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.
Izhar Cohen
[FONT=Georgia, serif]Why Climate Skeptics Are Wrong[/FONT]
At some point in the history of all scientific theories, only a minority of scientists—or even just one—supported them, before evidence accumulated to the point of general acceptance. The Copernican model, germ theory, the vaccination principle, evolutionary theory, plate tectonics and the big bang theory were all once heretical ideas that became consensus science. How did this happen?
An answer may be found in what 19th-century philosopher of science William Whewell called a “consilience of inductions.” For a theory to be accepted, Whewell argued, it must be based on more than one induction—or a single generalization drawn from specific facts. It must have multiple inductions that converge on one another, independently but in conjunction. “Accordingly the cases in which inductions from classes of facts altogether different have thus jumped together,” he wrote in his 1840 book The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences, “belong only to the best established theories which the history of science contains.” Call it a “convergence of evidence.”
Consensus science is a phrase often heard today in conjunction with anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Is there a consensus on AGW? There is. The tens of thousands of scientists who belong to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Medical Association, the American Meteorological Society, the American Physical Society, the Geological Society of America, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and, most notably, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change all concur that AGW is in fact real. Why?
It is not because of the sheer number of scientists. After all, science is not conducted by poll. As Albert Einstein said in response to a 1931 book skeptical of relativity theory entitled 100 Authors against Einstein, “Why 100? If I were wrong, one would have been enough.” The answer is that there is a convergence of evidence from multiple lines of inquiry—pollen, tree rings, ice cores, corals, glacial and polar ice-cap melt, sea-level rise, ecological shifts, carbon dioxide increases, the unprecedented rate of temperature increase—that all converge to a singular conclusion. AGW doubters point to the occasional anomaly in a particular data set, as if one incongruity gainsays all the other lines of evidence. But that is not how consilience science works. For AGW skeptics to overturn the consensus, they would need to find flaws with all the lines of supportive evidence andshow a consistent convergence of evidence toward a different theory that explains the data. (Creationists have the same problem overturning evolutionary theory.) This they have not done.
Rather long, but sums up the findings of scientists. And if you want the names of the scientists on the board of the various Scientific Societies, they are on the sites of those societies. Look them up for yourself.
You need to know who signs the grant contract and who is held responsible for contract performance. The situational bookkeeping becomes even more apparent if the grant goes to non-academic institution. THERE the bookkeeping is CLEARLY tagged to your resources and YOUR job..
But you're not making any actual money off of it.
Hence, the "getting rich off grants" conspiracy theory goes boom.
You need to know who signs the grant contract and who is held responsible for contract performance. The situational bookkeeping becomes even more apparent if the grant goes to non-academic institution. THERE the bookkeeping is CLEARLY tagged to your resources and YOUR job..
But you're not making any actual money off of it.
Hence, the "getting rich off grants" conspiracy theory goes boom.
Not quite. Try publishing something contrary to the "accepted science". Then watch your job go boom.You need to know who signs the grant contract and who is held responsible for contract performance. The situational bookkeeping becomes even more apparent if the grant goes to non-academic institution. THERE the bookkeeping is CLEARLY tagged to your resources and YOUR job..
But you're not making any actual money off of it.
Hence, the "getting rich off grants" conspiracy theory goes boom.
Not quite. Try publishing something contrary to the "accepted science". Then watch your job go boom.You need to know who signs the grant contract and who is held responsible for contract performance. The situational bookkeeping becomes even more apparent if the grant goes to non-academic institution. THERE the bookkeeping is CLEARLY tagged to your resources and YOUR job..
But you're not making any actual money off of it.
Hence, the "getting rich off grants" conspiracy theory goes boom.
Mark
You need to know who signs the grant contract and who is held responsible for contract performance. The situational bookkeeping becomes even more apparent if the grant goes to non-academic institution. THERE the bookkeeping is CLEARLY tagged to your resources and YOUR job..
But you're not making any actual money off of it.
Hence, the "getting rich off grants" conspiracy theory goes boom.
Shukla
Double dipping, nepotism, etc. Need I say more?
You need to know who signs the grant contract and who is held responsible for contract performance. The situational bookkeeping becomes even more apparent if the grant goes to non-academic institution. THERE the bookkeeping is CLEARLY tagged to your resources and YOUR job..
But you're not making any actual money off of it.
Hence, the "getting rich off grants" conspiracy theory goes boom.
Shukla
Double dipping, nepotism, etc. Need I say more?
Well Yeah !!! I totally missed that story.. Sounds like this guy "got rich" off of grant money..
Pretty much his whole operation.. Funny how all that happens "by not making a profit" isn't it???
Needs a business mgr and an ASSOCIATE biz mgr.. Must be some cash flow to fund all that..
Then there’s the apparent nepotism going on with all that public money used to fund Shukla’s climate dreams:
IGES Personnel:Source: About IGES
President Shukla, Jagadish
Business Manager Shukla, Anastasia
Assistant Business Manager Shukla, Sonia
Director, COLA Kinter, James
Assistant to the President Shukla, Sonia
You need to know who signs the grant contract and who is held responsible for contract performance. The situational bookkeeping becomes even more apparent if the grant goes to non-academic institution. THERE the bookkeeping is CLEARLY tagged to your resources and YOUR job..
But you're not making any actual money off of it.
Hence, the "getting rich off grants" conspiracy theory goes boom.
Shukla
Double dipping, nepotism, etc. Need I say more?
Well Yeah !!! I totally missed that story.. Sounds like this guy "got rich" off of grant money..
Pretty much his whole operation.. Funny how all that happens "by not making a profit" isn't it???
Needs a business mgr and an ASSOCIATE biz mgr.. Must be some cash flow to fund all that..
Then there’s the apparent nepotism going on with all that public money used to fund Shukla’s climate dreams:
IGES Personnel:Source: About IGES
President Shukla, Jagadish
Business Manager Shukla, Anastasia
Assistant Business Manager Shukla, Sonia
Director, COLA Kinter, James
Assistant to the President Shukla, Sonia
A little nepotism never hurts... Wife, Kids, Kids spouses... whats not to like...
And George Mason University still employs them as STAFF too boot.. Hard Left Wing socialist school... Must be acceptable practice to defraud the US government and take our tax money to pay them..
Not quite. Try publishing something contrary to the "accepted science". Then watch your job go boom.You need to know who signs the grant contract and who is held responsible for contract performance. The situational bookkeeping becomes even more apparent if the grant goes to non-academic institution. THERE the bookkeeping is CLEARLY tagged to your resources and YOUR job..
But you're not making any actual money off of it.
Hence, the "getting rich off grants" conspiracy theory goes boom.
Mark
You stated:And please keep this separate from the scenario in which researchers who bring more grant money to a university or research institution will likely earn more in the long run than one who doesn't. These are, after all, researchers.Ian, for the edification of your fellow deniers, please answer this question: do research scientists put grant money into their own pockets? Is grant money paid to researchers as some sort of bonus to do with as they please? Do researchers get rich from grant money?
And please keep this separate from the scenario in which researchers who bring more grant money to a university or research institution will likely earn more in the long run than one who doesn't. These are, after all, researchers. Their job is to do research and the more of it they do and the more value their fellow researchers place on their results, the better they are doing their job and the greater the pay they deserve.
I would like to see the common denier misconception that researchers are getting rich from grant money receive the quashing it deserves.
You need to know who signs the grant contract and who is held responsible for contract performance. The situational bookkeeping becomes even more apparent if the grant goes to non-academic institution. THERE the bookkeeping is CLEARLY tagged to your resources and YOUR job..
But you're not making any actual money off of it.
Hence, the "getting rich off grants" conspiracy theory goes boom.
Shukla
Double dipping, nepotism, etc. Need I say more?
Well Yeah !!! I totally missed that story.. Sounds like this guy "got rich" off of grant money..
Pretty much his whole operation.. Funny how all that happens "by not making a profit" isn't it???
Needs a business mgr and an ASSOCIATE biz mgr.. Must be some cash flow to fund all that..
Then there’s the apparent nepotism going on with all that public money used to fund Shukla’s climate dreams:
IGES Personnel:Source: About IGES
President Shukla, Jagadish
Business Manager Shukla, Anastasia
Assistant Business Manager Shukla, Sonia
Director, COLA Kinter, James
Assistant to the President Shukla, Sonia
A little nepotism never hurts... Wife, Kids, Kids spouses... whats not to like...
And George Mason University still employs them as STAFF too boot.. Hard Left Wing socialist school... Must be acceptable practice to defraud the US government and take our tax money to pay them..
Oh hell no.. I remember a discussion where ThinkProgress rated it 3rd on the list of CONSERVATIVE colleges. Right after Hillsdale and Falwell's Liberty Univ..
REPORT: America’s Top 5 Most Conservative Colleges
Besides -- my favorite conservative economist and oft-times radio personality Walter Williams was on staff there for years..
Guess they are just interested in that GW money....
Not quite. Try publishing something contrary to the "accepted science". Then watch your job go boom.You need to know who signs the grant contract and who is held responsible for contract performance. The situational bookkeeping becomes even more apparent if the grant goes to non-academic institution. THERE the bookkeeping is CLEARLY tagged to your resources and YOUR job..
But you're not making any actual money off of it.
Hence, the "getting rich off grants" conspiracy theory goes boom.
Mark
the only scientists that object to cagw PUBLICLY are those that are tenured, or retired. unfortunately the poisonous atmosphere in climate science is scaring off the top notch PhD students who would rather work in an open environment where they don't have to watch their words under penalty of losing their career.
yeah, name the scientist funded by the government and doesn't believe in AGW.So tooth, do you believe there are scientists out there who don't believe in AGW? And if you do, are any funded by government money?
Yes and yes, which proves that there's no conspiracy to silence anyone.
Was there any point to asking that?
You need to know who signs the grant contract and who is held responsible for contract performance. The situational bookkeeping becomes even more apparent if the grant goes to non-academic institution. THERE the bookkeeping is CLEARLY tagged to your resources and YOUR job..
But you're not making any actual money off of it.
Hence, the "getting rich off grants" conspiracy theory goes boom.
and your salary may be way more than someone elses thanks to the money your research brings in, so you in fact get rich from the money. Sorry for buttin in.You need to know who signs the grant contract and who is held responsible for contract performance. The situational bookkeeping becomes even more apparent if the grant goes to non-academic institution. THERE the bookkeeping is CLEARLY tagged to your resources and YOUR job..
But you're not making any actual money off of it.
Hence, the "getting rich off grants" conspiracy theory goes boom.
Bullshit. You're being subsidized. That is a form of making money. Take the grants away and watch your research group and lab space shrink.. Clear as day..
NOBODY really makes money off of research as it's performed. It's all about reputation, prestige and keeping brainpower in your organization. It's a necessary write-off for the success of the school, corporation, or private organization..
You DO understand that you don't make money if you don't HAVE a job.. Right Squidward???
Ian, for the edification of your fellow deniers, please answer this question: do research scientists put grant money into their own pockets? Is grant money paid to researchers as some sort of bonus to do with as they please? Do researchers get rich from grant money?
And please keep this separate from the scenario in which researchers who bring more grant money to a university or research institution will likely earn more in the long run than one who doesn't. These are, after all, researchers. Their job is to do research and the more of it they do and the more value their fellow researchers place on their results, the better they are doing their job and the greater the pay they deserve.
I would like to see the common denier misconception that researchers are getting rich from grant money receive the quashing it deserves.
Ian, for the edification of your fellow deniers, please answer this question: do research scientists put grant money into their own pockets? Is grant money paid to researchers as some sort of bonus to do with as they please? Do researchers get rich from grant money?
And please keep this separate from the scenario in which researchers who bring more grant money to a university or research institution will likely earn more in the long run than one who doesn't. These are, after all, researchers. Their job is to do research and the more of it they do and the more value their fellow researchers place on their results, the better they are doing their job and the greater the pay they deserve.
I would like to see the common denier misconception that researchers are getting rich from grant money receive the quashing it deserves.
I just addressed that question.. If you don't HAVE a job -- you can't profit or get rich --- can ya Bullwinkle?
The grant money is totally fungible. Makes for bigger labs, more support overhead, and more researchers. OR researchers with higher salaries. The contracts allow so much "overhead" that you have CHOICE of taking it as "profit" or investing it in your business. For groups doing "pure research" they are essentially a SELF - EMPLOYED partnership -- expected to "lose money" -- but not cost the institution more than the institution wants to spend.
Ian, for the edification of your fellow deniers, please answer this question: do research scientists put grant money into their own pockets? Is grant money paid to researchers as some sort of bonus to do with as they please? Do researchers get rich from grant money?
And please keep this separate from the scenario in which researchers who bring more grant money to a university or research institution will likely earn more in the long run than one who doesn't. These are, after all, researchers. Their job is to do research and the more of it they do and the more value their fellow researchers place on their results, the better they are doing their job and the greater the pay they deserve.
I would like to see the common denier misconception that researchers are getting rich from grant money receive the quashing it deserves.
I just addressed that question.. If you don't HAVE a job -- you can't profit or get rich --- can ya Bullwinkle?
The grant money is totally fungible. Makes for bigger labs, more support overhead, and more researchers. OR researchers with higher salaries. The contracts allow so much "overhead" that you have CHOICE of taking it as "profit" or investing it in your business. For groups doing "pure research" they are essentially a SELF - EMPLOYED partnership -- expected to "lose money" -- but not cost the institution more than the institution wants to spend.
Grantors are very careful about how their money is spent. Certainly government agencies require all manner of detailed accounting of the allocation of grant money. The first time a researcher was found to be lining their own pockets with grant money would be the last time they'd get a grant from that organization.
What you are all saying is that climate researchers, unlike other researchers and unlike the workforce in general, are willing to risk their jobs and perhaps even their personal freedom (ie go to jail) for short term gains. How many people where you work decide that their best course of action is to steal money from their employers?
