Inconceivable Truth: Does science has an agenda?

I always assumed Mags was just a LOLcat.

 

This graphic confuses climate change policy and climate change science.

It's convenient how the graph omitted money spent fighting climate science.

Also I'm skeptical of the numbers the author uses. There are no link to sources and he only credits himself, "a self-taught, unfunded scientist"

Not a very convincing argument and a bad info-graphic in general.

 

It's bullshit. What is "the whole thing?"

The tax payer pays for scientific studies, including skeptics (Judith Curry and Jasper Kirkby for example). Donors and add revenue pay for the propaganda.

We've got the IPCC chair receiving death threats and the Heartland Institute trying to push their curriculum in school and it's the climate scientists that we have to be careful of?!?!?!

Who are the real alarmist?

Watch out! Climate Hoax!

Al Gore! Scary!

Renewable Energy! Blasphemy!

Big Gubment! Oooooh!

Enivironmental Groups! Burn them!

Liberal Media! Hide the kids!

 

Absolutely there are people taking advantage of people's beliefs (on both sides) but I would not group most scientists into those who are "gaming the system". You don't gain a competitive edge for research funding for slapping "Global Warming" on a grant proposal.

 

Our environmental company, with the collaboration of an oil company just received a 10 million dollar grant, for treatment of sulfur rich waste ponds treatment. We have applied for three other grants that total 50 mil. Probably going to get 30 mil guaranteed.

 

Did slapping "global warming" on the grant proposal help you get the money?

 

And if you promise research that shows global warming is a "hoax" you get billions of dollars from conservative groups and industry.

Besides "green" more that global warming as Mags pointed out. Stay on topic.

 

No but saving the environment did. Carbon credits are a thing of the past. Gore already made hundreds of millions. Time to cash out

 

That's ALARMING!

How do you discern what tax payer money is spend on climate research and what tax payer money is spent on the "climate hoax"?

 

Congrats on the grant. Is it a government grant? Did you find the review process transparent and fair?

I've been involved in a few grant proposals (mine were for research money). I've been impressed with the emphasis on the scientific method from the review panel. Their feedback always revolves around things like having a clear hypothesis and the strength of the experiment. It's a lot of work and research to even get a proposal together but it's exhilerating when you get accepted.

The researcher I work for actually goes to DC twice a year to review proposals for the NSF. He has mentioned submissions that attempted to use buzz words to gain attention but that they often had little substance and weak experiment designs.

 

Oil and corn subsidies seem relevant.

 

We were just giving the oil remediation company information. They hired an outfit from Seattle that does all the grant organization for a percentage of the grant proceeds. I thought that was weird that someone legally can take a portion of the grant, but I rolled with it. I will tell you they got through a ton of red tape.

 

Did you know algae is the cheapest form of organic protein source for fuel? It's really easy to grow too. All you need is sun, water and a little fertilizer. Then you skim it and it grows back in days. I don't know why more companies invest in that technology. It's not a food source, that won't effect the food market like corn, sugar or palm oil.

But if you use palm oil, it's the second best efficient source of fuel.