I can't vote for anyone that wants to attack science funding

[Muhammed]

There is a difference between science and pseudo-science.

 

[HappyJoy]

It depends on what science is being funded. When there is a political premise, like global warming or climate change and all that is being funded is what supports the political premise, there should be no funding.

Are you saying anything that has a 'political premise' should not be studied via government grants? Like fuel efficiency? Evolution? The cause of autism? All of these topics can be politically heated, I'd prefer we don't ignore them because someone's Uncle Cletus thinks the world is 6,000 years and his kid is spreading the measles because of some made up bogus free market science about vaccines.

 

[Katzndogz]

I am saying that when there is a political premise and funding is only given to that which supports the premise, there should be no funding at all.

The political premise is that there is global warming that is man made. The results of research is already stated. No research to the contrary will be funded. The conclusions are foregone.

The political premise is that vaccines cause autism. The only research that receives funding will be that research that agrees with the previously stated result.

The funding goes to support political dishonesty.

 

[HappyJoy]

I am saying that when there is a political premise and funding is only given to that which supports the premise, there should be no funding at all.

The political premise is that there is global warming that is man made. The results of research is already stated. No research to the contrary will be funded. The conclusions are foregone.

The political premise is that vaccines cause autism. The only research that receives funding will be that research that agrees with the previously stated result.

The funding goes to support political dishonesty.

That's backwards.

You want science to give both sides equal time, that's not how science works. Let's say the study of hurricanes. Through science we know that hurricanes fuel themselves with water vapor from the ocean surface. However, in the 'political spectrum' some have claimed they are caused by an ornery old man in the sky who doesn't want Adam and Steve to get married. Obviously the science is not going to go in that direction. Your solution appears to be telling NOAA or any other government funded outfit to stop studying hurricanes.

Part of government's responsibility is to protect its citizens, either from an invading army, preventing disease, keeping the economy alfoat and understanding our weather patterns. All of these things are up for political debate but that doesn't mean they go away and no action is taken until we have full agreement. That's just silly.

 

[FJO]

I don't want my dollars funding government science.

Isn't that an oxymoron, like Army Intelligence?

 

[Katzndogz]

You are being really silly by trying to use theological arguments to support the insupportable,

We know that hurricanes are caused by water vapor rising off warm ocean water affected by atmospheric pressure and the jet stream. The scientists get a political premise to study hurricanes and find that the cause is frackng in North Dakota. Any research finding any cause other than fracking is unacceptable. You are not paid to do anything but come up with the result you were given.

 

[HappyJoy]

I don't want my dollars funding government science.

Isn't that an oxymoron, like Army Intelligence?

Or Fiscal Conservative, totally get ya' man.

 

[HappyJoy]

You are being really silly by trying to use theological arguments to support the insupportable,

We know that hurricanes are caused by water vapor rising off warm ocean water affected by atmospheric pressure and the jet stream. The scientists get a political premise to study hurricanes and find that the cause is frackng in North Dakota. Any research finding any cause other than franking is unacceptable. You are not paid to do anything but come up with the result you were given.

Gays causing hurricanes has been in the 'political spectrum'. We could say the same for evolution. It goes against some religious (I'll let you decide how much or whose) religious tenants and it's become a bit of a political pickle. I don't want scientists to stop studying it because many if not more than half of Republicans believe in Creation. We would get no where until we are all in agreement.

Scientists are not blaming the physical act of fracking for oil for the cause of hurricanes.

We use science to verify facts and that feeds into our politics. What you want to do is reverse that and introduce politics through non action into our science, you want science to be politically correct and not offend.

 

[Katzndogz]

You are being really silly by trying to use theological arguments to support the insupportable,

We know that hurricanes are caused by water vapor rising off warm ocean water affected by atmospheric pressure and the jet stream. The scientists get a political premise to study hurricanes and find that the cause is frackng in North Dakota. Any research finding any cause other than franking is unacceptable. You are not paid to do anything but come up with the result you were given.

Gays causing hurricanes has been in the 'political spectrum'. We could say the same for evolution. It goes against some religious (I'll let you decide how much or whose) religious tenants and it's become a bit of a political pickle. I don't want scientists to stop studying it because many if not more than half of Republicans believe in Creation. We would get no where until we are all in agreement.

Scientists are not blaming the physical act of fracking for oil for the cause of hurricanes.

You have an agenda. Religion has nothing to do with the marriage of science and politics. You will continue to insist that it does. I suspect you are driven to use religion because you have no real cogent arguments.

 

[HappyJoy]

You are being really silly by trying to use theological arguments to support the insupportable,

We know that hurricanes are caused by water vapor rising off warm ocean water affected by atmospheric pressure and the jet stream. The scientists get a political premise to study hurricanes and find that the cause is frackng in North Dakota. Any research finding any cause other than franking is unacceptable. You are not paid to do anything but come up with the result you were given.

Gays causing hurricanes has been in the 'political spectrum'. We could say the same for evolution. It goes against some religious (I'll let you decide how much or whose) religious tenants and it's become a bit of a political pickle. I don't want scientists to stop studying it because many if not more than half of Republicans believe in Creation. We would get no where until we are all in agreement.

Scientists are not blaming the physical act of fracking for oil for the cause of hurricanes.

You have an agenda. Religion has nothing to do with the marriage of science and politics. You will continue to insist that it does. I suspect you are driven to use religion because you have no real cogent arguments.

My agenda is to keep politics out of science. Religion is in our politics so yes when politicians and political speakers say things like god creates hurricanes or the earth is only 6,000 years old that doesn't mean government funded scientists should give two shits about their views. But you want to introduce any little disagreement, no matter how lame that bubbles up into our politics to stifle scientific research by introducing a silly concept of when we disagree about science we should stop looking into it. That's a horrible idea. I mean, very, very, very bad.

Let me see if I can think of something that you would understand...Oh, yes...what if science discovered that heaven was real and provable, would you want politiians shutting down that research because they disagree?

What if science discovered fracking was good for the environment? Would that necessitate a political controversy where government funded science would have to stop?

 

[BULLDOG]

You are being really silly by trying to use theological arguments to support the insupportable,

We know that hurricanes are caused by water vapor rising off warm ocean water affected by atmospheric pressure and the jet stream. The scientists get a political premise to study hurricanes and find that the cause is frackng in North Dakota. Any research finding any cause other than fracking is unacceptable. You are not paid to do anything but come up with the result you were given.

Yes, some scientists were tasked with studying only fracking. If their study showed that fracking hurt or helped the environment didn't effect their pay. The facts, no matter which side of the argument they supported, were what was paid for. Not a specific result.

 

[Katzndogz]

Once the result, any result, is predetermined, that science should have no government funding..

The government has an interest in proving heaven is real. Grants will only be given to studies that prove heaven is real. Any one who has research proving heaven isn't real will lose their grant and be removed from the list of acceptable research facilities.

The government has an interest in proving heaven isn't real. Funding will only be given to those facilities whose research proves heaven isn't real. Any research with a different result will immediately lose all funding and be removed from the list of acceptable research facilities.

In both hypotheticals there is no real research. The government isn't paying for research. It is paying for plausible propaganda.

 

[Katzndogz]

You are being really silly by trying to use theological arguments to support the insupportable,

We know that hurricanes are caused by water vapor rising off warm ocean water affected by atmospheric pressure and the jet stream. The scientists get a political premise to study hurricanes and find that the cause is frackng in North Dakota. Any research finding any cause other than fracking is unacceptable. You are not paid to do anything but come up with the result you were given.

Yes, some scientists were tasked with studying only fracking. If their study showed that fracking hurt or helped the environment didn't effect their pay. The facts, no matter which side of the argument they supported, were what was paid for. Not a specific result.

Sometimes it does. Scientists are paid to find evidence of man made global warming. Those scientists whose research found differently lose their careers.

 

[HappyJoy]

Once the result, any result, is predetermined, that science should have no government funding..

The government has an interest in proving heaven is real. Grants will only be given to studies that prove heaven is real. Any one who has research proving heaven isn't real will lose their grant and be removed from the list of acceptable research facilities.

The government has an interest in proving heaven isn't real. Funding will only be given to those facilities whose research proves heaven isn't real. Any research with a different result will immediately lose all funding and be removed from the list of acceptable research facilities.

In both hypotheticals there is no real research. The government isn't paying for research. It is paying for plausible propaganda.

What is the government interest in proving climate change isn't real?

How about smoking? It was a British government scientist who first linked smoking with cancer, what did that industry do in return? They began their own bogus research to cloud the politics, thank fully we had government research prove that smoking causes cancer.

I don't expect government or scientists to get it right 100% of the time, but to shut down government funded research every time some crank politician who has been lobbied to death by this or that industry raises his index finger in opposition. Nothing would get done. Your position is a farce.

 

[HappyJoy]

You are being really silly by trying to use theological arguments to support the insupportable,

We know that hurricanes are caused by water vapor rising off warm ocean water affected by atmospheric pressure and the jet stream. The scientists get a political premise to study hurricanes and find that the cause is frackng in North Dakota. Any research finding any cause other than fracking is unacceptable. You are not paid to do anything but come up with the result you were given.

Yes, some scientists were tasked with studying only fracking. If their study showed that fracking hurt or helped the environment didn't effect their pay. The facts, no matter which side of the argument they supported, were what was paid for. Not a specific result.

Sometimes it does. Scientists are paid to find evidence of man made global warming. Those scientists whose research found differently lose their careers.

Who? Doesn't the fossil fuels industry hire these guys?

 

[Katzndogz]

Contrary research is mercilessly attacked. An honest assessment would be that global warming is a hoax.

 

[HappyJoy]

Contrary research is mercilessly attacked. An honest assessment would be that global warming is a hoax.

I disagree with you but this isn't a debate about global warming.

It's about how and when you fund government scientific research. You think at the slightest whiff of controversy it needs to be shut down. Of course your basing this entirely on the fact that you don't believe global warming is real and nothing more, you're into this for a single issue and a single issue only.

Government should fund studies for anything that generally impacts our well being. That used to be something everyone agreed upon, well unless you manufacture cigarettes or poison the environment.

 

[BULLDOG]

You are being really silly by trying to use theological arguments to support the insupportable,

We know that hurricanes are caused by water vapor rising off warm ocean water affected by atmospheric pressure and the jet stream. The scientists get a political premise to study hurricanes and find that the cause is frackng in North Dakota. Any research finding any cause other than fracking is unacceptable. You are not paid to do anything but come up with the result you were given.

Yes, some scientists were tasked with studying only fracking. If their study showed that fracking hurt or helped the environment didn't effect their pay. The facts, no matter which side of the argument they supported, were what was paid for. Not a specific result.

Sometimes it does. Scientists are paid to find evidence of man made global warming. Those scientists whose research found differently lose their careers.

You got a name to go with the scientist who lost his career because he didn't falsify evidence?

 

[HappyJoy]

You are being really silly by trying to use theological arguments to support the insupportable,

We know that hurricanes are caused by water vapor rising off warm ocean water affected by atmospheric pressure and the jet stream. The scientists get a political premise to study hurricanes and find that the cause is frackng in North Dakota. Any research finding any cause other than fracking is unacceptable. You are not paid to do anything but come up with the result you were given.

Yes, some scientists were tasked with studying only fracking. If their study showed that fracking hurt or helped the environment didn't effect their pay. The facts, no matter which side of the argument they supported, were what was paid for. Not a specific result.

Sometimes it does. Scientists are paid to find evidence of man made global warming. Those scientists whose research found differently lose their careers.

You got a name to go with the scientist who lost his career because he didn't falsify evidence?

I'm looking forward to the answer.

 

[HappyJoy]

Once the result, any result, is predetermined, that science should have no government funding..

The government has an interest in proving heaven is real. Grants will only be given to studies that prove heaven is real. Any one who has research proving heaven isn't real will lose their grant and be removed from the list of acceptable research facilities.

The government has an interest in proving heaven isn't real. Funding will only be given to those facilities whose research proves heaven isn't real. Any research with a different result will immediately lose all funding and be removed from the list of acceptable research facilities.

In both hypotheticals there is no real research. The government isn't paying for research. It is paying for plausible propaganda.

What is the government interest in proving climate change isn't real?

How about smoking? It was a British government scientist who first linked smoking with cancer, what did that industry do in return? They began their own bogus research to cloud the politics, thank fully we had government research prove that smoking causes cancer.

I don't expect government or scientists to get it right 100% of the time, but to shut down government funded research every time some crank politician who has been lobbied to death by this or that industry raises his index finger in opposition. Nothing would get done. Your position is a farce.

Everybody has money coming in from somewhere. Where do you think global warming scientists get their paycheck from? If you guessed government, then you guessed correctly.

I must have blinked, did you make a point?