work but has no desire to force upon the world her personal scientific understanding. I disagree with some of the stuff she does but we have incredibly worthwhile and valuable conversations and I totally appreciate her committment. I love to talk to her and discuss her work.

Maybe it is that the individual scientist (like my daughter-in-law) is an incredibly valuable member of society but when some scientists get public recognition they cease to be objective researchers and become hectoring, do-as-I-tell-you, fascists, based on nothing more than a bit of personal reseacrh that by luck got them media recognition. Meanwhile, many other scientists labour away without recognition and perhaps remain the purer for it....

[Scunnered]

You must be using some real $hit hot search engine to find quality links like that one

Did you check out Andrew G. Marshall's other articles?

[laurejon]

40% of the population go to an office that is financed by the Government, I would like to have used the term go to work but that would be a falsehood.

Search the job ads for Climate Change vacancies and you will see why people are so keen to keep the Ponzi Climate Change bandwagon going.

Fortunately UK Plc is now bankrupt, so they can take their amazing theoretical experise overseas and demand high wages in a nation that will listen. Maybe somewhere like Antartica with a one way ticket.

[Guest anorthosite]

I have listened for too long to so-called science that changes its mind every decade or less.

Don't you mean that it re-evaluates on a regular basis as new information comes in?

[Methinkshe]

Don't you mean that it re-evaluates on a regular basis as new information comes in?

Sorry, sir, my mistake.

I just wanted to point out that sometimes the empirical evidence (albeit unpublished and amateurish) transmitted through generations has value - like, it works in spite of current expert opionion.

Actually, it's quite interesting that there is another branch of science that is totally committed to saving the cultural knowledge of, for instance) some threatened rain forest tribe or other - medical knowledge derived from the curative powers of plants, for instance. Yet, apparently, any received wisdom from previous generations in the UK is immmediately suspect and of a "flat-earth" variety.

That's scientists for you!

[Kurt Barlow]

Did you check out Andrew G. Marshall's other articles?

A tin Foil Hatters wet dream!

[Kurt Barlow]

Sorry, sir, my mistake.

I just wanted to point out that sometimes the empirical evidence (albeit unpublished and amateurish) transmitted through generations has value - like, it works in spite of current expert opionion.

Actually, it's quite interesting that there is another branch of science that is totally committed to saving the cultural knowledge of, for instance) some threatened rain forest tribe or other - medical knowledge derived from the curative powers of plants, for instance. Yet, apparently, any received wisdom from previous generations in the UK is immmediately suspect and of a "flat-earth" variety.

That's scientists for you!

Another one of your totally misleading statements.

Often Medicial research has started from a point where a herb, plant or compound has traditionally been used to cure an illness or ailment. Asprin being a good example. What Pharmacological research and development has done is refine and improve what nature has provided (for example how much willow bark would you have to chew to get the asprin equivalent of 2 300mg tablets?).

Also research has sought to establish why a particular 'folk remedy' appears to have beneficial effects. garlic being a noteable example with a number of medicinal qualities.

[ccc]

Another one of your totally misleading statements.

Often Medicial research has started from a point where a herb, plant or compound has traditionally been used to cure an illness or ailment. Asprin being a good example. What Pharmacological research and development has done is refine and improve what nature has provided (for example how much willow bark would you have to chew to get the asprin equivalent of 2 300mg tablets?).

Also research has sought to establish why a particular 'folk remedy' appears to have beneficial effects. garlic being a noteable example with a number of medicinal qualities.

The Pharmaceutical Industry also thrives on being able to pay the millions it requires to gain a license for a drug. Without this license a herbal remedy cannot be described as such and can not have any directions or potential 'effects' on it's packaging. It has to be separate.

Sure the Pharmaceutical Industry does a lot of good work. However much of it is at the expense of potentially cheaper and better natural remedies that simply cannot afford to compete.