Grant submissions are typically a little bit "squishy" on the robustness of the preliminary data. Thats why its called preliminary. He must have made it up out of whole cloth to get caught.

Seems like the response to the false grant submissions was measured and appropriate. He and his dad were doing good research but he completely fudged the grant submissions.

CPT Ethanolic: Nothing to do with publishing.  These are grant applications, not scientific articles.  But you can bet that the anti-global warming crowd will jump on this as an example of scientists "making stuff up".

There needs to be some dillwaddy meme describing a post that Godwins a thread with non-topical agenda-driven global warming politics. idiot

All right, I read that as "S.F. scientist resigns after farking data".

/So that's what happened to Tasha Yar.

This is what happens when you slash basic research funding to the bone. Science becomes less competitive and more prone to corruption and graft.

So US research is becoming more like China's.

EliminateNinniesAndTwits: CPT Ethanolic: Nothing to do with publishing.  These are grant applications, not scientific articles.  But you can bet that the anti-global warming crowd will jump on this as an example of scientists "making stuff up".

There needs to be some dillwaddy meme describing a post that Godwins a thread with non-topical agenda-driven global warming politics. idiot

Eh, he has a point, though. Science deniers - whether creationists or global warming deniers or anti-vaccination lunatics - have a tendency to jump on stories like this to prove that the entire academic establishment is making sh*t up for money. That he was working on research for developing a drug to help aid in Alzheimer's means it will probably be the people who are vehemently and radically anti-pharmaceutical company rather than global warming deniers, but the overall point is still the same.

CPT Ethanolic: But you can bet that the anti-global warming crowd will jump on this as an example of scientists "making stuff up".

I doubt that. I strongly suspect that the anti-global warming crowd will instead post the scientific data itself:



And then make the observation that even if the data is true, there STILL hasn't been any warming in 15+ years.

SevenizGud: CPT Ethanolic: But you can bet that the anti-global warming crowd will jump on this as an example of scientists "making stuff up".

I doubt that. I strongly suspect that the anti-global warming crowd will instead post the scientific data itself:

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

And then make the observation that even if the data is true, there STILL hasn't been any warming in 15+ years.

You're a liar. You know that, right? A liar. Not even just 'misinformed,' you knowingly lie and perpetuate lies. Just wanted to let you know, today, and every time you post your dreckm that you are a liar.

Sit down, son, and let me tell you something. Lots of scientists fudge numbers at some point. It's just got to be done sometimes. Sometimes one is caught, usually for going way overboard. This is just a fact of life. I'm glad we had this little talk.

SevenizGud: CPT Ethanolic: But you can bet that the anti-global warming crowd will jump on this as an example of scientists "making stuff up".

I doubt that. I strongly suspect that the anti-global warming crowd will instead post the scientific data itself:

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

And then make the observation that even if the data is true, there STILL hasn't been any warming in 15+ years.


This again? Let's skip ahead a bit:

SevenizGud: Damnhippyfreak: [socratic]
Again, since we're interested in why whether "The earth is not PRESENTLY warming" or not, 4 years would be preferable to 10 or 15 years, yes?
[/socratic]

Quite a departure from the Hansen standard of 8 years. I like to be more robust in the analysis, to, you know, take out the variability. That's why 15 years. You know, more scientific. Because global warming is all about the underlying science, and not political footballing and shading the data.


So we know you are very much aware that a short term period (relative to variability) can be misleading. You contend that this is similar to what James Hansen used (supposedly only 8 years) in past congressional testimony. This is not the case, as his testimony and the papers it was based on used a longer period of time than that and did not solely rely on some sort of simple linear regression or simple correlation.

Damnhippyfreak: SevenizGud: CPT Ethanolic: But you can bet that the anti-global warming crowd will jump on this as an example of scientists "making stuff up".

I doubt that. I strongly suspect that the anti-global warming crowd will instead post the scientific data itself:

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

And then make the observation that even if the data is true, there STILL hasn't been any warming in 15+ years.


This again? Let's skip ahead a bit:

SevenizGud: Damnhippyfreak: [socratic]
Again, since we're interested in why whether "The earth is not PRESENTLY warming" or not, 4 years would be preferable to 10 or 15 years, yes?
[/socratic]

Quite a departure from the Hansen standard of 8 years. I like to be more robust in the analysis, to, you know, take out the variability. That's why 15 years. You know, more scientific. Because global warming is all about the underlying science, and not political footballing and shading the data.


So we know you are very much aware that a short term period (relative to variability) can be misleading. You contend that this is similar to what James Hansen used (supposedly only 8 years) in past congressional testimony. This is not the case, as his testimony and the papers it was based on used a longer period of time than that and did not solely rely on some sort of simple linear regression or simple correlation.

Fun fact (from Drudge so take with a grain of salt). Alaska has cooled 2.4 deg F in the last 10 years.

The more you know ....

gulogulo: You're a liar. You know that, right? A liar. Not even just 'misinformed,' you knowingly lie and perpetuate lies. Just wanted to let you know, today, and every time you post your dreckm that you are a liar.

The people at Hadley Centre will be glad to know that the last 15+ years of their data is nothing but lies.

SevenizGud: gulogulo: You're a liar. You know that, right? A liar. Not even just 'misinformed,' you knowingly lie and perpetuate lies. Just wanted to let you know, today, and every time you post your dreckm that you are a liar.

The people at Hadley Centre will be glad to know that the last 15+ years of their data is nothing but lies.

Fark off. Thanks for turning yet another discussion of interest to many farkers into a pathological lie fest.

pellies: Fark off. Thanks for turning yet another discussion of interest to many farkers into a pathological lie fest.

Yeah, I was the one that "turned it" by REPLYING to someone else who brought it up.

Yet you didn't say anything to them, and instead said something to me about it.

Nothing like a nice double-standard, is there, you Chicken Little bag of turds.

SevenizGud: pellies: Fark off. Thanks for turning yet another discussion of interest to many farkers into a pathological lie fest.

Yeah, I was the one that "turned it" by REPLYING to someone else who brought it up.

Yet you didn't say anything to them, and instead said something to me about it..

You are the one lying.

Kome: EliminateNinniesAndTwits: CPT Ethanolic: Nothing to do with publishing.  These are grant applications, not scientific articles.  But you can bet that the anti-global warming crowd will jump on this as an example of scientists "making stuff up".

There needs to be some dillwaddy meme describing a post that Godwins a thread with non-topical agenda-driven global warming politics. idiot

Eh, he has a point, though. Science deniers - whether creationists or global warming deniers or anti-vaccination lunatics - have a tendency to jump on stories like this to prove that the entire academic establishment is making sh*t up for money. That he was working on research for developing a drug to help aid in Alzheimer's means it will probably be the people who are vehemently and radically anti-pharmaceutical company rather than global warming deniers, but the overall point is still the same.

Accept half the time it is more politics than denial. Is obama a science denier for sitting on the pro gmo salmon report for months? Or was it political?

CPT Ethanolic: SevenizGud: Yeah, I was the one that "turned it" by REPLYING to someone else who brought it up.

Apparently you missed my point completely.  Nothing to do with global warming in particular, more to do with how the right uses single instances that are not even necessarily related to discount entire fields of study.  It's called "picking the data", kind of like what you're doing with your little 15 yrs worth of data.  The right also likes to do this by picking spring, 2009 to start any economic comparison for Obama's presidency.  Likewise, the right will take individual and unrelated instances of scientific misconduct to cast all science in doubt.

You realize that the ledt plays the same games. Most notably in gmo foods, fda based science that goes against their environmental views, etc.

Why are you singling out the right? Politics?

Well, that settles it - "science" is totally invalid, and I'm going back to getting all my information about reality from two-thousand-year-old droolings of primitive goatherds and Fox News.

jso2897: Well, that settles it - "science" is totally invalid, and I'm going back to getting all my information about reality from two-thousand-year-old droolings of primitive goatherds and Fox News.

Hyperbole what?

Academia can use an overhaul to catch up with modern times. Most notably, get rid of the friggin pyramid scheme stuff. PhDs deserve at least $75-100k/year especially given the distant odds of making it to a faculty position. Faculty/PI's don't deserve $200-$300k/year for what amounts to being a campus salesperson.

RaceBoatDriver: jso2897: Well, that settles it - "science" is totally invalid, and I'm going back to getting all my information about reality from two-thousand-year-old droolings of primitive goatherds and Fox News.

Hyperbole what?

Academia can use an overhaul to catch up with modern times. Most notably, get rid of the friggin pyramid scheme stuff. PhDs deserve at least $75-100k/year especially given the distant odds of making it to a faculty position. Faculty/PI's don't deserve $200-$300k/year for what amounts to being a campus salesperson.

I want to work for your school. Around here only the football coach brings in that kind of scratch, faculty make 1/3.

pellies: You are the one lying.

Uhm-hmmmm.

0.379 0.372 0.411 0.459 0.496 0.468 0.533 0.352
1997 82 83 82 81 81 80 80 81 80 79 80 81
1998 0.492 0.756 0.548 0.647 0.596 0.606 0.671 0.647 0.393 0.420 0.351 0.444 0.548
1998 81 82 81 79 80 79 79 80 78 79 79 80
1999 0.370 0.552 0.294 0.315 0.233 0.263 0.270 0.236 0.267 0.228 0.210 0.327 0.297
1999 80 80 80 79 78 78 78 80 79 80 80 81
2000 0.206 0.361 0.331 0.450 0.241 0.234 0.255 0.339 0.320 0.194 0.150 0.164 0.271
2000 82 82 80 79 78 78 77 79 77 79 78 80
2001 0.324 0.286 0.487 0.430 0.390 0.413 0.453 0.506 0.404 0.378 0.506 0.321 0.408
2001 79 80 80 79 77 78 79 80 79 79 79 80
2002 0.598 0.611 0.609 0.445 0.443 0.474 0.479 0.427 0.412 0.358 0.393 0.328 0.465
2002 80 81 81 79 79 78 78 80 78 79 82 80
2003 0.525 0.441 0.425 0.417 0.437 0.442 0.455 0.525 0.520 0.566 0.428 0.523 0.475
2003 80 81 81 80 79 79 80 80 80 79 80 82
2004 0.504 0.571 0.510 0.494 0.323 0.347 0.369 0.416 0.446 0.478 0.526 0.376 0.447
2004 81 82 81 79 79 79 79 80 79 79 79 81
2005 0.461 0.380 0.499 0.534 0.481 0.512 0.536 0.509 0.513 0.508 0.483 0.370 0.482
2005 81 81 80 78 79 79 80 82 81 80 80 81
2006 0.319 0.448 0.380 0.370 0.338 0.438 0.444 0.493 0.422 0.480 0.445 0.523 0.425
2006 81 81 82 80 79 80 81 81 82 82 80 82
2007 0.610 0.509 0.438 0.472 0.373 0.384 0.407 0.364 0.412 0.367 0.269 0.215 0.402
2007 81 81 81 80 79 80 81 82 82 81 81 82
2008 0.053 0.192 0.449 0.271 0.278 0.308 0.417 0.395 0.376 0.443 0.393 0.327 0.325
2008 81 83 83 82 81 82 82 83 82 82 82 82
2009 0.387 0.374 0.374 0.417 0.407 0.508 0.515 0.544 0.473 0.442 0.448 0.427 0.443
2009 83 83 83 80 81 81 81 84 82 82 83 83
2010 0.489 0.481 0.583 0.571 0.516 0.541 0.542 0.485 0.396 0.404 0.464 0.267 0.478
2010 82 83 83 83 82 83 84 84 83 82 82 83
2011 0.194 0.259 0.322 0.408 0.329 0.431 0.466 0.445 0.368 0.358 0.258 0.249 0.340
2011 83 82 82 81 81 80 81 82 81 82 81 82
2012 0.217 0.194 0.305 0.481 0.473 0.477 0.445 0.512 0.514 0.491 0.480 0.000 0.417
2012 81 81 79 78 76 77 78 80 80 78 80 0

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt

Because, to the left "lying" means 'data which shows that my whole Chicken Little world view is retarded.'

SevenizGud: pellies: You are the one lying.

Uhm-hmmmm.

0.379 0.372 0.411 0.459 0.496 0.468 0.533 0.352
1997 82 83 82 81 81 80 80 81 80 79 80 81
1998 0.492 0.756 0.548 0.647 0.596 0.606 0.671 0.647 0.393 0.420 0.351 0.444 0.548
1998 81 82 81 79 80 79 79 80 78 79 79 80
1999 0.370 0.552 0.294 0.315 0.233 0.263 0.270 0.236 0.267 0.228 0.210 0.327 0.297
1999 80 80 80 79 78 78 78 80 79 80 80 81
2000 0.206 0.361 0.331 0.450 0.241 0.234 0.255 0.339 0.320 0.194 0.150 0.164 0.271
2000 82 82 80 79 78 78 77 79 77 79 78 80
2001 0.324 0.286 0.487 0.430 0.390 0.413 0.453 0.506 0.404 0.378 0.506 0.321 0.408
2001 79 80 80 79 77 78 79 80 79 79 79 80
2002 0.598 0.611 0.609 0.445 0.443 0.474 0.479 0.427 0.412 0.358 0.393 0.328 0.465
2002 80 81 81 79 79 78 78 80 78 79 82 80
2003 0.525 0.441 0.425 0.417 0.437 0.442 0.455 0.525 0.520 0.566 0.428 0.523 0.475
2003 80 81 81 80 79 79 80 80 80 79 80 82
2004 0.504 0.571 0.510 0.494 0.323 0.347 0.369 0.416 0.446 0.478 0.526 0.376 0.447
2004 81 82 81 79 79 79 79 80 79 79 79 81
2005 0.461 0.380 0.499 0.534 0.481 0.512 0.536 0.509 0.513 0.508 0.483 0.370 0.482
2005 81 81 80 78 79 79 80 82 81 80 80 81
2006 0.319 0.448 0.380 0.370 0.338 0.438 0.444 0.493 0.422 0.480 0.445 0.523 0.425
2006 81 81 82 80 79 80 81 81 82 82 80 82
2007 0.610 0.509 0.438 0.472 0.373 0.384 0.407 0.364 0.412 0.367 0.269 0.215 0.402
2007 81 8 ...


It's more that you're being dishonest in that you are cherry-picking an inappropriately short period of time in order to make misleading inferences. This is even worse since you are apparently quite aware of this problem. What you're attempting to do is dishonest, regardless of what you think are the political leanings of those pointing it out.

That out of the way, you're still avoiding where your own argument takes you:

SevenizGud: Damnhippyfreak: [socratic]
Again, since we're interested in why whether "The earth is not PRESENTLY warming" or not, 4 years would be preferable to 10 or 15 years, yes?
[/socratic]

Quite a departure from the Hansen standard of 8 years. I like to be more robust in the analysis, to, you know, take out the variability. That's why 15 years. You know, more scientific. Because global warming is all about the underlying science, and not political footballing and shading the data.


So we know you are very much aware that a short term period (relative to variability) can be misleading. You contend that this is similar to what James Hansen used (supposedly only 8 years) in past congressional testimony. This is not the case, as his testimony and the papers it was based on used a longer period of time than that and did not solely rely on some sort of simple linear regression or simple correlation.

Damnhippyfreak: What you're attempting to do is dishonest, regardless of what you think are the political leanings of those pointing it out.

Yeah, because nothing says "dishonest" more than citing the actual, you know, scientific data, and also including the URL to said data so anyone who wants to can check it out.

So enough with the blah blah blah whatever hand-waving. No warming in 15+ years.

Oh noez, it's worse than we thought. What a joke the Chicken Little camp is. Imagine how much running around with your heads chopped off there would be if it were actually, you know, warming.

SevenizGud: Damnhippyfreak: What you're attempting to do is dishonest, regardless of what you think are the political leanings of those pointing it out.

Yeah, because nothing says "dishonest" more than citing the actual, you know, scientific data, and also including the URL to said data so anyone who wants to can check it out.

So enough with the blah blah blah whatever hand-waving. No warming in 15+ years.

Oh noez, it's worse than we thought. What a joke the Chicken Little camp is. Imagine how much running around with your heads chopped off there would be if it were actually, you know, warming.


Cherry-picking a subset of data is dishonest, especially since you're aware of how problematic it is. It is also somewhat intellectually dishonest to ignore it when the severe problems with your argument are pointed out. Let's give you another chance:

SevenizGud: Damnhippyfreak: [socratic]
Again, since we're interested in why whether "The earth is not PRESENTLY warming" or not, 4 years would be preferable to 10 or 15 years, yes?
[/socratic]

Quite a departure from the Hansen standard of 8 years. I like to be more robust in the analysis, to, you know, take out the variability. That's why 15 years. You know, more scientific. Because global warming is all about the underlying science, and not political footballing and shading the data.

So we know you are very much aware that a short term period (relative to variability) can be misleading. You contend that this is similar to what James Hansen used (supposedly only 8 years) in past congressional testimony. This is not the case, as his testimony and the papers it was based on used a longer period of time than that and did not solely rely on some sort of simple linear regression or simple correlation.

Archae hippy: I want to work for your school. Around here only the football coach brings in that kind of scratch, faculty make 1/3.

Yeah, it's crazy. UC School of Medicine PIs can make twice Joe Pa's salary (when he had a pulse). The highest local PI salary is seven figures, about three times the chancellor's paycheck.

Quite a few SOM PIs carry MDs and earn another paycheck doing rounds at local hospitals. That probably adds quite a bit to that seven figure salary. The job comes with lots of free travel, usually first class. The college usually does something to place spouses (i.e. create a job slot if desired).

The Sacramento Bee carries state salaries, including UC earnings per employee.

Of course, liberal arts professors are a little worse off. :)

SevenizGud: pellies: You are the one lying.

Uhm-hmmmm.

It's a lie of omission. My point stands once again you are shiatting all over the potential for good discussion thread. Fark you and the rest of your ilk that have pretty much ruined Fark.

RaceBoatDriver: Archae hippy: I want to work for your school. Around here only the football coach brings in that kind of scratch, faculty make 1/3.

Yeah, it's crazy. UC School of Medicine PIs can make twice Joe Pa's salary (when he had a pulse). The highest local PI salary is seven figures, about three times the chancellor's paycheck.

Quite a few SOM PIs carry MDs and earn another paycheck doing rounds at local hospitals. That probably adds quite a bit to that seven figure salary. The job comes with lots of free travel, usually first class. The college usually does something to place spouses (i.e. create a job slot if desired).

The Sacramento Bee carries state salaries, including UC earnings per employee.

Of course, liberal arts professors are a little worse off. :)
The top two on your list are head coaches, the top academic guys are physicians with primarily clinical appointments.

The best paid professors in UC schools are at UCLA (18th highest in the country, BTW), where the average for an Assistant prof (1-6 years) is 87K, Associate prof (6-12 years, with tenure) is 107K, Full prof 168K.

A mid-level research I institution (mid-100's out 2500 schools) are 71K, 83K, and 115K.

cite

Archae hippy: RaceBoatDriver: Archae hippy: I want to work for your school. Around here only the football coach brings in that kind of scratch, faculty make 1/3.

Yeah, it's crazy. UC School of Medicine PIs can make twice Joe Pa's salary (when he had a pulse). The highest local PI salary is seven figures, about three times the chancellor's paycheck.

Quite a few SOM PIs carry MDs and earn another paycheck doing rounds at local hospitals. That probably adds quite a bit to that seven figure salary. The job comes with lots of free travel, usually first class. The college usually does something to place spouses (i.e. create a job slot if desired).

The Sacramento Bee carries state salaries, including UC earnings per employee.

Of course, liberal arts professors are a little worse off. :)
The top two on your list are head coaches, the top academic guys are physicians with primarily clinical appointments.

The best paid professors in UC schools are at UCLA (18th highest in the country, BTW), where the average for an Assistant prof (1-6 years) is 87K, Associate prof (6-12 years, with tenure) is 107K, Full prof 168K.

A mid-level research I institution Did you find a filter that isn't there? (mid-100's out 2500 schools) are 71K, 83K, and 115K.

cite

A slightly easier to use database of CA state workers: http://ucpay.globl.org/index.php?title=!PROFESSOR-HCOMP

RaceBoatDriver: Did you find a filter that isn't there?

My link was to the chronicle of higher education survey of 2500 university salaries for 2011-2012. These are averages, not the highest.