El Nino This Year May Equal 1997-98 Event

KLATTU said:

Very simple. Those that can-do, those that can't teach. Those that can't teach, go into into Gov't funded research.
IF you know how to make a business run, you do it. If you can't hack it, you get a job teaching economics at an Ivy League school telling people increasing minimum wage will create jobs!! LOL
The academy has always been a bastion of left wing thought. Some disciplines have fewer liberals, but climate science isn't one of them. Enviro do-gooders and all that.

Click to expand...

So very, very true.

Except the "always" part. I think that's something that started developing about 50 years ago, but is prominent now.

KLATTU said:

Very simple. Those that can-do, those that can't teach. Those that can't teach, go into into Gov't funded research.
IF you know how to make a business run, you do it. If you can't hack it, you get a job teaching economics at an Ivy League school telling people increasing minimum wage will create jobs!! LOL
The academy has always been a bastion of left wing thought. Some disciplines have fewer liberals, but climate science isn't one of them. Enviro do-gooders and all that.

Click to expand...

Really? If someone has no desire to run a business but decides to become a scientist instead, if his research shows something that you don't want to believe, you shouldn't believe him because he's not a businessman? Do you not see the problem with that completely-illogical train of thought?

And when it comes to your 'teaching' line, teaching - like military service - is SERVICE. There are people who like SERVING the community and helping the community to grow and prosper...and if you knew anything at all about the experience of senior enlisted, what most of us miss most when we retire is TEACHING, guiding the younger enlisted and helping them to achieve, to prosper...which is why there's a "Troops to Teachers" program. Look it up sometime. So don't give me this crap about "those who can't, teach". That's so much BS, because you'd also have to apply it to the tens of thousands of retired military over the years who became teachers after leaving the military.

Your whole premise is built on not wanting to believe scientists because they're telling you what your side doesn't want to believe, as if you're trying to say, "if someone's liberal, then whatever he or she says MUST be wrong, MUST be false, MUST be bad." And so it gets to the point that no matter how strong the evidence is that we present, you will not believe it no matter what - not because the evidence is insufficient, but only because we are liberal...

...and that's the very definition of prejudice, and as such is no different from any other kind of prejudice, whether religious, ethnic, gender, or racial.

Glen Contrarian said:

But why are "almost all" scientists liberals? Bearing in mind that scientists build their careers on finding out what the facts actually are without respect to whether society wants to accept those facts (e.g. evolution), WHY, then, are almost all scientist liberals? In the modern day, when was the last time that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community - including EVERY national science institution of EVERY developed nation on the planet - agreed on something, yet turned out to be wrong?

Again, you have to ask yourself why it is that scientists - who build their careers on facts, wherever those facts may lead - are almost all liberal.

Oh, and one more thing - don't give me the old "scientists are pressured into agreeing with AGW" line, because if you know anything at all about the scientific community, you know that scientists take great delight when they find something to disprove their fellow scientists - they're much more competitive than most people know.

Click to expand...

Most University assistant professors build their careers on winning grants, that is the path to tenure, bringing external money into the University.
Student fees have many restrictions, that grant funds do not.
The Professors know how to win grants, and that is not submitting proposals that the granting organization does not want to see.
I think you would be hard pressed to find a RFP trying to find the sensitivity of added CO2, it is just not a question they are asking.
It is not that they have a answer, the range is enormous, it is just better not to ask and keep the money coming.

longview said:

Most University assistant professors build their careers on winning grants, that is the path to tenure, bringing external money into the University.
Student fees have many restrictions, that grant funds do not.
The Professors know how to win grants, and that is not submitting proposals that the granting organization does not want to see.
I think you would be hard pressed to find a RFP trying to find the sensitivity of added CO2, it is just not a question they are asking.
It is not that they have a answer, the range is enormous, it is just better not to ask and keep the money coming.

Click to expand...

And you're going on the assumption that those issuing the grants - not only the federal, state, and local governments, but also major corporations - don't ensure any accountability for those grants. Just because a scientist needs to get grant money in order to conduct a study, that does NOT mean that the study is unimportant or will somehow result in inaccurate data or wrong conclusions.

Glen Contrarian said:

And you're going on the assumption that those issuing the grants - not only the federal, state, and local governments, but also major corporations - don't ensure any accountability for those grants. Just because a scientist needs to get grant money in order to conduct a study, that does NOT mean that the study is unimportant or will somehow result in inaccurate data or wrong conclusions.

Click to expand...

Go look at the NSF RFP page, there are plenty of RFPs out there to study the effects of global warming, but I have not seen any that want to validate it.
If you can find one, I would like to read it.
Everyone is tap dancing around the fact that they really do not have a good handle on the sensitivity of CO2.
We have a good idea of the direct response of CO2, but not the ECS.