Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Asterism -
I appreciate the full and on-topic reply, but this doesn't make a lot of sense to me -
To acquire power, appease opposition and buy influence.
The election is over, conservatives won.
And you are suggesting that thier first act is to hire socialist advisers to acquire power?
That makes no more sense than a left-wing party hiring conservative advisors!
I do agree about the 'athiest priests' in climatology to some extent, but not within physics or biology.
The fields are too large and too old. A lot of people working in physics have nothing to do with climate change directly, so the idea they would be part of some giant conspiracy strikes me as fanciful at best.
Westwall -
No, you never proved anything, nor did you ever think you had proved anything.
Asterism -
A couple of the posters who made the intitial suggestion have already posted on this thread.
Do you see them explaining their thinking?
Do you think Hillary only employs liberals? Do you think Bush only employed conservatives?
It depends if there is grant money there or not.
Asterism -
Do you think Hillary only employs liberals? Do you think Bush only employed conservatives?
I think when either hired advisors, they looked for the best available people, and people whose ideology did not contradict their own.
The idea that a conservative minister would deliberately hire a socialist science advisor makes no sense.
Well then you must investigate why George W. Bush's signature "No Child Left Behind" legislation was primarily authored by the very liberal Sen. Ted Kennedy.
Politics makes for strange bedfellows. You can endeavor to question the premise all you want, but it's most certainly a reality and has been for a very long time.
Asterism -
Do you think Hillary only employs liberals? Do you think Bush only employed conservatives?
I think when either hired advisors, they looked for the best available people, and people whose ideology did not contradict their own.
The idea that a conservative minister would deliberately hire a socialist science advisor makes no sense.
It depends if there is grant money there or not.
Advisors did not get paid with grants. They are salaried. Again, you are suggesting staff paid by a conservative government are lying....why?
The funny thing is, I've been told numerous times that staff do what govt wants them to do...apparently this happens only in left-wing adminsitrations. In rightwing administrations they do the exact opposite.
Saigon, by what basis can you claim that Finland's government is conservative?
More grants, more credibility, more manipulation if they can control the money pipeline.
However, grants funded the authority and power of their offices as well as fostered their careers after leaving their appointed positions. It's the very nature of these political positions.
Where did you study Journalism?
I studied languages and politics - in five different countries.
Well then you must investigate why George W. Bush's signature "No Child Left Behind" legislation was primarily authored by the very liberal Sen. Ted Kennedy.
Politics makes for strange bedfellows. You can endeavor to question the premise all you want, but it's most certainly a reality and has been for a very long time.
I accept the premise to some extent - but this does not explain why people seem to believe Socialist governments rely on Socialist scientific information, and Conservative governments rely on Socialist scientific information.
The idea is simply a nonsense.
When we think of a new conservative politician who is not from a scientific background - he's going to want answers from someone who is patently NOT a socialist. Obviously.
Good luck finding a climatologist that isn't on the bandwagon of AGW. That's part of the problem.
Saigon, by what basis can you claim that Finland's government is conservative?
By the fact that the largest party in government (Kokoomus) is strongly Conservative.
There is also a left-wing party (SDP) in the coalition, so it is a Blue/Red government.
The Prime Minister and President are both Conservatives right now.
More grants, more credibility, more manipulation if they can control the money pipeline.
Firstly, the party that won the election ALREADY controls the money.
Secondly, no European ministry or government can control or manipulate universities. The system is set up to make that virtually impossible.
However, grants funded the authority and power of their offices as well as fostered their careers after leaving their appointed positions. It's the very nature of these political positions.
No, they don't.
Advisory bodies are salaried staff. There are no grants involved. They work for ministries and/or the Office of the PM.
Directors General (here in Finland) are poltically appointed, but in most of Europe they are permanant positions.
They are only conservative compared to the very left of center nature of your political dynamic.
I think maybe the reason for your disconnect here is the actual disconnect you have from American politics.
Asterism -
I am a journalist, but like many journalists, I did not study journalism.
There aren't many jobs in languages here, although I also do some language consulting from time to time. I own a small company through which I can sell both my journalism and writing (I'm currently working on my third book) and consultancy. Going into journalism seemed like a very natural progression after some years working asa language trainer and then an editor in book publishing.