NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

Reply to thread

Message

What does the US government stand to gain from supporting these "pro-AGW" scientists? I have a fairly good idea of why an oil company might find it in their best interest to channel funds secretly to a shady group calling itself "Friends of Science".

For more on where all those billions and billions from Uncle Sam go:

But maybe that money is somehow being directed in a biased manner, distributed in a way that ensures the current consensus is supported. "Where is the Department of Solar Influence or the Institute of Natural Climate Change?" Nova asks, elsewhere claiming, "Thousands of scientists have been funded to find a connection between human carbon emissions and the climate. Hardly any have been funded to find the opposite."

This displays an almost incomprehensible misunderstanding of how science research works. Thereare institutes that are dedicated to studying the Sun—the Naval Research Laboratory has one, asdoes NASA. But those institutes are focused on learning about what the Sun actually does, not squeezing what we learn into some preconceived agenda. For decades, solar activity has been trending downwards, even as temperatures have continued to rise. It's not that the researchers are being induced or compelled to some sort of biased interpretation of the data. Reality just happens to have a bias.

Accusations that climate science is money-driven reveal ignorance of how science is done | Ars Technica

<blockquote data-quote="Trystero" data-source="post: 194135" data-attributes="member: 5950">What does the US government stand to gain from supporting these &quot;pro-AGW&quot; scientists? I have a fairly good idea of why an oil company might find it in their best interest to channel funds secretly to a shady group calling itself &quot;Friends of Science&quot;.For more on where all those billions and billions from Uncle Sam go:But maybe that money is somehow being directed in a biased manner, distributed in a way that ensures the current consensus is supported. &quot;Where is the Department of Solar Influence or the Institute of Natural Climate Change?&quot; Nova asks, elsewhere claiming, &quot;Thousands of scientists have been funded to find a connection between human carbon emissions and the climate. Hardly any have been funded to find the opposite.&quot;This displays an almost incomprehensible misunderstanding of how science research works. Thereare institutes that are dedicated to studying the Sun—the Naval Research Laboratory <a href="http://wwwsolar.nrl.navy.mil/" target="_blank">has one</a>, as<a href="http://science.nasa.gov/heliophysics/" target="_blank">does NASA</a>. But those institutes are focused on learning about what the Sun actually does, not squeezing what we learn into some preconceived agenda. For decades, solar activity has been trending downwards, even as temperatures have continued to rise. It&#039;s not that the researchers are being induced or compelled to some sort of biased interpretation of the data. Reality just happens to have a bias.<a href="http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/05/accusations-that-climate-science-is-money-driven-reveal-ignorance-of-how-science-is-done/" target="_blank">Accusations that climate science is money-driven reveal ignorance of how science is done | Ars Technica</a></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Trystero, post: 194135, member: 5950"] What does the US government stand to gain from supporting these "pro-AGW" scientists? I have a fairly good idea of why an oil company might find it in their best interest to channel funds secretly to a shady group calling itself "Friends of Science". For more on where all those billions and billions from Uncle Sam go: [I]But maybe that money is somehow being directed in a biased manner, distributed in a way that ensures the current consensus is supported. "Where is the Department of Solar Influence or the Institute of Natural Climate Change?" Nova asks, elsewhere claiming, "Thousands of scientists have been funded to find a connection between human carbon emissions and the climate. Hardly any have been funded to find the opposite." This displays an almost incomprehensible misunderstanding of how science research works. Thereare institutes that are dedicated to studying the Sun—the Naval Research Laboratory [URL='http://wwwsolar.nrl.navy.mil/']has one[/URL], as[URL='http://science.nasa.gov/heliophysics/']does NASA[/URL]. But those institutes are focused on learning about what the Sun actually does, not squeezing what we learn into some preconceived agenda. For decades, solar activity has been trending downwards, even as temperatures have continued to rise. It's not that the researchers are being induced or compelled to some sort of biased interpretation of the data. Reality just happens to have a bias.[/I] [url="http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/05/accusations-that-climate-science-is-money-driven-reveal-ignorance-of-how-science-is-done/"]Accusations that climate science is money-driven reveal ignorance of how science is done | Ars Technica[/url] [/QUOTE]

Verification