Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 5
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 9:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
The bureacrats at the cancer institutes then divvy the money up (NOT THE SCIENTISTS). It is true that they probably were scientists at one point but now their sole purpose is to lobby for and secure funding for their respective agencies.


"Each review panel is composed of between 8 and 14 scientists with special qualifications in the study area. These scientists are appointed for a fixed term, and appointments overlap to ensure the panels are constantly being refreshed with new points of view."

Link

Quote:
If a scientist in their agency wants to undertake research disproving their raison d'etre then you can bet he won't be allocated funding on the basis that he threatens the existance of the agency.


Only if people stop donating money to cancer research because they don't like the research that is going on (even though most people who donate to cancer research probably have no idea about the research that is being done). As for NSERC, CIHR, etc., I doubt the government is going to get rid of science research in Canada just because they don't like how a grant was awarded.

Quote:
Many professors have secured funding for global warming research. They have taken on graduate students to study it.


Funding that was most likely allocated to them by a panel of scientists.

Quote:
Some universities and agencies have even devoted departments to this cause.


Link?

Quote:
Now if some smart assed grad student applies to the global warming group with the intent to disprove global warming do you think he will get accepted and receive funding?


When I applied to grad school, no one asked me about the research I was planning on doing. In fact, I don't have much say over the research I do. That is determined by my supervisor.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 11:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
When I applied to grad school, no one asked me about the research I was planning on doing. In fact, I don't have much say over the research I do. That is determined by my supervisor.


What?!? Your supervisor didn't interview you?!? You didn't interview him?!?

What kind of mickey mouse program are you in? Philosophy?

Quote:
"Each review panel is composed of between 8 and 14 scientists with special qualifications in the study area. These scientists are appointed for a fixed term, and appointments overlap to ensure the panels are constantly being refreshed with new points of view."


You can't get funding for something that doesn't exist. If the government gives you $20 million to study global warming chances are you aren't going to come to the conclusion that it doesn't exist. If you did you won't get more funding. So who do you think the panel of "scientists" with qualifications in the area of global warming are going to give their funding to? Someone who wants to prove that global warming is a farce? Or someone who will make grave predictions yielding even more money next year?

Quote:
Funding that was most likely allocated to them by a panel of scientists.


But where did the funding come from??? It came from the government which decided to allocate money to that cause because of public support. The scientists didn't CREATE the money. They are benefactors of a mislead public.
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 12:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:

What?!? Your supervisor didn't interview you?!? You didn't interview him?!?


Of course I did, after I was accepted to grad school. The people who accepted me had absolutely no idea what sort of research I was interested in. Nowhere on the application form did I have to state my views on global warming, for example. For all they know, I could be trying to prove that global warming doesn't exist. That didn't stop them from accepting me. Once I was accepted, I knew my supervisor's general area of research, but I still have no control over which project he assigns me.

Quote:
You can't get funding for something that doesn't exist. If the government gives you $20 million to study global warming chances are you aren't going to come to the conclusion that it doesn't exist.


Of course you can. Some of the most important discoveries in science are the experiments that go wrong. Remember that Michelson-Morley were trying to discover how fast we are moving relative to the "ether", and through their experiments it was discovered that there was no "ether" after all, laying the groundwork for relativity.

Quote:
So who do you think the panel of "scientists" with qualifications in the area of global warming are going to give their funding to? Someone who wants to prove that global warming is a farce? Or someone who will make grave predictions yielding even more money next year?


So, you think the majority of scientists studying global warming are part of some sort of conspiracy? So that they can get more funding at the expense of other scientists? Besides, not everyone on the panel is an expert in global warming. I can't remember the exact ratios, but most panels consist of a few "experts" in that field, as well as other scientists from other fields who are also competing for funding.

Quote:

But where did the funding come from??? It came from the government which decided to allocate money to that cause because of public support. The scientists didn't CREATE the money. They are benefactors of a mislead public.


No, the government does not decide how much funding goes towards global warming research, and especially does not decide how much goes towards scientists trying to prove global warming vs. scientists trying to disprove global warming. Think of the analogy I used before, my employer has no say over how I spend my money even though that's where it came from.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 9:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
Craig wrote:

What?!? Your supervisor didn't interview you?!? You didn't interview him?!?


Of course I did, after I was accepted to grad school. The people who accepted me had absolutely no idea what sort of research I was interested in. Nowhere on the application form did I have to state my views on global warming, for example. For all they know, I could be trying to prove that global warming doesn't exist. That didn't stop them from accepting me. Once I was accepted, I knew my supervisor's general area of research, but I still have no control over which project he assigns me.


Most university graduate acceptances require that you first find a supervisor before you are accepted, i.e. a professor has to agree to supervise you before you will be accepted. Pretty strange for it to work the other way around.

Quote:
Of course you can. Some of the most important discoveries in science are the experiments that go wrong. Remember that Michelson-Morley were trying to discover how fast we are moving relative to the "ether", and through their experiments it was discovered that there was no "ether" after all, laying the groundwork for relativity.


Yes. And in all of those cases there was tremendous bias and resistance to their work from the established science community - same thing here.

Quote:
So, you think the majority of scientists studying global warming are part of some sort of conspiracy? So that they can get more funding at the expense of other scientists?


Not at the expense of other scientists. It isn't a zero sum game. Creating a sense of hysteria opens the government's funding wallet. Conspiracy is a strong word. It is a bias.

Quote:
Besides, not everyone on the panel is an expert in global warming. I can't remember the exact ratios, but most panels consist of a few "experts" in that field, as well as other scientists from other fields who are also competing for funding.


How do you think the panels are constructed. How many global warming critics do you think get assigns to such panels?

Quote:
No, the government does not decide how much funding goes towards global warming research


I've provided two links to the contrary. Yes they do. They provide money for it. And people with a vested interest to keep the money flowing divvy it up.
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 12:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:

Most university graduate acceptances require that you first find a supervisor before you are accepted, i.e. a professor has to agree to supervise you before you will be accepted. Pretty strange for it to work the other way around.


When I applied to grad school, I applied to several major schools across Canada and none of them required that I found a supervisor first. I've never heard of it the other way around. Obviously I had an idea in mind of a supervisor, but most people at my school have already started before finding a research supervisor. So you think if a professor was studying global warming and decided that it doesn't exist, and a student applied for grad school that the student would be rejected on the basis of the supervisor's research? I could see a huge problem there with academic freedom.

Quote:

Yes. And in all of those cases there was tremendous bias and resistance to their work from the established science community - same thing here.


Not at all. In fact, many others scientists copied his experiments with the same results.

Quote:

Not at the expense of other scientists. It isn't a zero sum game. Creating a sense of hysteria opens the government's funding wallet. Conspiracy is a strong word. It is a bias.


As I said before, funding to NSERC has not changed significantly over the past 10 years. Unless you can provide proof that funding for science research has changed significantly as a result of global warming, that argument is pure speculation.

Quote:

How do you think the panels are constructed. How many global warming critics do you think get assigns to such panels?


I can't remember exactly. I could probably look it up. As I said before, my best guess is there are a few "experts", but there are also many other scientists from different fields.

Quote:

I've provided two links to the contrary. Yes they do. They provide money for it. And people with a vested interest to keep the money flowing divvy it up.


Unfortunately your links did not provide any information about who divided up the money. I have a hard time believing that politicians read hundreds of grant applications and picked the best ones, don't you?
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 5:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
[So you think if a professor was studying global warming and decided that it doesn't exist, and a student applied for grad school that the student would be rejected on the basis of the supervisor's research? I could see a huge problem there with academic freedom.


No. If a professor was renowned for his global warming research and had secured government grants for research he would not want to take on a student who opposed his views.

Quote:
Not at all. In fact, many others scientists copied his experiments with the same results.


You are comparing apples to oranges. The things you mention DO exist (ie. relativity). The funding available to a scientist trying to disprove global warming is considerably less than that which is available to those who reinforce that theory. If you don't believe me then google some of the scientists who oppose it. They will tell you first hand - though I'm beginning to believe that even hearing it first hand won't change your mind.

Quote:
As I said before, funding to NSERC has not changed significantly over the past 10 years. Unless you can provide proof that funding for science research has changed significantly as a result of global warming, that argument is pure speculation.


I've provided three citations showing massive new government funding programs and the increase in global warming funding from 1990 to now. If you aren't going to bother reading my posts then I'm not going to bother finding new proof.

Quote:
I can't remember exactly. I could probably look it up.


So you demand "proof" from me but you could "probably look it up".

Quote:
Unfortunately your links did not provide any information about who divided up the money. I have a hard time believing that politicians read hundreds of grant applications and picked the best ones, don't you?


The grants are divided up by scientists who have a vested interest in alarmist findings that make the grants permanent and larger in subsequent years (5th time stating this). Governments provide the money (based largely on public opinion) and biased scientists wanting to maintain funding allocate it accordingly. Please reread my previous posts where I've stated this many times.
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 5:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
No. If a professor was renowned for his global warming research and had secured government grants for research he would not want to take on a student who opposed his views.


You were arguing that a student would not be accepted to graduate school based on his/her views on global warming. A prospective supervisor has no say over whether a person is accepted to grad school or not.

Quote:
You are comparing apples to oranges. The things you mention DO exist (ie. relativity).


You were trying to argue that you can't study something that doesn't exist. I provided an example where scientists tried to study the "ether". The "ether" does not exist.

Quote:
I've provided three citations showing massive new government funding programs and the increase in global warming funding from 1990 to now. If you aren't going to bother reading my posts then I'm not going to bother finding new proof.


You have yet to show me that politicians are deciding which grants to fund.

By the way, most scientists will never see this new funding. How do you explain people who believe in global warming who get their funding from, say, NSERC?

Quote:
So you demand "proof" from me but you could "probably look it up".


Are you disputing that scientists from other fields are involved in NSERC panels? If you are, I can look it up. All you had to do was ask.

Quote:
...and biased scientists wanting to maintain funding allocate it accordingly. Please reread my previous posts where I've stated this many times.


So you think it's all a massive conspiracy?


Last edited by gc on Mon Sep 03, 2007 5:59 pm; edited 1 time in total
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 10:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
You were arguing that a student would not be accepted to graduate school based on his/her views on global warming. A prospective supervisor has no say over whether a person is accepted to grad school or not.


At most respected institutions you will not be accepted without having a supervisor secured before hand. Departments meet to discuss applicants. I hope you don't think the admissions office determines who gets in and who doesn't.

Quote:
You were trying to argue that you can't study something that doesn't exist.


What I meant was that if you prove something to be false, i.e. global warming, then you can't get funding for it anymore. Much like you would be hard pressed to get funding to study ether.

Quote:
You have yet to show me that politicians are deciding which grants to fund.


Yes I did. I provided a link to a Canadian government website showing the Canadian government was injecting $13 million into studying the impact of global warming on the arctic. The government is choosing to fund a specific scientific area.

Quote:
By the way, most scientists will never see this new funding. How do you explain people who believe in global warming who get their funding from, say, NSERC?


We can never find stats to prove or disprove this but I'd bet my left testicle that if 100 people supporting global warming applied for NSERC grants and 100 people opposing the concept applied for the same grants - despite the scientific merits of their applications the vast majority of grants given would be to those who support the concept.

Quote:
Are you disputing that scientists from other fields are involved in NSERC panels? If you are, I can look it up. All you had to do was ask.


No. That is not what I'm disputing. I just found it hypocritical that in the previous paragraph you told me I had to provide proof but then proceeding to say that could "probably" find something to support yor argument.

Quote:
So you think it's all a massive conspiracy?


Wow. How many times do I have to say the same thing...

It is bias - not a conspiracy.

The original argument was that the public influences how research money is spent and I've clearly demonstrated that to be true. When there is public outcry about anything (condition of highways, infectious disease, waiting lists, GLOBAL WARMING) the government responds by providing funding to that specific cause. Because scientists with a vested interest in their study of this topic marginalize those who disagree with them and spread their alarmist reports, the government pumps more and more money in their general direction.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 11:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
You were arguing that a student would not be accepted to graduate school based on his/her views on global warming. A prospective supervisor has no say over whether a person is accepted to grad school or not.


My wife is a doctor who is cross-appointed as a professor in the Faculty of Medicine and Science. She sits on the graduate selection committee.

Your above statement, much like many of your other contentions in this thread, is FLAT WRONG.
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 12:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
At most respected institutions you will not be accepted without having a supervisor secured before hand. Departments meet to discuss applicants. I hope you don't think the admissions office determines who gets in and who doesn't.


Are you saying UBC and UVic are not respected institutions? I can tell you for a fact that I was accepted to both of these schools without a potential supervisor. Do you not see a problem with denying applicants because of their supervisor? Do you not see a problem with academic freedom there?

Quote:
What I meant was that if you prove something to be false, i.e. global warming, then you can't get funding for it anymore. Much like you would be hard pressed to get funding to study ether.


One thing I think everyone can agree on is that global warming has not be proven 100% one way or the other. It certainly hasn't been proven false like the ether has.

Quote:
Yes I did. I provided a link to a Canadian government website showing the Canadian government was injecting $13 million into studying the impact of global warming on the arctic. The government is choosing to fund a specific scientific area.


No, you showed me that the government provided the funding. Presumably the scientists decide who gets what. If someone applied for a grant to prove that global warming was false, or to look for the benefits of global warming it would be a scientist who denied them the funding, not the politicians.

Quote:
We can never find stats to prove or disprove this...


Of course you can. Scientific articles almost always list the source of funding.

Quote:
No. That is not what I'm disputing. I just found it hypocritical that in the previous paragraph you told me I had to provide proof but then proceeding to say that could "probably" find something to support yor argument.


The difference is that I asked you for proof. By saying that I could "look it up" I am offering proof to you if you require proof. Again, all you had to do was ask.

Quote:
It is bias - not a conspiracy.


Making up something that doesn't exist for the purpose of gaining more research money and denying funding to anyone who disagrees...yeah, I'd say that's a conspiracy.
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 12:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
My wife is a doctor who is cross-appointed as a professor in the Faculty of Medicine and Science. She sits on the graduate selection committee.

Your above statement, much like many of your other contentions in this thread, is FLAT WRONG.


At which school? All I can say is that from personal experience, every school that I applied to accepted me without a potential supervisor. Perhaps there are a few that require having a supervisor first, but not any of the ones I applied to. Again, if they are rejecting applicants because they don't like the research of the supervisor, there is a huge problem with academic freedom. Rejecting applicants because they want to study under a professor who doesn't believe in global warming? I'd call that a little more than a "bias"...
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 6:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
Craig wrote:
At most respected institutions you will not be accepted without having a supervisor secured before hand. Departments meet to discuss applicants. I hope you don't think the admissions office determines who gets in and who doesn't.


Are you saying UBC and UVic are not respected institutions? I can tell you for a fact that I was accepted to both of these schools without a potential supervisor. Do you not see a problem with denying applicants because of their supervisor?


That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying you have to first secure a supervisor before being accepted by most institutions. And many supervisors won't accept a student who has no source of funding unless they themselves have funding for them (and it is pretty hard to get funding arguing against global warming).

Quote:
One thing I think everyone can agree on is that global warming has not be proven 100% one way or the other. It certainly hasn't been proven false like the ether has.


This debate was originally about man-made global warming not global warming.

Quote:
No, you showed me that the government provided the funding. Presumably the scientists decide who gets what.


I showed you that the government allocated funding to study the impact of global warming. Presumedly, people who don't believe in it won't receive funding to study its impact.

Quote:
If someone applied for a grant to prove that global warming was false, or to look for the benefits of global warming it would be a scientist who denied them the funding, not the politicians.


No. The politicians didn't allocate funding to study if global warming exists. They allocated it to study its impact. Despite the fact that, as the original article points out, there are more published journal articles that question man-made global warming, it would be political suicide for a government to suggest that it doesn't exist. Why? Well that's what I'm arguing isn't it.

Quote:
Making up something that doesn't exist for the purpose of gaining more research money and denying funding to anyone who disagrees...yeah, I'd say that's a conspiracy.


Definition of conspiracy...

Quote:
An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
A group of conspirators.
Law. An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design: a conspiracy of wind and tide that devastated coastal areas.


1. It is not illegal.

2. I'm not suggesting there is a formal agreement between two or more persons.

It is bias. Not a conspiracy.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 6:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
Are you saying UBC and UVic are not respected institutions? I can tell you for a fact that I was accepted to both of these schools without a potential supervisor. Do you not see a problem with denying applicants because of their supervisor? Do you not see a problem with academic freedom there?


From the UVic graduate application form...

Quote:

Admission to a doctoral program requires evidence that
the applicant is capable of undertaking substantial original
research. Such capability will be judged from the two
assessment reports
.


Assessment reports. Hmmmm. Wonder what that is....

"Original research" - I guess that means not simply doing what your supervisor tells you to do.
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 7:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
Assessment reports. Hmmmm. Wonder what that is....


Assessment reports are really no different than a letter of reference. Not exactly surprising considering most jobs require letters of reference.

Quote:
"Original research" - I guess that means not simply doing what your supervisor tells you to do.


Original research only means research that has not been done before. If I simply repeat an experiment that I read in the literature, that is not original research. If I do something that my supervisor asked me to do, and no one else has done it before, that is original research.
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 7:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying you have to first secure a supervisor before being accepted by most institutions.


Again, I can't speak for all institutions, but every one that I applied to did not require me to secure a research supervisor. How do you know what most institutions require? Where did you find this information?

Quote:
And many supervisors won't accept a student who has no source of funding unless they themselves have funding for them (and it is pretty hard to get funding arguing against global warming).


Very few students have their own source of funding.

Quote:

This debate was originally about man-made global warming not global warming.


How does that change the argument?

Quote:
Definition of conspiracy...

Quote:
An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
A group of conspirators.
Law. An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design: a conspiracy of wind and tide that devastated coastal areas.


1. It is not illegal.

2. I'm not suggesting there is a formal agreement between two or more persons.

It is bias. Not a conspiracy.


Conspiracy:
when people secretly plan together to do something bad or illegal

(I'd say lying in order to defraud the government is bad, wouldn't you?)

Conspiracy theory:
a belief that an unpleasant event or situation is the result of a secret plan made by powerful people

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 5

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Majority of scientists dismiss man-made global warming

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB