Just for fun, happy Sunday

[MLD Woody]

5 minutes ago, Westside Steve said:

PS it's not even anti-science, (personally I am more anti a hole) I just point out that he who pays the piper calls the tune. Was it's the church, the college or the government that funds the college. Your tunnel vision and worship of people in lab coats makes you blind to the fact.

WSS

Oh right, I'm the one with tunnel vision... Hahaha. Not the anti government so anti scientist nonsense. The idea that the "evil, big liberal government" is going around telling all of these scientists to basically not be scientists is laughable. It is 100% anti science to basically say you can't trust anything scientific because the govt might have funded it. 

[htownbrown]

Fresh out of college I worked for TNRCC, now known as TCEQ.  Basically the Texas version of the EPA.  Until you actually work in government research, you really have no clue how it is.  No matter your background.  Really depends on who's running a specific department.  Some were a little more shady than others.

The water departments were legit top notch and I have complete faith in their results.  Air quality was not so much.  Unless you believe airports are an accurate representation of an entire state because that's where 75% of the diffusion tubes were placed that I collected.

But to be fair, I don't think the church can take any credit within science.  No more than you can credit scientist with religious discoveries.  Neither are that great for the other.

[Clevfan4life]

I have close family that has procured funding through NSF and private venture capital. Even through NSF, the process is "laborious"...they don't hand out money. In fact, that person is at this very moment giving a presentation to the NSF...who is trying to set him up with private funding. The system works. The govt works in congruence with private capital. Is it laborious at times? ofc, lots of red tape....but that's for a very good reason. You have to have your sht in order or you get nothing. And if you don't have a patent, forget it. 

[Westside Steve]

4 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

Oh right, I'm the one with tunnel vision... Hahaha. Not the anti government so anti scientist nonsense. The idea that the "evil, big liberal government" is going around telling all of these scientists to basically not be scientists is laughable. It is 100% anti science to basically say you can't trust anything scientific because the govt might have funded it. 

It's all politics Woodrow. And don't pretend the scientist don't know what's expected. Anyway isn't it a little bit hypocritical to expect politicians to manage businesses instead of businessmen? While at the same time demanding Scientists run the government?

WSS

[Clevfan4life]

this is all ofc about climate science. But one guy who's been on Exxon's payroll his entire life says global warming is bogus, that ofc is legit....but scientists from the 70's and 80's when there was ZERO big money behind climate research, who spent their entire formative productive years studying the climate, what they say is meaningless. Hell steve is probably old enough to remember people talking about this in the 50's and 60's. Utter simpleton monkey

[Westside Steve]

12 minutes ago, Clevfan4life said:

this is all ofc about climate science. But one guy who's been on Exxon's payroll his entire life says global warming is bogus, that ofc is legit....but scientists from the 70's and 80's when there was ZERO big money behind climate research, who spent their entire formative productive years studying the climate, what they say is meaningless. Hell steve is probably old enough to remember people talking about this in the 50's and 60's. Utter simpleton monkey

Actually, you dopt, it's the same thing. If Anheuser-Busch hires they research team to study the bad effects of beer on the human body I'm guessing those scientists know what Uncle Bud expect. Same thing as if x exxon hires a team of scientists or the coal industry or the nuclear power corporations, or the Catholic Church  or whoever.

WSS

[Clevfan4life]

8 minutes ago, Westside Steve said:

Actually, you dopt, it's the same thing. If Anheuser-Busch hires they research team to study the bad effects of beer on the human body I'm guessing those scientists know what Uncle Bud expect. Same thing as if x exxon hires a team of scientists or the coal industry or the nuclear power corporations, or the Catholic Church  or whoever.

WSS

how is the same thing when they're weren't getting paid by anybody you shtlord?

[Westside Steve]

4 minutes ago, Clevfan4life said:

how is the same thing when they're weren't getting paid by anybody you shtlord?

You're wasting my time now. He who pays the piper calls the tune. And whether you believe it or not the bulk of scientific research is paid for by the government through tax dollars. Deny it if you want to I really don't give a fuk.

WSS

[Clevfan4life]

im taling about in the 70's and 80's when no one in Washington gave a fuk...it all had to come from miniscule grants. No one was funding climate specific research in any substantial amts to make it worthwhile for someone to dedicate their scientific lives to it. It was only done by dedicated people and usually not as their primary research as they had to do other sht to pay the bills. 

[jbluhm86]

3 hours ago, Westside Steve said:

You're wasting my time now. He who pays the piper calls the tune. And whether you believe it or not the bulk of scientific research is paid for by the government through tax dollars. Deny it if you want to I really don't give a fuk.

WSS

Incorrect:

Most research funding comes from two major sources, corporations (through research and development departments) and government (primarily carried out through universities and specialized government agencies; often known as research councils). Some small amounts of scientific research are carried out (or funded) by charitable foundations, especially in relation to developing cures for diseases such as cancer, malaria and AIDS.

According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), more than 60% of research and development in scientific and technical fields is carried out by industries, and 20% and 10% respectively by universities and government...

...The US spent $456.1 billion for research and development (R&D) in 2013, the most recent year for which such figures are available, according to the National Science Foundation. The private sector accounted for $322.5 billion, or 71%, of total national expenditures, with universities and colleges spending $64.7 billion, or 14%, in second place.

 

 

[Westside Steve]

Most scientific research is funded by government grants (e.g., from the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, etc.), companies doing research and development, and non-profit foundations (e.g., the Breast Cancer ResearchFoundation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, etc.).

[jbluhm86]

6 hours ago, Westside Steve said:

Most scientific research is funded by government grants (e.g., from the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, etc.), companies doing research and development, and non-profit foundations (e.g., the Breast Cancer ResearchFoundation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, etc.).

That is saying most funding either comes from government funding (taxes), for-profit companies, or non-profit organizations. That is a statement on the sources of funding, not the overall proportionality of where said research funds originated from. 

I'm sure that specific fields of study get the bulk of their funding from government grants; I believe social sciences and humanities were mentioned as one of those, but overall, the majority of scientific funding comes from private sector companies and non-profit organizations.

[MLD Woody]

Most points in football come from Touchdowns, Field Goals, or Safeties 

[Westside Steve]

3 hours ago, jbluhm86 said:

That is saying most funding either comes from government funding (taxes), for-profit companies, or non-profit organizations. That is a statement on the sources of funding, not the overall proportionality of where said research funds originated from. 

I'm sure that specific fields of study get the bulk of their funding from government grants; I believe social sciences and humanities were mentioned as one of those, but overall, the majority of scientific funding comes from private sector companies and non-profit organizations.

And none of that negates my point which is that whoever is paying for the research more than likely has an objective in mind. The research team who depends on the funding for their very existence is not only chosen for that purpose but will work harder toward that and to keep the funding alive. I think you might just be arguing for the sake of argument. Here's why. It's one posted a study paid for buy the oil company the downplayed the effects of fossil fuels and or global warming I'm sure that you left e wood disregard that study. Why? Because you don't trust the oil companies. But in the same breath even though you realize that forcing larger companies and countries to pay money to poor countries, you assume the studies paid for by those poor countries we stand to profit are Pez pure as the driven snow.

Here is just one link of may you will get if you do a simple search for who pays for climate change research. 

https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/who-should-pay-climate-change-costs

WSS

[MLD Woody]

The objective in mind is to learn more about the thing they're researching. 

Wait, so all of the studies pointing to man made climate change have been paid for by poor countries?

[Westside Steve]

48 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

The objective in mind is to learn more about the thing they're researching. 

Wait, so all of the studies pointing to man made climate change have been paid for by poor countries?

Not necessarily third world shitholes but certainly Less well-off in the United States of America and or multinational corporations they hope to gouge.

Let's say there was a study that found that the theory of evolution was not nearly as credible as many believe. What's say it was paid for by, oh, Bob Jones University. What would be your opinion of that study? Don't lie.

WSS

[MLD Woody]

20 minutes ago, Westside Steve said:

Not necessarily third world shitholes but certainly Less well-off in the United States of America and or multinational corporations they hope to gouge.

Let's say there was a study that found that the theory of evolution was not nearly as credible as many believe. What's say it was paid for by, oh, Bob Jones University. What would be your opinion of that study? Don't lie.

WSS

Probably biased. And that could he easily confirmed by reading the study. And that study would need to be peer reviewed. So if it was bogus it would be pretty easy to determine. Like an anti man made climate change study by an oil company.

 

Now what climate studies that have been paid for by poor (wait, now just "less well off") countries that you would equate to a study on evolution by a religious university?

[Clevfan4life]

3 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

Most points in football come from Touchdowns, Field Goals, or Safeties 

ahahahahahaahahahahahahagagaagag

omg i love this michigan fukker ajahahaahahahahahaahahahahahaqhqh

[Clevfan4life]

that was proper troll my goodness

[Westside Steve]

37 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

Probably biased. And that could he easily confirmed by reading the study. And that study would need to be peer reviewed. So if it was bogus it would be pretty easy to determine. Like an anti man made climate change study by an oil company.

 

Now what climate studies that have been paid for by poor (wait, now just "less well off") countries that you would equate to a study on evolution by a religious university?

All of them? From anybody who stands to make a few extra bucks? And it is a religion, or at least a cult, to some of you people. You people being the climate change fanatics. Follow the money.

WSS

[Clevfan4life]

something steve needs to understand is that NSF funding gets shuttled to marketable ideas. Your not going to get NSF funding for a research project to eirher prove or disprove man made global warming, for example. Those kinds of studies are usually carried out internally by a govt or by a university that allocates grant money to it.

In most cases dealing with mmgw, theres really not much impetus for a university to bullsht. Abd certainly for the scuentists involved, they're careers are on the line if they're found out to be wholesale boolshitting. Peer review is a ngr that gas absolurely destroyed alot of said boolshitting clowns. Does that mean every single pro or anti mmgw study is clean? ofc not. But to this date, nearly every single legit anti mmgw study has been shown to have left out key variables. But i want to be clear that there is very credible research out there that points to the issue not being cut and dry, that its more complicated and needs more study. Prestigious institutions like max planck have come to that conclusion.

but what they all acknowledge is that climate change IS FUKKING REAL and could tool us all right in the bhole......but recall how every year some shtcunt from fox stands outside in a blizzard and says "wheres this global warming cnt?"....🙄

[MLD Woody]

18 minutes ago, Clevfan4life said:

that was proper troll my goodness

I'm happy someone on here appreciates a proper troll.

 

The best was when I got drunk Ed all riled up because I kept saying he wasn't really an engineer, just a programmer. Lol

[Clevfan4life]

2 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

I'm happy someone on here appreciates a proper troll.

 

The best was when I got drunk Ed all riled up because I kept saying he wasn't really an engineer, just a programmer. Lol

oh u mean jabf?  😁