Supporting research and supporting government funded research are two entirely different things.

Out of all the exposed frauds of GFR .....which is just a tip of the crap going on........why would you want to give money to these shysters.

Look at the billions and billions we have put in the universities. What do the taxpayers get for it?
We are racist and bigots. Watch the news tonite. Watch what the people are doing and listen to what the talking heads say tonite. It's been years of this crap.

These universities don't want to improve the world with new understanding and discoveries. That would take real work and standards. They are playing people against people....the oldest con in the world.

When are you going to come out of your coma?

 

The believers have a PR problem.

On top of a few others as well.

Accountability,
credibility,
proof of claims,
repeated lack of confirmation from unbiased third party reviews,
having been caught red handed lying multiple times,
reality not paying out any where near what they claimed it would near 100% true,
having many of those they claimed supported them come out say they were not supporting any of it and never did,

Pretty hard to PR your way out of having look like a bunch of lying asses pushing a highly questionable agenda to grab money and gain power over others at all costs with all that going against you.

 

These universities don't want to improve the world with new understanding and discoveries. That would take real work and standards. They are playing people against people....the oldest con in the world.
When are you going to come out of your coma?

And where oh where do you think basic research comes from? The Easter Bunny?

 

And where oh where do you think basic research comes from? The Easter Bunny?

The grant review process needs overhauling for granting too much. Basic research that shades the truth is NOT research.

Companies have R&D. Remember all the complaining about the oil company who didn't share their data ... when the reality was they shared it before some of the complainers were born. The government didn't pay for it, the customers did.

Are these researchers scared of crowd funding? Don't they think they can convince more people to give 10 bucks and get a lot more money than a government grant? Maybe their proposal just reaches the limits of man's credulity, but it does have confirmation bias abilities in some circles.

 

And where oh where do you think basic research comes from? The Easter Bunny?

The dollars come from lots of places. The important question is, who controls the spending?

It used to be all privately controlled. The share that is controlled by government has risen steadily and problems with this were identified long before this article, but I think it's a simple statement of the issues:
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/end-government-science-funding

Economists have studied the issue, and if you have trouble sleeping, try to read this:
https://eml.berkeley.edu/~bhhall/papers/DavidHallToole RP00.pdf

There are many more where that one comes from.

I started my career in a corporate R&D department and watched as research became less and less an asset that a company wanted to have on its balance sheet. (The tech industry was an exception to the rule.) I saw many examples where government moving into an area drove out private R&D spending. Why would any rational company spend to 'compete' with the government? It's more efficient allocation of precious R&D dollars to carve out your own niche and not duplicate efforts you cannot hope to outspend.

It's like any other government spending: I'd rather the citizens be allowed to make their own decisions how their money is spent, instead of the central planners in D.C.

 

More things to think about that make the AGW/CC fuss look even less credible and more made up.

And al gore is mad as hell about too!

 

The bias starts with the funding. There is a huge headwind facing grant writers for any research that isn't likely to support the party line. Funding decisions are not all made by impartial scientists, based on the merits of the proposed work. They're being made by bureaucrats with marching orders.

Then, there has been bias in the work itself. Mann et al have been the most notorious but there are others. Humans being humans, this probably happens on both sides of any issue but when one side is getting all the grant money, the bias is amplified.

Then, as @tcmtech has noted, there is a bias in the how the published finding are touted and used as political tools. There is an agenda to promote and this acts as a filter, a distortion of what the common man on the street is exposed to.

So that's a "no" on your claims. No peer-reviewed evidence. But thanks for the same three paragraphs you've posted three other times I've asked for evidence in the past three years.

Your claims of "poor" research are just publicity/promotion of one one else's interpretation of data. Doesn't look any better than the links posted by TCMTech - just the opposing view with no research supporting it.

I'm still looking forward to links to your peer-reviewed papers.

 

The dollars come from lots of places. The important question is, who controls the spending?

It used to be all privately controlled. The share that is controlled by government has risen steadily and problems with this were identified long before this article, but I think it's a simple statement of the issues:
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/end-government-science-funding

Economists have studied the issue, and if you have trouble sleeping, try to read this:
https://eml.berkeley.edu/~bhhall/papers/DavidHallToole RP00.pdf

There are many more where that one comes from.

I started my career in a corporate R&D department and watched as research became less and less an asset that a company wanted to have on its balance sheet. (The tech industry was an exception to the rule.) I saw many examples where government moving into an area drove out private R&D spending. Why would any rational company spend to 'compete' with the government? It's more efficient allocation of precious R&D dollars to carve out your own niche and not duplicate efforts you cannot hope to outspend.

It's like any other government spending: I'd rather the citizens be allowed to make their own decisions how their money is spent, instead of the central planners in D.C.

I found the NASA page interesting, but all of them have some moments.

 

I found the NASA page interesting, but all of them have some moments.
View attachment 125895

Wayne wants government research spending to be the consensus of the people. Now there's a way to make America great.

(Sometime in the 1970s. Implementing Wayne's idea...)
Steve: Bob, what are you voting on for government reseach spending?

Bob: I could really use one of those hats with the two glasses of beer and a straw. The problem is I keep spilling my beer when I look down to wipe my ass. America needs a spill-proof beer hat.

Steve: well, I was going to vote for high speed connectivity of the world's computers but hey, I don't have a computer yet so, I'll vote for the beer hat, too.

 

from the CATO Institute
Then the USSR launched Sputnik, the first artificial satellite, in 1957. The Soviets were going to destroy us from space! So in 1958 the National Aeronautics and Space Administration was created, and the U.S. Congress passed the National Defense Education Act to pour money into higher education and science. Yet, remarkably, U.S. economic growth was unaffected. The U.S. per capita gross domestic product has grown at around 2 percent a year since 1820, and the government largesse of the last 50 years has not altered that. Why not?

And another quote from the same source ...

Without government funding of science, the United States overtook Britain around 1890 as the richest country in the world.

How did that happen?

 

@GopherT

Again, DARPA ... a defense sponsored program. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

President Eisenhower did warn of the military industrial complex.

Nice joke, but irrelevant.

 

Doesn't look any better than the links posted by TCMTech - just the opposing view with no research supporting it.

I'm still looking forward to links to your peer-reviewed papers.

So the numerous scientists and scholars who appear in my links I have given throughout this whole thread and the work they have done don't count as sources because why? You're too frigging lazy to go and look them up and confirm what they're saying therefore they can't possibly count whereas the non existent scientist and scholars of your nonexistent links you have not produced as counter evidence do?

Sounds like more standard liberal snowflake denial tactics to me where if it doesn't fit your views it can't possibly count because it just might mean you're wrong about something.

The problem is I keep spilling my beer when I look down to wipe my ass.

I'd be more inclined to think you're spilling your beer because you are too lazy to wipe your own ass and whomever is doing it for you is passively aggressively letting you know what they really think of you.

So who's papers do count then? A number of us here would like to know so that we can read them ourselves and see what it is you think you know based on their work.

 

Wayne wants government research spending to be the consensus of the people. Now there's a way to make America great.

Actually that would be great being the average person would have some direct degree of say in how their own tax dollars are being spent on what and to what extent.

As an apparent liberal you of all people should be all for that not against it.

 

So the numerous scientists and scholars who appear in my links I have given throughout this whole thread and the work they have done don't count as sources because why? You're too frigging lazy to go and look them up and confirm what they're saying therefore they can't possibly count whereas the non existent scientist and scholars of your nonexistent links you have not produced as counter evidence do?

Sounds like more standard liberal snowflake denial tactics to me where if it doesn't fit your views it can't possibly count because it just might mean you're wrong about something.



I'd be more inclined to think you're spilling your beer because you are too lazy to wipe your own ass and whomever is doing it for you is passively aggressively letting you know what they really think of you.

So who's papers do count then? A number of us here would like to know so that we can read them ourselves and see what it is you think you know based on their work.

Your links are not peer reviewed papers. Just a bunch of puffery for web conspiracy theorists. So me a link to a peer reviewed paper from the heroes on your links.

 

Are these researchers scared of crowd funding? Don't they think they can convince more people to give 10 bucks and get a lot more money than a government grant? Maybe their proposal just reaches the limits of man's credulity, but it does have confirmation bias abilities in some circles.

Your kidding about crowd funding. Right?
Can you show me, for example, a successful funding in the field of medical research?
PS.
I don't mean some kid asking for $500 to study how long it takes for bleeding to stop when you stick your finger with a pin.

 

Actually that would be great being the average person would have some direct degree of say in how their own tax dollars are being spent on what and to what extent.

As an apparent liberal you of all people should be all for that not against it.

Me of all people? "Apparent liberal"? What the hell? Haven't you read my posts. I'm an Intelligent centrist. I don't answer to anyone or walk anyone's party line or argue Pro Trump, or, Pro Hilary to my dying breath.

Again, like I say every time I don't fit in your liberal preconception, just because I am on your left, doesn't mean I'm on the left. Does that confuse you?

 

Your kidding about crowd funding. Right?
Can you show me, for example, a successful funding in the field of medical research?
PS.
I don't mean some kid asking for $500 to study how long it takes for bleeding to stop when you stick your finger with a pin.

There is that thing with red LEDs that "cures" baldness!

 

Your links are not peer reviewed papers. Just a bunch of puffery for web conspiracy theorists. So me a link to a peer reviewed paper from the heroes on your links.

Still having problems with basic literacy and liberal bias and trying to use it as a way out again I see. That second sentence of mine pretty much said everything I needed to to confirm your lazy liberal bias. In fact you're so predictable at this point I could almost write your response for you now.

Me of all people? "Apparent liberal"? What the hell? Haven't you read my posts. I'm an Intelligent centrist. I don't answer to anyone or walk anyone's party line or argue Pro Trump, or, Pro Hilary to my dying breath.

Again, like I say every time I don't fit in your liberal preconception, just because I am on your left, doesn't mean I'm on the left. Does that confuse you?

You really think anyone would believe that beyond your buddies who have long since proven none of you are all that bright on pretty much everything you have said and done so far?

The thing is for someone who claims they are intelligent and a centralist you don't do much of anything to support yourself and what you claim, ever, yet expect everyone else to hand you everything you ask only so you can then proudly proclaim you totally ignored it over some ignorant and petty excuse. Central and right leaning people don't do that and everyone here knows it whereas liberals live and breath it!

Rather what you do act like is a standard issue liberal not a centralist or right leaning conservative. Those people people tend to actually stick the point in a debate and back themselves up with whatever facts and data they can find just as pretty much everyone but you ronv and shortbus have done since the very beginning.

Now as for your supposed intelligence, show us proof for once or it isn't real, just as most of us here already know you can't do because, well , lets face it. Intelligent people don't play stupid time and time again to get out of answering basic questions about their beliefs which however, you are a known expert at it!

BTW, real centrists are for common sense and looking at both sides of an issue and everyone here knows full well you can't bring yourself to look at anything anyone says that might have any merit in possibly proving your views are less than correct. If you were and did you wouldn't be seen as being the third leg in the 'idiots three' gang here of certain people who can not accept anything outside of their own narrow views and are proud in proclaiming anything that goes against their views is not true or worth their looking at as you have done time and time again.

In politics, centrism or the centre is a political outlook or specific position that involves acceptance or support of a balance of a degree of social equality and a degree of social hierarchy; while opposing political changes which would result in a significant shift of society either strongly to the left or the right ...

https://www.google.com/search?q=cen...2.69i57j0l5.5150j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

So how does that work younow 'intelligent centralist' you?

You show absolutely zero traits of one and near perfect traits of most any far left liberal and everyone here including yourself knows it! Are you that ashamed of yourself and your lack of ability to defend your views you have to claim your something more centralized now even though you know full well no one will believe it because we all know you cant live up to the claim? You can lie to yourself about who you are but none of us will buy it.

 

from the CATO Institute
Then the USSR launched Sputnik, the first artificial satellite, in 1957. The Soviets were going to destroy us from space! So in 1958 the National Aeronautics and Space Administration was created, and the U.S. Congress passed the National Defense Education Act to pour money into higher education and science. Yet, remarkably, U.S. economic growth was unaffected. The U.S. per capita gross domestic product has grown at around 2 percent a year since 1820, and the government largesse of the last 50 years has not altered that. Why not?

Interesting... Hasn't hurt it either, has it?
It does make you wonder how Trump is going to double or triple it though.
And another quote from the same source ...

Without government funding of science, the United States overtook Britain around 1890 as the richest country in the world.

How did that happen?
Abundant natural resources and the railroads to take advantage of them.
Mass education of the population.
No, I don't have a cite for those. I'm open to your ideas.

 

Wayne wants government research spending to be the consensus of the people. Now there's a way to make America great.

So you believe it's better for the government to confiscate wealth from the people and spend it how they - the bureaucrats - want to? Where is the evidence that such a system is more productive? I'll tell you where - NOwhere.