No, that's just not the way government research funding works. You get a research grant for a specified, time limited period to work on a very specific problem. You then present your findings to the scientific community at large where they're checked for validity and reliability. With government money your data becomes public so you simply can't just fake or exaggerate claims. Everything you've done is under intense scrutiny. In science, you don't get funded based on just saying there's a problem. There's an incredible amount of rigor associated with demonstrating not only that you've identified something abnormal, but that it is highly unlikely that it could be anything else causing the problem.But isn't being funded by the government just as open to corruption as being privately funded? You tell the government there's no problem and the money gets cut off and goes to something else. You tell the government there is a problem and you need more resources to study it further and come up with solutions, and they start throwing money at you. There's much less accountability with government spending it seems.
I dunno man, John Oliver exposed a lot of this bullshit masquerading as science. I know he's British, but he does make good points so don't hold that against him too much!No, that's just not the way government research funding works. You get a research grant for a specified, time limited period to work on a very specific problem. You then present your findings to the scientific community at large where they're checked for validity and reliability. With government money your data becomes public so you simply can't just fake or exaggerate claims. Everything you've done is under intense scrutiny. In science, you don't get funded based on just saying there's a problem. There's an incredible amount of rigor associated with demonstrating not only that you've identified something abnormal, but that it is highly unlikely that it could be anything else causing the problem.
Again, you have to disentangle policy decisions (which might decide how much money to allocate in the federal budget fir studying something) from scientific decisions (which are subject to extreme scrutiny from multiple sources and have to be validated very carefully). Policy can make more people study climate change because there's simply more funding to do so, but increased study has nothing to do with the results and whether they pass scientific muster.
That vid is actually great and should be watched by everyone who sometimes wonders why tf science seems so contradictory and confusing. For one thing, the segment isn't so much about science as the reporting of science to the general public, which is typically a catastrophe. The reporting of scientific findings usually is ludicrous and Oliver points out some good reasons why and how that manifests. There's a great website to help sift through science news and whether it's BS.I dunno man, John Oliver exposed a lot of this bullshit masquerading as science. I know he's British, but he does make good points so don't hold that against him too much!
True but it is the very nature of science to supersede theories with the emergence of new information or discoveries. If you look at most obsolete scientific theory, it's not that the scientific methods were bad, they were doing the best they could with the information they had... but nonetheless, they were wrong. Hollow earth, rain follows the plow, etc.That vid is actually great and should be watched by everyone who sometimes wonders why tf science seems so contradictory and confusing. For one thing, the segment isn't so much about science as the reporting of science to the general public, which is typically a catastrophe. The reporting of scientific findings usually is ludicrous and Oliver points out some good reasons why and how that manifests. There's a great website to help sift through science news and whether it's BS.
SciCheck Archives - FactCheck.org
Like Conor McGregor, the problem isn't scientific rigor. It's its fans.
How can anything flat be hollow?True but it is the very nature of science to supersede theories with the emergence of new information or discoveries. If you look at most obsolete scientific theory, it's not that the scientific methods were bad, they were doing the best they could with the information they had... but nonetheless, they were wrong. Hollow earth, rain follows the plow, etc.
I remember that thread.I still think climate change is a red herring. Here are posts from the thread from last year (about to change trains so not retyping). It was a good conversation I think.
IMG/GIF - Artic Sea Ice Thickness | TMMAC - The MMA Community Forum
IMG/GIF - Artic Sea Ice Thickness | TMMAC - The MMA Community Forum
Fuck yeah you did, you and Ted Cruz were the ones who red pilled me on the CC liesI remember that thread.
I crushed it on that one.