Words fail me.

[Sean]

Good to see the party of small government is as anti-science as ever.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/0...uire-political-approval-of-scientific-papers/

 

[Busybody]

Good


As it should be



Here is why!


http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/05/the-real-problems-with-psychiatry/275371/

 

[RobDownSouth]

The Rapepublican "big picture": We have the right to our own facts.

 

[Sean]

The Rapepublican "big picture": We have the right to our own facts.

We all know Bush deliberately suppressed scientific evidence about climate change, but this is an organised attempt to impose control over scientific fact. It's scary.

 

[lovetoread]

I snorted at the "words fail me" part of this thread.

 

[trysail]

We all know Bush deliberately suppressed scientific evidence about climate change, but this is an organised attempt to impose control over scientific fact. It's scary.

ROTFLMFAO

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/...emisphere-oceans-warming-during-the-argo-era/

We've now had sixteen (16) years of zero-to-no warming (and, certainly, no statistically significant warming) in the face of rising levels of CO2.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/r...srl-co2/from:1995/normalise/offset:0.65/trend





​

 

[Sean]

I snorted at the "words fail me" part of this thread.

Shush, you!

 

[JohnnySavage]

There are nearly a million elected officials in the US. A nut is bound to slip in here and there, just like in any other country.

 

[Sean]

There are nearly a million elected officials in the US. A nut is bound to slip in here and there, just like in any other country.

Dude, he's on the goddamn science committee.

 

[trysail]

Do let us know when the lights go out in Britain.

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/5/3/shell-shuns-shale.html

 

[JohnnySavage]

Dude, he's on the goddamn science committee.

That doesn't mean he's not a nut. It just means the nuts in his district have been voting for him for a long time.


And in all fairness, Congress can't even vote on a bill to name a Post Office somewhere out in the middle of Nebraska so there's little chance of them doing anything but playing to the locals.

 

[Busybody]

That doesn't mean he's not a nut. It just means the nuts in his district have been voting for him for a long time.


And in all fairness, Congress can't even vote on a bill to name a Post Office somewhere out in the middle of Nebraska so there's little chance of them doing anything but playing to the locals.

he isn't

he is right

read my link

SCIENCE is MADE UP for agenda

 

[JohnnySavage]

he isn't

he is right

read my link

SCIENCE is MADE UP for agenda

Well, it's a whole nother discussion as to why the Federal government is funding research in the first place. It's corporate welfare that the tax payer's shouldn't be funding.

 

[Sean]

Well, it's a whole nother discussion as to why the Federal government is funding research in the first place. It's corporate welfare that the tax payer's shouldn't be funding.

Don't quote the arseholes. Especially where science is concerned.

 

[phrodeau]

ROTFLMFAO

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/...emisphere-oceans-warming-during-the-argo-era/

We've now had sixteen (16) years of zero-to-no warming (and, certainly, no statistically significant warming) in the face of rising levels of CO2.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/r...srl-co2/from:1995/normalise/offset:0.65/trend





​

WHy do you keep posting these graphs after you've been told repeatedly how mendacious they are?

The RSS data only goes back to 1977. The zero point on your graph is the average from 1977 to 2013. The clear majority of the RSS data points are above zero.

When is it ever going to cool back down to normal?

 

[pointless]

it's not so much the anti-science that bugs me though it is definitely worrisome. it's the corporate whoredom and big government conservatism.

 

[pink]

I didn't know words ever failed you, Sean.

 

[run_silent]

Well, it's a whole nother discussion as to why the Federal government is funding research in the first place. It's corporate welfare that the tax payer's shouldn't be funding.

JS I can't deal with the facts so I'll change the subject.

You are bigger than that.

 

[oggbashan]

Well, it's a whole nother discussion as to why the Federal government is funding research in the first place. It's corporate welfare that the tax payer's shouldn't be funding.

But IF the Federal government is funding research, it makes some sense for them to have some say in what that money is spent on.

That assumes that the elected people are capable of assessing the worth of research.

Locally, some of our City Councillors actually have impressive scientific qualifications and have worked or are still working on scientific research. But others when elected have few qualifications at all, nor any understanding of public finances. The new councillors are sent on training courses to help them make reasonable decisions.

I wish that I was convinced that the training was effective.

 

[gravyrug]

But IF the Federal government is funding research, it makes some sense for them to have some say in what that money is spent on.

That assumes that the elected people are capable of assessing the worth of research.

Locally, some of our City Councillors actually have impressive scientific qualifications and have worked or are still working on scientific research. But others when elected have few qualifications at all, nor any understanding of public finances. The new councillors are sent on training courses to help them make reasonable decisions.

I wish that I was convinced that the training was effective.

The ones funding it may have some say in what is researched, but not in the results of said research. If they don't like the results, they should fund a follow up study, not try to suppress the one already done.

 

[LadyVer]

Good to see the party of small government is as anti-science as ever.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/0...uire-political-approval-of-scientific-papers/

This is not a case of a lone nut. It's part of the tea party agenda to control every aspect of American's lives while they preach about the evil of the big bad government.

 

[Peregrinator]

But IF the Federal government is funding research, it makes some sense for them to have some say in what that money is spent on.

That assumes that the elected people are capable of assessing the worth of research.

Locally, some of our City Councillors actually have impressive scientific qualifications and have worked or are still working on scientific research. But others when elected have few qualifications at all, nor any understanding of public finances. The new councillors are sent on training courses to help them make reasonable decisions.

I wish that I was convinced that the training was effective.

I have a relative with serious scientific credentials including a Ph.D in a hard science and many years of research at both government labs and large universities. He now works for the Department of Energy, where his job is to administer research grants and make sure the money is being used for what it was granted for. He has nothing to do with the results unless he's invited to peer review something.

I think that's how it should be.

 

[Peregrinator]

The ones funding it may have some say in what is researched, but not in the results of said research. If they don't like the results, they should fund a follow up study, not try to suppress the one already done.

...or admit that reality doesn't match their desires, and change their world view accordingly.

 

[Sean]

But IF the Federal government is funding research, it makes some sense for them to have some say in what that money is spent on.

That assumes that the elected people are capable of assessing the worth of research.

Locally, some of our City Councillors actually have impressive scientific qualifications and have worked or are still working on scientific research. But others when elected have few qualifications at all, nor any understanding of public finances. The new councillors are sent on training courses to help them make reasonable decisions.

I wish that I was convinced that the training was effective.

The ones funding it may have some say in what is researched, but not in the results of said research. If they don't like the results, they should fund a follow up study, not try to suppress the one already done.

I have a relative with serious scientific credentials including a Ph.D in a hard science and many years of research at both government labs and large universities. He now works for the Department of Energy, where his job is to administer research grants and make sure the money is being used for what it was granted for. He has nothing to do with the results unless he's invited to peer review something.

I think that's how it should be.

Unfortunately, the Bill says this:

must have its results and finding approved by the Committee

 

[thør]

WHy do you keep posting these graphs after you've been told repeatedly how mendacious they are?

The RSS data only goes back to 1977. The zero point on your graph is the average from 1977 to 2013. The clear majority of the RSS data points are above zero.

When is it ever going to cool back down to normal?

A bit off thread topic, but what is "normal"? It can't be a flat line.