• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judith Curry's Victory

bubbabgone said:
Ah ... you've recognized yourself as someone who doesn't know what's going on.
A very good first step toward recovery.

Okay.
I can teach you.
But I need to know what steps you've already taken to research the matter on your own.
Click to expand...

In other words, you know virtually nothing about the issue besides your wingnut climategate fantasies.
 
Threegoofs said:
In other words, you know virtually nothing about the issue besides your wingnut climategate fantasies.
Click to expand...

I want to supplement what you already know from the research you've already done.
So what research have you done?
 
bubbabgone said:
I want to supplement what you already know from the research you've already done.
So what research have you done?
Click to expand...

My research has been primarily in the arena of clinical medicine, generally on cardiovascular disease and antithrombotic drug candidates.


But since you are preparing to explain the giant librul conspiracy to me, I think I should be informed on your research background.

I'm imagining your research involves reading wingnut blogs and watching Fox News. Amirite?
 
Threegoofs said:
My research has been primarily in the arena of clinical medicine, generally on cardiovascular disease and antithrombotic drug candidates.


But since you are preparing to explain the giant librul conspiracy to me, I think I should be informed on your research background.

I'm imagining your research involves reading wingnut blogs and watching Fox News. Amirite?
Click to expand...

Oh. Sounds impressive.
But you could've just said that you don't know anything about the subject actually being discussed.
 
bubbabgone said:
From what we've seen from some on DP, it looks like they just don't know what the hell is going on and aren't very interested in learning.
Click to expand...

They have faith in their dogma, and their faith will not be broken.
 
Threegoofs said:
Please, describe this gigantic worldwide conspiracy in detail to us.

I love to learn.
Click to expand...

You've used it several times now without contributing anything to the discussion.

Is 'worldwide conspiracy' the newest talking point assigned to the AGW religionists to use to derail discussions on this topic? I would be really careful with that one if I were you.
 
AlbqOwl said:
You've used it several times now without contributing anything to the discussion.

Is 'worldwide conspiracy' the newest talking point assigned to the AGW religionists to use to derail discussions on this topic? I would be really careful with that one if I were you.
Click to expand...

Bingo. Now THAT would be a great sig line for him. "Nothing to contribute on the topic but not too shy to talk about it"
You don't run across too many people that sure of something they can't begin to discuss.
 
AlbqOwl said:
You've used it several times now without contributing anything to the discussion.

Is 'worldwide conspiracy' the newest talking point assigned to the AGW religionists to use to derail discussions on this topic? I would be really careful with that one if I were you.
Click to expand...

The IGNORE option is available. Maybe people ignored will get the point?
 
Lord of Planar said:
The IGNORE option is available. Maybe people ignored will get the point?
Click to expand...

Usually I do when it gets just too stupid to respond. But sometimes they make it soooooo easy, I just can't resist. :)
 
AlbqOwl said:
Usually I do when it gets just too stupid to respond. But sometimes they make it soooooo easy, I just can't resist. :)
Click to expand...

I know what you mean. But I have a hard time controlling myself from responding to idiots sometimes.
 
AlbqOwl said:
You've used it several times now without contributing anything to the discussion.

Is 'worldwide conspiracy' the newest talking point assigned to the AGW religionists to use to derail discussions on this topic? I would be really careful with that one if I were you.
Click to expand...

It's a quite pointed phrase.

It directly highlights the absurdity of the poster's position.

It shouldn't be that hard to understand.
 
Threegoofs said:
My research has been primarily in the arena of clinical medicine, generally on cardiovascular disease and antithrombotic drug candidates.
...
Click to expand...

Threegoofs said:
Guess I was right about your 'research' sources, huh?
Click to expand...

Okay, so you're weak on Climate Change threads, but if there's ever a cardiovascular disease and antithrombotic drug thread ...

giphy.gif
 
Threegoofs said:
Please, describe this gigantic worldwide conspiracy in detail to us.

I love to learn.
Click to expand...

It's been brilliantly and famously described by me.
Academia leans massively far left.

The sub-set of climate science is even further left.

The idea that this research is being done by disinterested analysts who jut go where the data takes them reflects either denial, naivete , or ( most likely) liberal arrogance.
 
KLATTU said:
It's been brilliantly and famously described by me.
Academia leans massively far left.

The sub-set of climate science is even further left.

The idea that this research is being done by disinterested analysts who jut go where the data takes them reflects either denial, naivete , or ( most likely) liberal arrogance.
Click to expand...

Described to you by.... Sean Hannity?
 
KLATTU said:
It's been brilliantly and famously described by me.
Academia leans massively far left.

The sub-set of climate science is even further left.

The idea that this research is being done by disinterested analysts who jut go where the data takes them reflects either denial, naivete , or ( most likely) liberal arrogance.
Click to expand...
I suspect it is a little more subtle than simply more liberals, (which there are)!
They teach graduate classes in how to write a grant proposal to maximize your chances in winning the grant.
Part of this, is writing what you think the reviewers want to hear, based on the wording of the RFP, as well as background on the reviewers (if possible).
Almost all research finds that more research is needed to improve understanding, a sort of self fulfilling prophesy.
If the RPP is for example to find evidence to adaptation to abrupt climate change.
https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=1144423&HistoricalAwards=false
One should sure find the abrupt climate change the adaptations would be responding to!
 
Threegoofs said:
Described to you by.... Sean Hannity?
Click to expand...

No.Neil Gross.
Why Are Professors Liberal and Why Do Conservatives Care? ? Neil Gross | Harvard University Press
"Academia employs a higher percentage of liberals than nearly any other profession.

But he's only stating something any person with 3 functioning brain cells already knew.

LOL

BTW- I have another newsflash.


"Study after study has shown that the mainstream media leans left, and that, as economists Tim Groseclose and Jeff Milyo have written, "an almost overwhelming fraction of journalists are liberal."

Conservatives are right: The news media is very liberal | Fortune.com
 
longview said:
I suspect it is a little more subtle than simply more liberals, (which there are)!
They teach graduate classes in how to write a grant proposal to maximize your chances in winning the grant.
Part of this, is writing what you think the reviewers want to hear, based on the wording of the RFP, as well as background on the reviewers (if possible).
Almost all research finds that more research is needed to improve understanding, a sort of self fulfilling prophesy.
If the RPP is for example to find evidence to adaptation to abrupt climate change.
https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=1144423&HistoricalAwards=false
One should sure find the abrupt climate change the adaptations would be responding to!
Click to expand...

And the sad fact is that the great lion's share, or maybe all, grant monies, mostly controlled by the government and climate activist groups go ONLY to those scientists or groups who will return a verdict of anthropomorphic global warming as a problem so serious that government must intervene. And it is pretty much ONLY those scientists who will at least consent to such a verdict who are hired in those scientific groups to share in the grant money. That way they can claim a huge consensus among scientists.

From where I sit it has been the most corrupting influence on science in my lifetime.

It could be interesting if our new EPA director, once confirmed, decides to curtail some of the $20+ billion budgeted for climate change research and more especially if the EPA spreads some of it around to groups who who will render more scientifically sound verdicts.
 
AlbqOwl said:
And the sad fact is that the great lion's share, or maybe all, grant monies, mostly controlled by the government and climate activist groups go ONLY to those scientists or groups who will return a verdict of anthropomorphic global warming as a problem so serious that government must intervene. And it is pretty much ONLY those scientists who will at least consent to such a verdict who are hired in those scientific groups to share in the grant money. That way they can claim a huge consensus among scientists.

From where I sit it has been the most corrupting influence on science in my lifetime.

It could be interesting if our new EPA director, once confirmed, decides to curtail some of the $20+ billion budgeted for climate change research and more especially if the EPA spreads some of it around to groups who who will render more scientifically sound verdicts.
Click to expand...
I think it would be helpful to simply evaluate weather AGW is an actual threat.
Added CO2 will likely cause some warming, can we test how much without assuming it is bad and will kill us all!
 
longview said:
I think it would be helpful to simply evaluate weather AGW is an actual threat.
Added CO2 will likely cause some warming, can we test how much without assuming it is bad and will kill us all!
Click to expand...

I would be happy with groups who would do honest research without a preconceived agenda of what conclusion they intend to reach. If they conclude that we are putting enough CO2 into the atmosphere to put us at risk, then well and good. We should do something about it seriously instead of the stupid carbon trading stuff that does nothing for the CO2 levels but is simply a means of government taking more power and redistributing wealth to where government wants it to go.

But if they come up with a conclusion that there is no evidence that human generated CO2 is a significant problem, then well and good too. We can all return to business as normal and use the products we want to use without excessive government regulation and taxes hanging over our heads.
 
Last edited:
AlbqOwl said:
I would be happy with groups who would do honest research without a preconceived agenda of what conclusion they intend to reach.
Click to expand...
I suspect asking for unbiased research, is a bridge too far, for many of the current crop of climate alarmist.
I just cannot see Michael Mann saying "perhaps I was mistaken"!
 
longview said:
I suspect asking for unbiased research, is a bridge too far, for many of the current crop of climate alarmist.
I just cannot see Michael Mann saying "perhaps I was mistaken"!
Click to expand...

But it would sure be refreshing if serious scientists were no longer muzzled or left out of the equation and could step forward boldly and say Michael Mann is in error and here is why.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom