NASA

duncan61 wrote:
I get a fortnightly newsletter from NASA and the latest makes for fun reading.Every extreme weather event was recorded and the claim is NASA can clearly see the human fingerprint on every one.Warming was not mentioned once in any article.The new mantra is emmisions cause climate change directly but if we give NASA 20 billion dollars they can monitor the situation and save us all even though absolutely nothing is done.They are our last hope.

duncan61 wrote:
I get a fortnightly newsletter from NASA and the latest makes for fun reading.Every extreme weather event was recorded and the claim is NASA can clearly see the human fingerprint on every one.Warming was not mentioned once in any article.The new mantra is emmisions cause climate change directly but if we give NASA 20 billion dollars they can monitor the situation and save us all even though absolutely nothing is done.They are our last hope.

IBdaMann wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
I get a fortnightly newsletter from NASA and the latest makes for fun reading.Every extreme weather event was recorded and the claim is NASA can clearly see the human fingerprint on every one.Warming was not mentioned once in any article.The new mantra is emmisions cause climate change directly but if we give NASA 20 billion dollars they can monitor the situation and save us all even though absolutely nothing is done.They are our last hope.

The incorrigible dishonesty of wamizombies has many of them preaching under the name/logo of NASA or NOAA or both.

NASA manages projects that put things into orbit. They don't do anything else. I wouldn't be surprised in the least to learn that your newsletter isn't actually produced by NASA and that the newsletter is simply using the logo under the belief that you are so stupid and gullible that you will believe whatever they write simply because you see the logo.

Ooooh. Aaaah. I considered including the NASA logo in my post to make a point but I think I'll save that for another day.

.

HarveyH55 wrote:
When Obama shut down the Space Shuttle program, he also gave them Climate Change. Watch ice melt, among other things. I'm sure that if NASA is still getting Climate Change funding, then they are still producing Obama-propaganda. That's one of the problem with America. Once funded, and as long as what's paid for, continues to be done, funding lasts for ever. Even if it is no longer need, or even wanted. All that is required is produce a report, fill out a form every year.

duncan61 wrote:If you are a research scientist you do not get run out the industry.Thats not how it works.The 2 scientists in question had secured a grant from the French government.Alledgedly at the end of the contract you have to agree to find manmade warming or the contract will be given to someone who will.

HarveyH55 wrote:
The truth is that science became a commercial product a long time ago. Probably shortly after the government started paying for education, and passing out research grants. Lot of competition for getting in on free-money. Long as a 'researcher' gave the customer what they paid for, they had money, facilities, tools, and equipment, to do pretty much anything else they wanted. Customers aren't going to keep paying for a product or service, that doesn't meet their need or expectation.

A 'study' is like an advertisement, or resume, of a person, or team hoping to sell a product or service. Peer review, is sorting through the 'studies', for grant-worthy projects (a product that might sell), to ensure quality.

Into the Night wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
The truth is that science became a commercial product a long time ago. Probably shortly after the government started paying for education, and passing out research grants. Lot of competition for getting in on free-money. Long as a 'researcher' gave the customer what they paid for, they had money, facilities, tools, and equipment, to do pretty much anything else they wanted. Customers aren't going to keep paying for a product or service, that doesn't meet their need or expectation.

A 'study' is like an advertisement, or resume, of a person, or team hoping to sell a product or service. Peer review, is sorting through the 'studies', for grant-worthy projects (a product that might sell), to ensure quality.

Science is not a product, commercial or otherwise.
Science is not a 'research', 'study', or 'project'.
Science does not use peer review or any other form of consensus. There is no voting bloc in science.
Science does not buy or sell anything. It is not tools, equipment, facilities, or money.
Science is not 'quality'.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all. Nothing more. Nothing less.

HarveyH55 wrote:Peer review, is sorting through the 'studies', for grant-worthy projects (a product that might sell), to ensure quality.

IBdaMann wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:Peer review, is sorting through the 'studies', for grant-worthy projects (a product that might sell), to ensure quality.

Actually, Harvey, "peer review" has nothing to do with projects and has everything to do with articles and papers. It is a publishing term.

Magazines and journals are run by people with MBA's because it is a business, irrespective of the subject matter of said periodical. The management staff are responsible for one thing and one thing only, i.e. the bottom line. They are not experts in the subject matter of the periodical.

So they hire peer reviewers who are knowledgable in the subject matter of the periodical and who are familiar with the target audience. These reviewers help the magazine/journal's management staff select the articles that will sell the most and that will most increase the bottom line.

For example, if Subduction Zone and IBDaMann both submit articles to National Geographic, the reviewers will tell the management staff that Subduction Zone's confusing article of physics violations will really resonate with their scientifically illiterate audience and should definitely be published. Then they will characterize IBDaMann's article as simply denying settled science and will only turn off their readership, thus it should not be published.

That's what "peer reviewers" are and do. They have nothing to do with creating science or with engineering technology. They simply make publishing recommendations based on having their finger on the pulse more firmly than the management staff of former business majors.

[*find-peerreviewpublishing]

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
The truth is that science became a commercial product a long time ago. Probably shortly after the government started paying for education, and passing out research grants. Lot of competition for getting in on free-money. Long as a 'researcher' gave the customer what they paid for, they had money, facilities, tools, and equipment, to do pretty much anything else they wanted. Customers aren't going to keep paying for a product or service, that doesn't meet their need or expectation.

A 'study' is like an advertisement, or resume, of a person, or team hoping to sell a product or service. Peer review, is sorting through the 'studies', for grant-worthy projects (a product that might sell), to ensure quality.

Science is not a product, commercial or otherwise.
Science is not a 'research', 'study', or 'project'.
Science does not use peer review or any other form of consensus. There is no voting bloc in science.
Science does not buy or sell anything. It is not tools, equipment, facilities, or money.
Science is not 'quality'.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all. Nothing more. Nothing less.

And yet you use IT (information technology) to say even the technology that you use is falsifiable. Are we reading your words which are your thoughts? The falsifiable IT that you use might be saying something other than what you want us to know? This means all of your posts are void because you use a falsifiable medium to promote your truth.
This is also a medium which promotes a truth wouldn't you say? Just nothing rare about it because it's rather common, right? I just love logic because it can't be falsified.