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.
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?
Not at all. Didn't say that. Read what I wrote again or you'll have no hope of understanding how Research institutions are run in this country.. Or how they prosper or how grant contracts are constructed. I've not only gone out and SOLD research to grantors, but I've been responsible for the performance of the contracts and the accounting and the ways the money is used. That cash flow is no different from any other source of income that comes into that research institution. Except for the immense amount of paperwork that comes with them.
A researcher is SOLD at a price. That price is "marked up" FAR BEYOND what it is required to sustain them on staff. That's a form of profit. If it's a BIDDING contract -- you're only restraining factor is what the "other guy" is gonna bid for the same work.
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?
Here are thousands
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyMayclopedia
And what is your point here jc? Are you attempting to claim that an overwhelming majority of climate scientists do NOT concur with the IPCC conclusions?
Maybe if the scientists that dispute global warming weren't ostracized, demeaned and blackballed for their beliefs, it would be easier to prove consensus. Since fighting the establishment becomes a "death knell" for your career, I would be surprised if most scientist don't fall in line.
How about you?
It is sorta telling that the scientists that are in the denier camp are usually insulated from these actions by the positions they hold?
It is to me.
Mark
Hmm. So they have a choice. Conspire with the group, and MAYBE lose their job, or break away from the group and SURELY lose their job.But you and yours are claiming that climate scientists have a massive conspiracy where they are falsifying data and producing evidence for manmade global warming that doesn't exist. We can nit pick as to what behavior in a typical office setting is analogous to such behavior, but the standard denier claim is that data and models have all been twisted by scientists to make a false appearance in order to increase their incomes. Were such behavior to come to light, it would mean the ends of their careers. How about it FCT? Do you think that's a realistic charge?
Do you actually believe there is no pressure on these journals to not print this research?Here are thousands
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyMayclopedia
And what is your point here jc? Are you attempting to claim that an overwhelming majority of climate scientists do NOT concur with the IPCC conclusions?
Maybe if the scientists that dispute global warming weren't ostracized, demeaned and blackballed for their beliefs, it would be easier to prove consensus. Since fighting the establishment becomes a "death knell" for your career, I would be surprised if most scientist don't fall in line.
How about you?
It is sorta telling that the scientists that are in the denier camp are usually insulated from these actions by the positions they hold?
It is to me.
Mark
Maybe if those scientists would submit papers of high enough quality to be published in peer reviewed journals, they would not be considered to be on the fringe.
You know the nice thing about your "dying off" theory? We'll all probably live long enough to see which side is right.So to summarize, deniers couldn't put forth any evidence for their conspiracy theory that scentists are just in it for the money, and are now waving their hands around wildly in an attempt to deflect, and circling the wagons for a last-ditch defense.
That is, same as for every other denier conspiracy theory.
Now, it is true that all the deniers are old. To paraphrase Max Planck, science advances one funeral at a time. There were once Relativity deniers, and it took time for them to all die off as well. There's always a tiny handful who won't accept that science advanced from what they knew, and vainly attempt to stop the progress.
But you and yours are claiming that climate scientists have a massive conspiracy where they are falsifying data and producing evidence for manmade global warming that doesn't exist. We can nit pick as to what behavior in a typical office setting is analogous to such behavior, but the standard denier claim is that data and models have all been twisted by scientists to make a false appearance in order to increase their incomes. Were such behavior to come to light, it would mean the ends of their careers. How about it FCT? Do you think that's a realistic charge?
high enough quality where what they write agrees with them rather than make a statement of fact. Yep, we already know the Pal Review process.Here are thousands
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyMayclopedia
And what is your point here jc? Are you attempting to claim that an overwhelming majority of climate scientists do NOT concur with the IPCC conclusions?
Maybe if the scientists that dispute global warming weren't ostracized, demeaned and blackballed for their beliefs, it would be easier to prove consensus. Since fighting the establishment becomes a "death knell" for your career, I would be surprised if most scientist don't fall in line.
How about you?
It is sorta telling that the scientists that are in the denier camp are usually insulated from these actions by the positions they hold?
It is to me.
Mark
Maybe if those scientists would submit papers of high enough quality to be published in peer reviewed journals, they would not be considered to be on the fringe.
Here are thousands
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyMayclopedia
And what is your point here jc? Are you attempting to claim that an overwhelming majority of climate scientists do NOT concur with the IPCC conclusions?
Maybe if the scientists that dispute global warming weren't ostracized, demeaned and blackballed for their beliefs, it would be easier to prove consensus. Since fighting the establishment becomes a "death knell" for your career, I would be surprised if most scientist don't fall in line.
How about you?
It is sorta telling that the scientists that are in the denier camp are usually insulated from these actions by the positions they hold?
It is to me.
Mark
Maybe if those scientists would submit papers of high enough quality to be published in peer reviewed journals, they would not be considered to be on the fringe.
A nice breakdown of the smoke and mirrors math used.
NOAA Butchers Math in Report Claiming 2015 Was Hottest Year Ever
Now, it's math time:
- According to NOAA, the global average temperature for the 20th century was 57 degrees Fahrenheit.
- And the 2015 average was 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit above that average.
- In other words, according to this recent NOAA report, 2015 was the hottest year ever at 58.62 degrees Fahrenheit (57+1.62).
- And, that 1997 NOAA report states 1997 had an average global temperature of 62.45 degrees.
1997's 62.45 degrees is 3.83 degrees Fahrenheit higher than 2015's 58.62 degrees Fahrenheit, meaning that - using NOAA's own numbers - 2015 cannot be the hottest year on record.
A nice breakdown of the smoke and mirrors math used.
NOAA Butchers Math in Report Claiming 2015 Was Hottest Year Ever
AND
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
The Climate of 1997
Annual Global Temperature Index
Please note: the estimate for the baseline global temperature used in this study differed, and was warmer than, the baseline estimate (Jones et al., 1999) used currently. This report has been superseded by subsequent analyses. However, as with all climate monitoring reports, it is left online as it was written at the time.
The global average temperature of 62.45 degrees Fahrenheit for 1997 was the warmest year on record, surpassing the previous record set in 1995 by 0.15 degrees Fahrenheit. The chart reflects variations from the 30-year average (1961-1990) of the combined land and sea surface temperatures.
Citing This Report
NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information, State of the Climate: Global Analysis for Annual 1997, published online January 1998, retrieved on January 23, 2016 fromGlobal Analysis - Annual 1997 | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI).
So, where do you believe smoke and mirrors are being employed?
