The only science liberals care about is evolution, stem cell research, and climate change

[paulitician]

Always remember to follow the money. All scientific studies are funded. You just need to know by whom. In today's world, there's usually a political or business interest attached to studies. Just find out who's funding the study, and then judge the merit.

---
"Follow the money" makes more sense when science funding comes from businesses that have motivation to suppress results that would decrease their profits, like the "research" funded by the tobacco industry.

Most Gov research grants, like from NSF, are provided to the academic sector, where there's motivation to conduct good science to advance one's career & reputation among PhD colleagues.
Check out NSF's Merit Review Process, and note their section on conflicts of interest:

"Checking for conflicts of interest:
In addition to checking proposals and selecting reviewers with no apparent potential conflicts, NSF staff members provide reviewers guidance and instruct them how to identify and declare potential conflicts of interest."

http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/2015/nsb201514.pdf
.

Sadly, science isn't science as we used to know it. Business and Government fund most studies. There's always a conflict of interest, It's best to dig and find out where a particular study is getting its funding from. You can then better judge the merit.

 

[sealybobo]

Why would we want a permanent base on the moon again?

What is the point of this thread exactly?

Do you care about the human race beyond your life and your time on earth? Because it seems Republicans don't. Do you care about humans living even if a meteor or nuclear bomb destroys the planet? Or global warming?

Us liberals do.

Conservatives care about themselves living forever (heaven). Realistic scientists would like the human race to live forever. One is a selfish wishful ignorant superstitious hope.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Liberals are told about those things by their Black Messiah. Liberals cannot master third grade science on their own.

The moonbat messiah was brainwashed way before the bed wetters who follow him, and obozo's brainwashers were programmed decades before the genetic garbage manifested in obozo was allowed to gestate.

Most so called "academics" in this country are bed wetters. Some know better than to believe in marxist dogma but they're too dedicated to their social lives to become pariah's in their social circles. Some have however and they've been shunned to obscurity, but thanks to media they're still heard.



Libtards believe in science, so long as it reinforces their programming. The parts of science that challenge their programming is regarded as "shills of corporate power". Of course it's always the corporate power they hate like the petroleum industry. Corporations like GE who are horning in on windmills and solar bullshit that all costs more to establish and maintain than can be recouped through energy harvest have to be subsidized by government. That's OK for these corporations to take corporate welfare though because they're bowing to the leftist agenda. The oil companies are the shills, companies like GE can't be shills because they're promoting leftist zealotry.

You must work for an oil company.

You must work for a windmill company because you are blowhard....

 

[Syriusly]

Always remember to follow the money. All scientific studies are funded. You just need to know by whom. In today's world, there's usually a political or business interest attached to studies. Just find out who's funding the study, and then judge the merit.

---
"Follow the money" makes more sense when science funding comes from businesses that have motivation to suppress results that would decrease their profits, like the "research" funded by the tobacco industry.

Most Gov research grants, like from NSF, are provided to the academic sector, where there's motivation to conduct good science to advance one's career & reputation among PhD colleagues.
Check out NSF's Merit Review Process, and note their section on conflicts of interest:

"Checking for conflicts of interest:
In addition to checking proposals and selecting reviewers with no apparent potential conflicts, NSF staff members provide reviewers guidance and instruct them how to identify and declare potential conflicts of interest."

http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/2015/nsb201514.pdf
.

Sadly, science isn't science as we used to know it. Business and Government fund most studies. There's always a conflict of interest, It's best to dig and find out where a particular study is getting its funding from. You can then better judge the merit.

Hmmm who should be funding most studies?

 

[kaz]

If liberals really cared about science, why do we not have a permanent base on the Moon, and space ship heading for Mars?

It is liberals who always block space travel.

Ask them why.

I don't get it

 

[rightwinger]

I still don't see the value of a permanent base on the moon

What scientific value is it?

 

[PK1]

Always remember to follow the money. All scientific studies are funded. You just need to know by whom. In today's world, there's usually a political or business interest attached to studies. Just find out who's funding the study, and then judge the merit.

---
"Follow the money" makes more sense when science funding comes from businesses that have motivation to suppress results that would decrease their profits, like the "research" funded by the tobacco industry.

Most Gov research grants, like from NSF, are provided to the academic sector, where there's motivation to conduct good science to advance one's career & reputation among PhD colleagues.
Check out NSF's Merit Review Process, and note their section on conflicts of interest:

"Checking for conflicts of interest:
In addition to checking proposals and selecting reviewers with no apparent potential conflicts, NSF staff members provide reviewers guidance and instruct them how to identify and declare potential conflicts of interest."

http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/2015/nsb201514.pdf
.

Sadly, science isn't science as we used to know it. Business and Government fund most studies. There's always a conflict of interest, It's best to dig and find out where a particular study is getting its funding from. You can then better judge the merit.

---
I'd bet most of the "tainted" science studies come from corporations who are partial to stockholders. Their scientists are paid well and motivated to produce desired "results". Few of these studies get passed peer-review panels on prestigious journals.

On the other hand, professors at top research universities are highly competitive & motivated to conduct true/objective science to further their careers & reputations among elite colleague scientists around the world, not just one country's political agenda.
.

 

[paulitician]

Always remember to follow the money. All scientific studies are funded. You just need to know by whom. In today's world, there's usually a political or business interest attached to studies. Just find out who's funding the study, and then judge the merit.

---
"Follow the money" makes more sense when science funding comes from businesses that have motivation to suppress results that would decrease their profits, like the "research" funded by the tobacco industry.

Most Gov research grants, like from NSF, are provided to the academic sector, where there's motivation to conduct good science to advance one's career & reputation among PhD colleagues.
Check out NSF's Merit Review Process, and note their section on conflicts of interest:

"Checking for conflicts of interest:
In addition to checking proposals and selecting reviewers with no apparent potential conflicts, NSF staff members provide reviewers guidance and instruct them how to identify and declare potential conflicts of interest."

http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/2015/nsb201514.pdf
.

Sadly, science isn't science as we used to know it. Business and Government fund most studies. There's always a conflict of interest, It's best to dig and find out where a particular study is getting its funding from. You can then better judge the merit.

Hmmm who should be funding most studies?

That's a good question. But i suspect, if we get Government and Business interests out of it, we'll see some real science again.