Remember me
▼ Content

So how exactly does this Evil Liberal Governmental Science Conspiracy do... anything?



Page 1 of 3123>
So how exactly does this Evil Liberal Governmental Science Conspiracy do... anything?29-09-2016 04:46
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
So you (IB/Into) have said that the Evil Liberal Government has conspired to develop a "Global Warming" hoax. Upon further questioning, you explained that the government induces bias by choosing which studies to fund. Am I correct?

How the hell does the government do that?!

The outcome of a study cannot (well, should not) be determinable before the study is complete. If it is, then it's either a biased study, or that's one hell of a crystal ball the government is hiding from us.

For a study to be entirely predictable would mean that the study would have to be known to be fabricating data. Excluding the possibility of funding applications having a box for "will you fabricate results that support GW?", I don't see how the government would know - and how nobody else would. Keep in mind that the scientists would have to be known fabricators - the government can't affect individual studies?

You can certainly predict what studies will show - this is a fundamental requirement of models. But that doesn't apply to a specific study.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
29-09-2016 13:08
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
jwoodward48 wrote:
So you (IB/Into) have said that the Evil Liberal Government has conspired to develop a "Global Warming" hoax. Upon further questioning, you explained that the government induces bias by choosing which studies to fund. Am I correct?

You are not accurate.

Yes, the current leftist US government has some evil people who do evil things, but my modifier for the government is "corrupt."

Additionally I did not credit the US government of developing the Global Warming cult but merely of leveraging it and incorporating it into the official agenda.

By the way, are you trying to bill yourself as a prosecutor and me as being on trial? I notice how I apparently underwent "additional questioning." Did you grill me?

jwoodward48 wrote: How the hell does the government do that?!

Are you asking how it is that someone would only buy what he wants?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
29-09-2016 14:20
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Okay, it's the Corrupt Government.

I see, but HOW can the government tell which studies will support GW?
29-09-2016 14:52
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
jwoodward48 wrote: Okay, it's the Corrupt Government. I see, but HOW can the government tell which studies will support GW?

They build that requirement into the funding, i.e.

* We will fund $X for research showing the extreme dangers of Climate Change in which [industry whose lobbyists supported the administration] is threatened, ...and

* We will fund $Y for research showing how [industry whose lobbyists opposed the administration] are causing runaway Climate Change.

* We will pay $Z for the above two reports to be merged and wild policy recommendations from some think tank that donated to the administration's campaign.

There is no actual science involved.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
29-09-2016 15:58
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
That seems like it would be observable. Is there a way of seeing what the funding conditions are?
29-09-2016 16:07
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
jwoodward48 wrote: That seems like it would be observable. Is there a way of seeing what the funding conditions are?

Absolutely. They're in the contract. Everything the government purchases goes through a contracting office which works closely with the legal office.

To receive any funding, someone needs to sign papers that detail the contract. The government always ensures the presence of verbiage that affords them the ability to withhold payment if they don't get what they want.

Look there.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
29-09-2016 22:08
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
But is that available to the public? If so, do you have a link for that?
29-09-2016 22:59
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
jwoodward48 wrote: But is that available to the public? If so, do you have a link for that?

I don't. I'm not looking into it at present.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
29-09-2016 23:59
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
So you have no evidence for your conspiracy, only some vague statements like "well, of course The Government will only put money into things if they get something back, it's not like the Goddamn Evil Liberals might put money into science for the sake of progress and understanding, and don't even claim that corporations produce biased things! Of course they'll pay for things that aren't in their best interests! They're the Friendly Neighborhood Corporation and whatever they do is good for you!"

Not buying it.
30-09-2016 00:05
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
jwoodward48 wrote: So you have no evidence for your conspiracy,

Hold on a moment. You are the one on tap to explain how the US government pays for reports it doesn't want.

Not buying it.



.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
30-09-2016 00:36
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Are scientists given grants before they do research, or after they've written the report?
30-09-2016 01:39
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
jwoodward48 wrote: Are scientists given grants before they do research, or after they've written the report?

I'm not sure that scientists are funded. It might help to be one though.

I know how contracting offices work. Do you know anyone who has gone through the funding process?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
30-09-2016 01:43
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Hmm, it seems there might be something to your claims.

A 2005 study in the journal Nature surveyed 3247 US researchers who were all publicly funded (by the National Institutes of Health). Out of the scientists questioned, 15.5% admitted to altering design, methodology or results of their studies due to pressure of an external funding source.


That's 50 studies.
30-09-2016 01:55
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Hmm, it seems there might be something to your claims.

A 2005 study in the journal Nature surveyed 3247 US researchers who were all publicly funded (by the National Institutes of Health). Out of the scientists questioned, 15.5% admitted to altering design, methodology or results of their studies due to pressure of an external funding source.


That's 50 studies.


Isn't that 503 researchers? ... who admitted to it

That leaves 2744 who weren't completely honest.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
30-09-2016 01:57
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
1. Oops, misplaced a decimal point.
2. Do you seriously think that the government cares about, say, the results of a physics experiment with bosons and whatnot? They don't meddle with things for the sake of EVIIIIL, that's for sure. Nobody's rubbing their hands and stroking their goatee and grinning evilly.
30-09-2016 02:26
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
jwoodward48 wrote: 2. Do you seriously think that the government cares about, say, the results of a physics experiment with bosons and whatnot?

Do you seriously think the government or anyone is going to spend money on something it cares nothing about?

... and yes, the government cares very much about what is written in the "Conclusions" section of any report or of what conclusions can or might be drawn from any report.

So yes, the government will pay money for the conclusions it really wants and will make that a requirement for payment.

jwoodward48 wrote: They don't meddle with things for the sake of EVIIIIL, that's for sure.

"EVIL" is your word. My word is "CORRUPT" and I believe that I mentioned this already.

jwoodward48 wrote: Nobody's rubbing their hands and stroking their goatee and grinning evilly.

Explain how you know this.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
30-09-2016 02:33
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Again, what does this "Government" want? How can you even describe the Government like it's a singular, coherently-minded thing?
Edited on 30-09-2016 02:33
30-09-2016 02:44
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Again, what does this "Government" want? How can you even describe the Government like it's a singular, coherently-minded thing?

The DNC drives the agenda. They and the administration are pursuing that agenda. Hillary is pursuing that agenda.

Catering to the Global Warming religion is a key component of that agenda.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
30-09-2016 09:38
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Again, what does this "Government" want? How can you even describe the Government like it's a singular, coherently-minded thing?


What is 'success' in government?

It is not profit. They don't produce anything.

It is not the public good. Solving public problems leaves no further need for the program that solved the problem.

It is expansion and growth.

Government can only justify expansion and growth under the scam that they say they are solving a problem, but without actually solving it. The longer the crisis, the more they can milk it for money and power.

In Hillary's case, she is only in it for the power and money. The ONLY thing Hillary cares about is herself.


The Parrot Killer
30-09-2016 14:19
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
I thought you said they didn't want profit. Now they want money. Huh?
30-09-2016 20:19
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
jwoodward48 wrote:
I thought you said they didn't want profit. Now they want money. Huh?


Money is not profit.


The Parrot Killer
30-09-2016 20:30
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Same difference, right? If you have more expenses then money gained, you don't get a profit. Increasing money = increasing profit, all other things equal.
Edited on 30-09-2016 20:31
30-09-2016 20:51
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Same difference, right? If you have more expenses then money gained, you don't get a profit. Increasing money = increasing profit, all other things equal.


No. Money is not profit.

Money is an accounting system and a representation of wealth. It is a symbol of something else.

Wealth creation - the cost to create it is wealth.

The government doesn't create any wealth. It only redirects your wealth into someplace else. Taking from your wealth without your leave is called theft.

Government has no profit except through theft. To accomplish that theft, they must expand in power.


The Parrot Killer
30-09-2016 20:53
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
So you don't want any taxes?
30-09-2016 21:11
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
jwoodward48 wrote:
So you don't want any taxes?


Taxes authorized by the people is not theft. It is an agreement to use that money for some purpose (such as building a road or funding an army).

Taxes, regulations, or fees that are just imposed by the government is theft.

The 16th amendment is not an authorization by people to be taxed. It simply changes the method of tax collections available.

People have authorized the federal government to tax for constitutional activities, such as funding military, running and maintaining Congress and the White House, maintaining additional facilities related to border management and standards systems, maintaining the patent library, etc. The list of what the federal government can do is listed in Article 1 Section 8. They are not authorized to do anything else, except as modified by amendment.

Welfare is not a constitutional activity. Neither is any form of behavioral control. Neither is most of the federal government.


The Parrot Killer
30-09-2016 21:51
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Ah, a Fundamental Constitutionalist. Okay.
30-09-2016 23:01
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Ah, a Fundamental Constitutionalist. Okay.


What is that?

The Constitution is the highest law of the land. It is the document that specifies the existence of the federal government, what form it will take, and what powers it shall have. Outside of those powers, the federal government has none.

The same is true for any State in the union and their own constitutions.

I'm a believer in a republican form of government. I am NOT a member of the Republican party, which has left those ideals also, just not as bad as the Democrats have (which never believed in constitutional law since Jackson).

Do you consider it fundamentalist to uphold the law?


The Parrot Killer
01-10-2016 00:00
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
There are two opposing views on the Constitution.
01-10-2016 03:18
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
jwoodward48 wrote: There are two opposing views on the Constitution.

There are far more than just two.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
01-10-2016 03:58
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Well, yes, but I'm describing two main camps of thought.
01-10-2016 07:14
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
Well, go ahead then. Which two are your "two views"?
01-10-2016 16:40
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Originalists and Non-Originalists, as the link I posted describes. I'm a Non-Originalist.
01-10-2016 19:09
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Originalists and Non-Originalists, as the link I posted describes. I'm a Non-Originalist.

But the Constitution was written with a completely originalist intent. I hope you don't deny this.

The courts are supposed to uphold the intent of the law, yes?


.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
01-10-2016 21:07
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
That is disputed. "1. The framers at the Convention in Philadelphia indicated that they did not want their specific intentions to control interpretation."
01-10-2016 21:21
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
I'm not actually idiotic.
01-10-2016 23:24
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Originalists and Non-Originalists, as the link I posted describes. I'm a Non-Originalist.


A 'non-original' document of any kind is not the same document.

To claim a contract is in force because you signed a different contract is fraud.


The Parrot Killer
01-10-2016 23:33
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Evidently, you don't know what Non-Originalism is.
01-10-2016 23:40
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Evidently, you don't know what Non-Originalism is.


I know exactly what it is.

I suggest you actually read the Constitution. Very few people do, unfortunately.

Remember that when this document was written, we had no States. We had colonies. Each one had it's own government and sovereignty. They wanted to each keep that, but none could defend their sovereignty by themselves.

The States are no different, even today.

The Constitution of the United States is a contract between the various States.

The agent created by that contract is called the federal government.

The States own that contract. They authorize it.

The federal government is only an agency created by that contract. That agency cannot in turn redefine the contract that created it!


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 01-10-2016 23:45
02-10-2016 03:02
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Yeah, some people disagree with Originalism, so it's not as clear-cut as you would imply.
02-10-2016 03:31
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
jwoodward48 wrote:
That is disputed. "1. The framers at the Convention in Philadelphia indicated that they did not want their specific intentions to control interpretation."

False. They captured their specific intentions in a document and made it the law of the land.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
Page 1 of 3123>





Join the debate So how exactly does this Evil Liberal Governmental Science Conspiracy do... anything?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Argument against AGW science314-08-2019 20:51
Objectivity of Environmental Science109-08-2019 02:13
Still No Climate Change Science1111-07-2019 04:23
Trump Administration's Attempts to Limit Climate Change Science 'Like Designing Cars Without Seat128-05-2019 20:13
Trump Administration Hardens Its Attack on Climate Science028-05-2019 15:12
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact