Al Gore Slamdunked

[Ringwraith]

Science is a labour of love - big Government barely pays enough to even make the job itself worthwhile, never mind encourage corruption and conspiracy.

 

Is that a generalisation Vinnie, or are you talking specifically about the field of climate science?

[Slim]

Western governments have managed to create a massive industry around this, and at a time when they are trying to find ways to create jobs, this is an easy option. It is also a soft touch for taxation. Better to cover up any good news on reductions in CO2 with lies about bank bail outs. Good news about reductions in CO2 could affect their plans to create new jobs in the industry.

 

That's totally backwards. This is a hard sell to governments, they're signing up very relucantly and there's been lots of empty promises and not much action. The cash generated from emission reductions is nothing compared to that generated by unchecked industrial growth.

[VinnieK]

Is that a generalisation Vinnie, or are you talking specifically about the field of climate science?

 

I'm referring mainly to academic research in general. If you want to make money in academia, you're better off going into something like medicine or a business school than the sciences, including climate science.

[Ringwraith]

I'm referring mainly to academic research in general. If you want to make money in academia, you're better off going into something like medicine or a business school than the sciences, including climate science.

 

So are you saying that the field of climate science in particular has not been subject to massive funding and research grants over the past 20 years? Do you have any idea how much money has been flushed into this area?

[Chinahand]

Compared to what - say oil company R&D, or money put into the coal industry.

 

You are living in cloud cuckoo land if you think climate research is a competitor with Big Oil and King Coal on the lobbiest circuit or in job creation schemes.

[Ringwraith]

Compared to what - say oil company R&D, or money put into the coal industry.

 

You are living in cloud cuckoo land if you think climate research is a competitor with Big Oil and King Coal on the lobbiest circuit or in job creation schemes.

 

Did I say anything about oil or coal? No, I did not.

 

I want to know what level of funding we are talking about for climate research. Then perhaps we can get a little closer to whether or not a case exists for corruption or conspiracy. Are we talking millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions or are we talking billions or perhaps tens of billions?

 

Do others stand to gain from carbon trading, how much is that worth, millions, billions or trillions?

[VinnieK]

I'm referring mainly to academic research in general. If you want to make money in academia, you're better off going into something like medicine or a business school than the sciences, including climate science.

 

So are you saying that the field of climate science in particular has not been subject to massive funding and research grants over the past 20 years? Do you have any idea how much money has been flushed into this area?

 

Oh noes, {Admiral Ackbar voice}IT'S A TRAP!!!{/Admiral Ackbar voice}.

 

This has already been dealt with. How exactly do you think research grants work, that some guy writes a few equations and personally receives twenty grand for his efforts?

 

Here's what happens:

 

Dr/Professor X submits a research proposal to a research council, including anticipated costs. Said research council reviews the request, judges the merit of the proposal and so on, and, in some (by no means all) cases awards a grant.

 

Now, let's have a look at those costs:

 

Firstly, you need research staff. Often you're going to have to hire postdoctoral research assistants (that is, PhD graduates who don't currently hold a lecturship or reader position in another institution) with the required specialisms from outside of your department. Say the research requires two or three assistants for a two year period. That alone will cost anywhere between £100,000 to £200,000. Now, if you're handling vast amounts of data requiring specialist coding or programming skills, or lab work, you also need a technician to help out with that, which might bump the figure up another £50,000 for the two year period. Ok, so that's up to a quarter of a million just employing up to four other people for the duration of the project, then you might take into account travel costs if you're collaborating with other academics across the world, or use specialist facilities (which is likely to cost more money). Then there's a question of what equipment is needed, and so on and so on.

 

So, after all that, how much money does the scientist who submitted the actual grant application get? Nothing, zilch, not a bean. He or she gets paid their usual wage by whatever institute they are a member of, and contrary to what some people might think, the wages in academia aren't brilliant compared with similarly qualified professionals or those working in private industry (which is the whole damn reason that the UK suffers from academics and scientists either migrating into the private sector or other countries).

 

This kind of nonsense argument about funding wouldn't even be so bad, but the funding for climate science isn't even that amazing! For instance, a cursory glance at the funding council's websites shows that the director of the CRU recently received a grant for £132,000 (spread across three years). Ooh! That's a lot of money, there must be something fishy there, eh? But wait! A researcher at Oxford was recently awarded £348,155, almost double the previous figure, for a project called "Icons and Innovation in South West China's Religious Texts". Go on then, what nefarious government scheme to enslave and dupe us all is that money funding?

 

What's more is that this is pretty much peanuts compared with what medical, biomedical, and pharmaceutical research pulls in, where awards are often in terms of millions rather than hundreds of thousands of pounds. Research is expensive, that's the bottom line of it and research funding (as the name suggests) pays for that and nothing else. It's something of a moot point anyway (as I said no one personally gains financially from research money). Nevertheless, when you have seen these figures about research funding and so forth, did you never once think "hm. I wonder where that money goes, what can it be for, and am I really sure that it's such a lot of money compared with how much might get pumped into other disciplines?" before leaping to the conclusion that it was a clear indication of skullduggery?

 

Despite my reservations about some of the e-mails' contents, this kind of outlandish grasping at straws, wilfull ignorance and outright attempts at slander that so characterizes the arguments of those who so viscerally oppose many climate scientists is nothing short of shameful, especially when they are now often accusing the CRU of indulging in the kind of tactics and behaviour of which they themselves are often all too guilty.

[Ringwraith]

I'm referring mainly to academic research in general. If you want to make money in academia, you're better off going into something like medicine or a business school than the sciences, including climate science.

 

So are you saying that the field of climate science in particular has not been subject to massive funding and research grants over the past 20 years? Do you have any idea how much money has been flushed into this area?

 

Oh noes, {Admiral Ackbar voice}IT'S A TRAP!!!{/Admiral Ackbar voice}.

 

This has already been dealt with. How exactly do you think research grants work, that some guy writes a few equations and personally receives twenty grand for his efforts?

 

Here's what happens:

 

Dr/Professor X submits a research proposal to a research council, including anticipated costs. Said research council reviews the request, judges the merit of the proposal and so on, and, in some (by no means all) cases awards a grant.

 

Now, let's have a look at those costs:

 

Firstly, you need research staff. Often you're going to have to hire postdoctoral research assistants (that is, PhD graduates who don't currently hold a lecturship or reader position in another institution) with the required specialisms from outside of your department. Say the research requires two assistants for a two year period. That alone will cost anywhere between £100,000 to £200,000. Now, if you're handling vast amounts of data requiring specialist coding or programming skills, or lab work, you also need a technician to help out with that, which might bump the figure up another £50,000 for the two year period. Ok, so that's quarter of a million just employing three other people for the duration of the project, then you might take into account travel costs if you're collaborating with other academics across the world, or use specialist facilities (which is likely to cost more money). Then there's a question of what equipment is needed, and so on and so on.

 

So, after all that, how much money does the scientist who submitted the actual grant application get? Nothing, zilch, not a bean. He or she gets paid their usual wage by whatever institute they are a member of, and contrary to what some people might think, the wages in academia aren't brilliant compared with similarly qualified professionals or those working in private industry (which is the whole damn reason that the UK suffers from academics and scientists either migrating into the private sector or other countries).

 

This kind of nonsense argument about funding wouldn't even be so bad, but the funding for climate science isn't even that amazing! For instance, a cursory glance at the funding council's websites shows that the director of the CRU recently received a grant for £132,000 (spread across three years). Ooh! That's a lot of money, there must be something fishy there, eh? But wait! A researcher at Oxford was recently awarded £348,155, almost double the previous figure, for a project called "Icons and Innovation in South West China's Religious Texts". Go on then, what nefarious government scheme to enslave and dupe us all is that money funding then? What's more is that this is pretty much peanuts compared with what medical, biomedical, and pharmaceutical research pulls in, where awards are often in terms of millions rather than hundreds of thousands of pounds.

 

Research is expensive, that's the bottom line of it. I've seen some cretins fizzing at the mouth about how Professor Jones has received something like £13,000,000 in grants over the past 19 or 20 years. Sounds like a lot, until you realise that the university of Bristol's maths department goes through more than that in one year, even with maths being one of the cheaper sciences when it comes to research funding.

 

It's something of a moot point anyway (as I said no one personally gains financially from research money). Nevertheless, when you have seen these figures about research funding and so forth, did you never once think "hm. I wonder where that money goes, what can it be for, and am I really sure that it's such a lot of money compared with how much might get pumped into other disciplines?" before leaping to the conclusion that it was a clear indication of skullduggery?

 

So you can't answer the funding / carbon trading questions then?

[VinnieK]

So you can't answer the funding / carbon trading questions then?

 

Jesus. The point is, they're irrelevant questions: pull a figure out of your arse and let's call it that. It's still not evidence of the corruption and conspiracy" you're looking for, since the researcher does not gain personally from the award.

 

If you're actually worried about corruption, and I mean genuinely concerned about it and not just using it as a convenient mask behind which to hide some ill thought out ideological opposition to the idea of climate change itself, you would be concerned about some of the anti-global warming campaigners personally receiving money from oil companies, than an academic receiving a grant that only covers the cost of his or her research. But then you're not are you?

[Ringwraith]

Jesus. The point is, they're irrelevant questions: pull a figure out of your arse and let's call it that. It's still not evidence of the corruption and conspiracy" you're looking for, since the researcher does not gain personally from the award.

 

If you're actually worried about corruption, and I mean genuinely concerned about it and not just using it as a convenient mask behind which to hide some ill thought out ideological opposition to the idea of climate change itself, you would be concerned about some of the anti-global warming campaigners personally receiving money from oil companies, than an academic receiving a grant that only covers the cost of his or her research. But then you're not are you?

 

Really? I thought the point of my question was to find out how much funding was involved, and then if that level of funding could be a cause of corruption and conspiracy to lead towards global taxes and carbon trading?

 

I'm sure that there is some level of funding from oil companies to anti-global warming campaigners, tell us what that level is Vinnie, and how it compares to the funding for climate research then. I'll admit I'm not worried about it, but I am interested!

[Slim]

Why don't you tell us how it's set up, in your own words?

[Ringwraith]

Why don't you tell us how it's set up, in your own words?

 

Why don't you tell us about the funding levels, instead of joining in on the tag team Slimy?

[VinnieK]

Really? I thought the point of my question was to find out how much funding was involved, and then if that level of funding could be a cause of corruption and conspiracy to lead towards global taxes and carbon trading?

 

Okie Dokie, one last time, and I'm going to spell this out for you this time. We're going to go nice and slow, but nevertheless do try to hold on to something nice and tight so you don't stumble or fall along the way.

 

How can funding act as a cause of corruption and conspiracy amongst researchers, when they don't actually directly benefit financially from it?

 

Now, don't answer too quickly. There's a dependent clause in that question, and we don't want you getting a headache. Let it sink in for a moment and consider this analogy: say you're appointed milk monitor, but you find you can't carry enough milk cartons to distribute it around the class in the required amount of time . All seems lost, but then, one day you have a mighty fine idea! You ask the teacher, Miss Grumblebums, if you can buy a nice new satchel in which to carry them around with you. Miss Grumblebums then gives you five whole pounds to buy such a satchel, on the condition that you provide a receipt and any change left over, and that the satchel remains in school when not in use. You take the five pounds and head down to old Mr Unclebungles satchel, bag, and other loose form container emporium, and, wouldn't you know it, he's got exactly the right thing in stock, all for five pounds exactly! . You then return to class, a skip in your step and a brand new bag over your shoulder, ready to monitor milk like no milk has been monitored before.

 

Now, the question is this: how worried should the rest of the class be that you are a corrupt and complicit shill of Miss Grumblebums, who some rumour to have a plot to kidnap children in order to harvest their organs and sell them on the underground transplant market?

 

Turn to page 53 if you want to go East, turn to page 15 if you want to eat the enchanted pineapple, and just f*** it all to hell if you still can't figure it out.

[Slim]

Why don't you tell us about the funding levels, instead of joining in on the tag team Slimy?

 

Because I'm pretty sure you've no idea what you're talking about. I want you to explain your position to persuade me otherwise. I think haven't a clue, which is why you just trot out any old bollocks from youtube and ask stupid questions from people like Chinahand and Vinnie who take time to make considered replies, which you subsequently ignore.

[Ringwraith]

Okie Dokie, one last time, and I'm going to spell this out for you this time. We're going to go nice and slow, but nevertheless do try to hold on to something nice and tight so you don't stumble or fall along the way.

 

How can funding act as a cause of corruption and conspiracy amongst researchers, when they don't actually directly benefit financially from it?

 

Now, don't answer too quickly. There's a dependent clause in that question, and we don't want you getting a headache. Let it sink in for a moment and consider this analogy: say you're appointed milk monitor, but you find you can't carry enough milk cartons to distribute it around the class in the required amount of time . All seems lost, but then, one day you have a mighty fine idea! You ask the teacher, Miss Grumblebums, if you can buy a nice new satchel in which to carry them around with you. Miss Grumblebums then gives you five whole pounds to buy such a satchel, on the condition that you provide a receipt and any change left over, and that the satchel remains in school when not in use. You take the five pounds and head down to old Mr Unclebungles satchel, bag, and other loose form container emporium, and, wouldn't you know it, he's got exactly the right thing in stock, all for five pounds exactly! . You then return to class, a skip in your step and a brand new back over your shoulder, ready to monitor milk like no milk has been monitored before.

 

Now, the question is this: how worried should the rest of the class be that you are a corrupt and complicit shill of Miss Grumblebums' who some rumour to have a plot to kidnap children in order to harvest their organs and sell them on the underground transplant market?

 

Turn to page 53 if you want to go East, turn to page 15 if you want to eat the enchanted pineapple, and just f*** it all to hell if you still can't figure it out.

 

Still can't answer the question then?

 

OK, let's take it nice and slowly for you then.

 

Do scientists work for nothing?

 

Was the field of climate science poorly regarded and poorly funded in decades past?

 

How much money do they now receive, and how much have they received over recent years? You can also throw in the amount that the 'baddie' oil companies give the anti's as well if you like - just for extra fun!