If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   The Union of Concerned Scientists reports that 93% of Fox News' and 80% of the Wall Street Journal opinion pages' climate coverage is inaccurate and misleading   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 116
    More: Obvious, Union of Concerned Scientists, Wall Street Journal, Fox News, Greenland Ice Sheet, PBS NewsHour, Jane Lubchenco, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York Harbor  
•       •       •

1975 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Sep 2012 at 9:24 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



116 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-25 04:30:53 PM
You have to take them seriously. After all, they are concerned.
( I know, because they're all making 'that' face.)
 
2012-09-25 04:36:20 PM
They're just trying to pad those sweet research budgets!
 
2012-09-25 04:39:05 PM
And this is why we can't have nice things.
 
2012-09-25 04:51:34 PM

RussianPooper: They're just trying to pad those sweet research budgets!


GRANT MONEY!
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-09-25 06:42:54 PM
What? No Rick Romero reference?
 
2012-09-25 06:45:19 PM
Yeah, but 9/11 and terrorists and communism and socialism!!!!
 
2012-09-25 06:47:47 PM
Yeah, but the Wall St Journal's opinion section is spot on about President Obama destroying the economy through secret Nazi UnBootstrappy Socialism. So, you win some you lose some.
 
2012-09-25 06:50:53 PM
They're a union. That's code for socialism.
 
2012-09-25 06:54:58 PM
I think Google is broken.

FlashHarry: RussianPooper: They're just trying to pad those sweet research budgets!

GRANT MONEY!


I think Google is broken because I googled "world's richest climatologist" and got zero results.
 
2012-09-25 06:55:08 PM
lh6.googleusercontent.com
 
2012-09-25 07:05:36 PM
I'll just leave this here:

scienceblogs.com 

It's a good read, but it sorta made me want to die a little too.
 
2012-09-25 07:11:33 PM
Those numbers are surprisingly low.
 
2012-09-25 07:34:28 PM

GAT_00: Those numbers are surprisingly low.


Yeah, my bet is that the 7% accuracy rate on Fox News was by pure accident. Someone misread something and it ended up being correct.
 
2012-09-25 07:36:15 PM

mrshowrules: I think Google is broken.FlashHarry: RussianPooper: They're just trying to pad those sweet research budgets!

GRANT MONEY!

I think Google is broken because I googled "world's richest climatologist" and got zero results.


You know, I've known people in climate science, and they'd all love to find evidence that this is merely a normal cycle, and that this will correct itself on its own, and that humans are not permanently damaging the environment. The climate scientist who found credible proof of that would be lauded as a hero.

But that evidence is not there. And what is there is some scary shiat.
 
2012-09-25 07:45:42 PM

Via Infinito: I'll just leave this here:

[scienceblogs.com image 316x480] 

It's a good read, but it sorta made me want to die a little too.


Finished Mooney's "The Republican Brain" recently. Also depressing.
 
2012-09-25 07:49:06 PM

fusillade762: Via Infinito: I'll just leave this here:

[scienceblogs.com image 316x480] 

It's a good read, but it sorta made me want to die a little too.

Finished Mooney's "The Republican Brain" recently. Also depressing.


I just started reading it. I had a feeling it would be pretty much the same. Same author and all.
But I'm hoping that if I can understand what makes my family tick, I can relate better to them?

Or I'll just end up moving away from them again.
 
2012-09-25 08:02:54 PM
Well, knock me over with a feather.
 
2012-09-25 08:21:03 PM

FlashHarry: RussianPooper: They're just trying to pad those sweet research budgets!

GRANT MONEY!


GRANT MONEY!
 
2012-09-25 08:27:25 PM

Via Infinito: fusillade762: Via Infinito: I'll just leave this here:

[scienceblogs.com image 316x480] 

It's a good read, but it sorta made me want to die a little too.

Finished Mooney's "The Republican Brain" recently. Also depressing.

I just started reading it. I had a feeling it would be pretty much the same. Same author and all.
But I'm hoping that if I can understand what makes my family tick, I can relate better to them?

Or I'll just end up moving away from them again.


It does give you some tips on relating to intransigent minds. At the very least it clearly lays out what *doesn't* work.
 
2012-09-25 08:32:31 PM

Via Infinito: fusillade762: Via Infinito: I'll just leave this here:

[scienceblogs.com image 316x480] 

It's a good read, but it sorta made me want to die a little too.

Finished Mooney's "The Republican Brain" recently. Also depressing.

I just started reading it. I had a feeling it would be pretty much the same. Same author and all.
But I'm hoping that if I can understand what makes my family tick, I can relate better to them?

Or I'll just end up moving away from them again.


I understand.
 
2012-09-25 08:41:40 PM
Amazingly, the more they repeat stuff, the more people who fall for it.
 
2012-09-25 08:44:51 PM

edmo: Amazingly, the more they repeat stuff, the more people who fall for it.


upload.wikimedia.org
Is NOT amazed.
 
2012-09-25 09:01:30 PM

adiabat: You have to take them seriously. After all, they are concerned.
( I know, because they're all making 'that' face.)


This 'that' face?

farm1.staticflickr.com
 
2012-09-25 09:03:32 PM

jake_lex: GAT_00: Those numbers are surprisingly low.

Yeah, my bet is that the 7% accuracy rate on Fox News was by pure accident. Someone misread something and it ended up being correct.


I'm thinking that 7% is when they have Bill Nye on every once in a while.
 
2012-09-25 09:27:52 PM

EvilEgg: They're a union. That's code for socialism.


The scientific community, insofar as it describes people that actually publish regularly rather than just everyone with a degree, is in the literal sense socialist, as it's funded by governments and intercorporate alliances that might as well be governments.

There certainly is privately-funded research, but it's not part of the community as such.
 
2012-09-25 09:29:19 PM
Every religion claims its detractors are wrong about them. The climate change religion is no different.
 
2012-09-25 09:30:04 PM

jake_lex: GAT_00: Those numbers are surprisingly low.

Yeah, my bet is that the 7% accuracy rate on Fox News was by pure accident. Someone misread something and it ended up being correct.


The 7% is for the first part of this phrase you hear a few of them say.

"Global warming is real, but humans aren't causing it"
 
2012-09-25 09:30:22 PM
Every religion claims its detractors are wrong about them. The climate change denier religion is no different.
 
2012-09-25 09:30:58 PM
And those scientists just happen to all get their research grants for studying and confirming the existence of global warming. What a surprise.
 
2012-09-25 09:35:30 PM
Honestly, is anyone REALLY surprised by this?
 
2012-09-25 09:36:05 PM
In before ..".RESEARCH GRANTS!"

..oh shiat, too late. I guess all the scientists are wrong and the big corporations that feel they might stand to lose money by not farking up the environment are right.

/RESEARCH GRANTS!
 
2012-09-25 09:37:40 PM

adiabat: (I know, because they're all making 'that' face.)


media.tumblr.com

What? That's what you meant, isn't it?
 
2012-09-25 09:38:55 PM

Via Infinito: fusillade762: Via Infinito: I'll just leave this here:

[scienceblogs.com image 316x480] 

It's a good read, but it sorta made me want to die a little too.

Finished Mooney's "The Republican Brain" recently. Also depressing.

I just started reading it. I had a feeling it would be pretty much the same. Same author and all.
But I'm hoping that if I can understand what makes my family tick, I can relate better to them?

Or I'll just end up moving away from them again.


I tried listening to El Rushbo for a while to try to understand the republican brain. I couldn't do it. I would yell and scream at the radio. Same result for Fox News too. I couldn't fact check their lies quick enough . Very frustrating exercise.
 
2012-09-25 09:39:59 PM

Via Infinito: I just started reading it. I had a feeling it would be pretty much the same. Same author and all.
But I'm hoping that if I can understand what makes my family tick, I can relate better to them?


Unfortunately the more you understand why they think the way they do, the more depressing it will get. :(

But there are always whiskey sours to ease the pain. :)
 
2012-09-25 09:43:44 PM

Via Infinito: it sorta made me want to die a little too.


Funny, it makes me want to kill.
 
2012-09-25 09:43:53 PM

theknuckler_33: Honestly, is anyone REALLY surprised by this?


No, but as a scientist, while this is supposed to be 'common sense knowledge' people still quote those buffoons in the opinion pieces as if they are infallibly correct. It's maddening. So instead of debating the actual argument, you have to spend time dismantling the misinformation out there.
 
2012-09-25 09:48:21 PM
You mean that scientists are actually UPSET when their life's work is misrepresented? How unreasonable!

RussianPooper: They're just trying to pad those sweet research budgets!

Can'ttellifSerious.jpg

You can't pad a proposal budget, and even if you could, the results would have nothing to do with it. Money is paid for work, not getting specified results.

There certainly is privately-funded research, but it's not part of the community as such.

There USED to be plenty, but then businesses figured out they don't have to pay for their own research, they just need to use the results of research paid for with tax dollars while complaining about government spending

And those scientists just happen to all get their research grants for studying and confirming the existence of global warming. What a surprise.

You want to see someone get a huge grant? Find someone with solid evidence against man made global warming. That guy would have his career MADE.
 
2012-09-25 09:49:42 PM

garron: Every religion claims its detractors are wrong about them. The climate change religion is no different.


m2313: Every religion claims its detractors are wrong about them. The climate change denier religion is no different.


beta_plus: And those scientists just happen to all get their research grants for studying and confirming the existence of global warming. What a surprise.


Hrmmm.....
 
2012-09-25 09:49:59 PM
I, for one, am totally shocked and surprised by this outcome. Okay, maybe not so much...

But seriously, who would have ever suspected that that bastion of integrity and truth, Fox News, would ever publish untrue things?
 
2012-09-25 09:51:08 PM
What is going to happen regarding Climate Change is that at some point when it can not be denied, some Premillenial author is going to go back to Revelations or Daniel and find something that proves that Biblical Prophecy predicted Climate Change.

At that point the Premillenial Christians will say there is nothing we can do because it is all according to God's Plan
 
2012-09-25 09:51:57 PM
Question for American Farkers:

Can Government research grants be spent on personal items or items which directly benefit the researcher?

Here in Australia it is impossible (legally). Sure some people may find a way to finangle a new laptop or iPad/iPhone here and there, but it's not like a research grant can be used to buy yourself car. That is fraud, and is prosecuted as such.

Is the RWTP of scientists living like kings off research funding even remotely possible?

Some perspective is also warranted, as I see people complaining about the amounts of money awarded. Sure $100,000 may seem like a lot of money, however since that money cannot be used to pay the salaries of the researchers requesting it (that would open up the system to massive abuse) they then have to employ someone with that funding. For an experienced researcher here in OZ, that is little more than 1 year's salary once on-costs (infrastructure costs for employment, i.e. computer, electricity, desk etc) and retirement benefits are taken out.

1 year is not a lot of time to solve difficult problems, so scale this up for a difficult problem by adding a PhD student or two, and a 3 year project and you have ~$400,000 on salaries and scholarship stipends alone.

This model may seem inefficient, but a University cannot afford to pay these sorts of costs unless a grant is awarded, and the grant being awarded cannot be used to pay their existing employees (unless they are out of contract of course).
 
2012-09-25 09:52:30 PM
RESEARCH GRANTS!
 
2012-09-25 09:52:45 PM

gulogulo: theknuckler_33: Honestly, is anyone REALLY surprised by this?

No, but as a scientist, while this is supposed to be 'common sense knowledge' people still quote those buffoons in the opinion pieces as if they are infallibly correct. It's maddening. So instead of debating the actual argument, you have to spend time dismantling the misinformation out there.


Kinda like keeping the ocean back with a broom.

I'm not dismissing what you said, but honestly, what's the point? It's like 'dismantling the misinformation out there' about supply-side economics. If people believe it, there's nothing you are going to do to change their mind... this isn't an education issue, it is a political one. The issue isn't really the science, it is the policy response to the science. If the policy response isn't in the conservative playbook, then the science obviously is wrong. You can't argue with that. At least not to the end of changing political minds.
 
2012-09-25 09:52:56 PM
93% of Fox News' and 80% of the Wall Street Journal opinion pages' climate coverage is inaccurate and misleading.
 
2012-09-25 09:57:59 PM
1.bp.blogspot.com
What we need to do is find every one of those scientists and teach some Texas rope science.
 
2012-09-25 10:03:15 PM
Question for American Farkers:

Can Government research grants be spent on personal items or items which directly benefit the researcher?


No. A computer bought with grant money for a project can not even be used to check a personal email account.

Here in Australia it is impossible (legally). Sure some people may find a way to finangle a new laptop or iPad/iPhone here and there, but it's not like a research grant can be used to buy yourself car. That is fraud, and is prosecuted as such.

I don't know if it would be prosecuted as fraud, but it would mean that you and your institution never got any more NSF funding ever.

Is the RWTP of scientists living like kings off research funding even remotely possible?

No, it is the fantasies of right wingnuts who have no idea how the system works.

Some perspective is also warranted, as I see people complaining about the amounts of money awarded. Sure $100,000 may seem like a lot of money, however since that money cannot be used to pay the salaries of the researchers requesting it (that would open up the system to massive abuse) they then have to employ someone with that funding. For an experienced researcher here in OZ, that is little more than 1 year's salary once on-costs (infrastructure costs for employment, i.e. computer, electricity, desk etc) and retirement benefits are taken out.

1 year is not a lot of time to solve difficult problems, so scale this up for a difficult problem by adding a PhD student or two, and a 3 year project and you have ~$400,000 on salaries and scholarship stipends alone.

This model may seem inefficient, but a University cannot afford to pay these sorts of costs unless a grant is awarded, and the grant being awarded cannot be used to pay their existing employees (unless they are out of contract of course).


Here it can be used to pay salaries of existing researchers, but those salaries must be inline with already existing contracts. No raises or additional money goes to the researcher. Also, 1/3 of the grant money goes to the institution for 'overhead' ie office space, heating, electricity, infrastructure type stuff.
 
2012-09-25 10:05:06 PM
What we need to do is find every one of those scientists and teach some Texas rope science.

So anyone who finds that reality is not how you would like it to be should be hung?
 
2012-09-25 10:08:46 PM

Graeme Garden: Can Government research grants be spent on personal items or items which directly benefit the researcher?


Short answer? Directly? No. But the grants can be used to pay salary. And those 'getting rich salaries?' ...lucky to sometimes be making 30k. There are caps on that. The rest of the "millions" goes to the actual research and overhead.
 
2012-09-25 10:09:38 PM
Has anyone mentioned yet that science sucks and RESEARCH GRANTS!!
 
2012-09-25 10:10:16 PM

Jim_Callahan: EvilEgg: They're a union. That's code for socialism.

The scientific community, insofar as it describes people that actually publish regularly rather than just everyone with a degree, is in the literal sense socialist, as it's funded by governments and intercorporate alliances that might as well be governments.

There certainly is privately-funded research, but it's not part of the community as such.


I don't remember any opposition of scientific studies of global warming until Exxon-Mobil Bought lobbiests in the late 90's. 

Any media outlet owned by Ruport is nothing but a propaganda machine anyway.
 
Displayed 50 of 116 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report