Tech PC Forums

Why is it? I'm not discrediting the scientist.

Nor am I saying all the research is bunkum. What I am saying is that research is guided in the direction that suits the agenda of those funding it.

I can't answer it, though, because I don't think it's black or white. It's not that I'm not willing to answer the question, it's just that I don't think that it's fair to bundle all govenment funded science under the same umbrella and demand that they all be treated equally. That ain't life. That ain't real. I don't subscribe to Jim's view that all government funded projects are to be distrusted by their very nature of being government funded. On the other hand, I also don't trust all government funded science projects simply because they are government funded.

In my opinion, the fact of whether or not a project is government funded is moot. I'm talking about, and consistently so, a particular branch of science funded by the IPCC. The IPCC I do not trust.

I dont see how all of that can possibly tie together though?

This is (simplistically) how the system works:

-A scientists group/or a scientist on their own, is interested in furthering the knowledge of a topic, lets say "the amount of CO2 produced by a fart".
- He applies for a grant from the government (or a charity or a corporation) and puts together a reason why he should get the money (comes down to a number of factors, but partly linked to how much published work he has done previously).
- He gets awarded the money and then sets about doing his research (not knowing the outcome)
- He determines data, and see if it fits to a predicted model or not (a prediction he normally sets out himself)
- He gathers the data (whether it follows the established patterns or not) and then submits to a Journal related to his area of expertise Journal of Flatulence, or JoF in this case.
- JoF receive his paper, and send it to numerous other scientists in associated (but not exactly the same) areas of interest
- these scientists "peer review" and accept it or call it bunkum
- if accepted, it gets loaded into their archives as "fact" until proven otherwise by a new study

How therefore can that be guided, driven, coerced? I KNOW there have been issues whereby the peer-review part of the process has been guided by a select few specialists for climate change etc, but pulling something of that scale and magnitude for ALL areas of research published? Simply not possible, and evidenced as such by the amount of one-upmanship currently seen in publications.

I'm gonna leave it there, as i've derailed enough (and i actually believe carbon tax is WROOOOOOONG, CO2 isnt mankinds greatest threat and even some of the NWO, 911 and financial stuff) so i'm debating for the sake of debating, which is pretty fruitless!

fairy do's sensible enough (and sort of answers my question, thanks - told you ya could!)

The great thing is that you believe in that model of scientific endeavour. And rightly so! What's fundamental to my stance on global warming is that the model you describe: that which is necessary for scientific rigour, has not been followed by the IPCC. I'll do my best to try to outline, in a similar fashion to your model above, how the consensus on climate change has been formed. However, in order to do that, I'm gonna move to me main rig cause this laptop is shite:D

Hmmm.. how in-depth do you want this? I can try my best to be specific by naming names and real life facts about our recent history but that might take a while because i'll need to give you references n stuff. Or I can give you a generic outline like yours innit ...

This is the crux, yes. When the model is followed all well and good, but if the agenda of the funding agency, be it government, corporation or whatever, can be furthered by sidestepping that model the model is out the window.

generic's fine, and you dont even need to bother doing that really - i KNOW the IPCC situation, and how they controlled the process to belittle, hide and mask any work whcih didnt agree with the agenda on climate change - so have a cigar instead if you wish!

My point was more about can we believe research in general (and was more focussed on Jims belief of government controlling all research by paying for it, than your opinions relating to IPCC)

As i say, i actually agree with you both, just trying to A) Highlight the way you've been communicating it isnt gonna help you convert people and B) making statements like government funded research is a rigged will only make your stance seem ridiculous (and again alienate people you are trying to enlighten).

then we'll agree to disagree (tbh i think this is a little bit of a u-turn from you Jim, but i really cba discussing it further )

-A few, select people conclude that mankind is changing the climate through CO2 emissions
- They lobby the UN for funding and create something called the IPCC.
- They get given money and set about work to support their conclusion
- They gather data and discard that which does not fit the conclusion
- They create computer models which, after some tweaking, produce the required results
- They submit their findings to the IPCC
- The IPCC finds scientists who are willing to agree with the consensus and ignore those who disagree
- these scientists "peer review" and accept it
- Once accepted, a worldwide publication is sent out as fact and the media jump on board, reacting to the alarmist claims in the paper
- more money is produced for funding
- the cycle continues until the consensus has the world gripped and the world’s governments are prepared to do anything to find more funding to combat the erroneous consensus


Or something like that

Oh, and try not to tar meself and Jim with the same brush on everything. Yes, we're both anti-establishment at our core but we hold fundamentally different views on many things and communicate in markedly different manners

you see thats a different process (and i appreciate you are simplifying) but in that example the government/funding body has setup an actual entity, as opposed to giving money out to established entities already doing research, to do research on behalf of the funding body (and therefore an agenda should be expected imo). This is such a one-off example that it doesnt break the model, its a different model.

I genuinely dont believe that would happen on that scale on the typical (academic) model. But i could be wrong.

I concur - I'm sure it doesn't happen like that in the majority of cases.

I imagine, in general it doesn't happen, however I have no doubt at all it can and does happen when there is a specific agenda to advance. Such as convincing us of a terrible swine flu pandemic.

I'm hugely bull-headed in these debates, and often go OTT; as I've said, this is one of my weakest subjects of the whole caboodle, and one of my greatest flaws (do we really have flaws or just differences?) is of getting more OTT the less solid my footing. I get that from my mother bless her.

No u-turn Pug, more a watering down of my true feelings on the matter to something a little more palatable. It may come across that I think all government funded research is bunkum, yet it isn't and simply couldn't be the case.

awww jeez guys, but i thought you were both cunts?

now i'm so confused

Erm.

I am a cunt.

Blimey I don't need to make a counter point! Nice!

You seem to have sidestepped around this point.

Do you like tomatoes?

Right, I've got a question.

If we make the assumption that Government funded research facilities can and are guided in such a way to output some propaganda on behalf of the Gov. If we also assume that private enterprise won't give us reliable research because they are driven by their agenda of profit.

Why do you trust the documents and research that counters the common arguement? How do you pick a trustworthy source? Because to be bluntly honest from the outside it looks like if the document agrees with your world view of government propaganda, agendas and climate change it's all fine. If it doesn't, it's clearly taking a backhander and lying.

Can you see why it's difficult to argue your point? There is no source 'we' can put up that you will accept, it's impossible to debate a subject when the opposition is convinced the entire world and everything in it is a lie, except the stuff that proves their point.

It's the same as arguing religion.

Exactly the same.

We just did this to death didn't we? On this subject it's anything touched, issued or tainted by the IPCC (and for my personal money) the EPA that's to be ignored....