Has the US gone communist yet? It's hard to tell.

[John Feeney]

[ QUOTE ]
Its a freaking internet bulletin board. On a scale of importance it ranks somewhere well below weeding the walkway.

[/ QUOTE ]

We agree on this. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

You've been posting a heck of a lot lately, and I sincerely hope you're able keep that perspective.

[John Feeney]

[ QUOTE ]
What dont you understand about the difference between working WITH someone and working FOR someone? There is no change in story, just your desperate attempt to discredit something you have no clue about.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think anyone can see the difference between:

[ QUOTE ]
...as part of my job [ I ] work with several climatologists. http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...Number=6033695

[/ QUOTE ]



...and:

[ QUOTE ]
I have consulted to organizations which include climatologists

[/ QUOTE ]

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Im not misapplying anything. You are confusing appeal to authority and circumstantial ad hominen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Copernicus, you are. To take one more shot at it, it is a fallacy to say "Because he's paid by an oil company to deny anthropogenic global warming (and does not do his own peer reviewed research on the topic), his argument against it, has to be wrong." It is not a fallacy to say, "Because he's paid by an oil company to deny anthropogenic global warming (and does not do his own peer reviewed research on the topic), his argument against it is extremely likely to be wrong. So, for all practical purposes, it can be safely dismissed."

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you are wrong. Have you ever taken a course in logic? An argument can never be dismissed "for all practical purposes" or otherwise, without analyzing the merits of the argument.

[John Feeney]

[ QUOTE ]
No, you are wrong. Have you ever taken a course in logic? An argument can never be dismissed "for all practical purposes" or otherwise, without analyzing the merits of the argument.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is getting old , but I'll try one more way of explaining it.

You are missing the difference between the two sentences I wrote:

1) "Because he's paid by an oil company to deny anthropogenic global warming (and does not do his own peer reviewed research on the topic), his argument against it has to be wrong."

2) "Because he's paid by an oil company to deny anthropogenic global warming (and does not do his own peer reviewed research on the topic), his argument against it is extremely likely to be wrong."

The first is an absolute, and is indeed logically flawed. The other is an educated estimate of the chance something is bogus, and is logically sound, and leads correctly to the conclusion that the argument can be safely dismissed. (i.e., dismissing it could turn out to be wrong, but the chances are miniscule.)

Do you see now?

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, you are wrong. Have you ever taken a course in logic? An argument can never be dismissed "for all practical purposes" or otherwise, without analyzing the merits of the argument.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is getting old , but I'll try one more way of explaining it.

You are missing the difference between the two sentences I wrote:

1) "Because he's paid by an oil company to deny anthropogenic global warming (and does not do his own peer reviewed research on the topic), his argument against it has to be wrong."

2) "Because he's paid by an oil company to deny anthropogenic global warming (and does not do his own peer reviewed research on the topic), his argument against it is extremely likely to be wrong."

The first is an absolute, and is indeed logically flawed. The other is an educated estimate of the chance something is bogus, and is logically sound, and leads correctly to the conclusion that the argument can be safely dismissed. (i.e., dismissing it could turn out to be wrong, but the chances are miniscule.)

Do you see now?

[/ QUOTE ]

I see you have retreated to your usual style of resorting to "common sense" arguments when you are outside your field of expertise. You are wrong in the context of logic and debate and you can cut and paste the same thing 100 more times, it still doesnt make it correct.

[wacki]

Dr. Feeney, before you waste your time. You should be aware of these two posts:

"there is no consensus that it is attributable to humans. "
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...age=0&vc=1

"That fact alone means there is no consensus."
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showth...page=0&vc=1

Or more importantly the bulk of those posts.

If you can change his mind then you should also be able to walk on water. If you want to waste your time feel free, but you have far simpler tests for trolldom at your disposal. Riddick appears genuine. I simply cannot take copernicus seriously anymore.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
Dr. Feeney, before you waste your time. You should be aware of these two posts:

"there is no consensus that it is attributable to humans. "
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...age=0&vc=1

"That fact alone means there is no consensus."
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showth...page=0&vc=1

If you can change his mind then you should also be able to walk on water. If you want to waste your time feel free, but you have far simpler tests for trolldom at your disposal. Riddick appears genuine. I simply cannot take copernicus seriously anymore.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gee, that hurts. I stopped taking you seriously after reading your website, which is indicative of nothing if not a closed mind.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
There are confidentiality agreements that prevent me from naming them or their companies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Climate scientist + confidentiality agreements that prevent naming names

I know a lot of people at NOAA, WHOI, Cambridge and Goddard. I've NEVER heard of anything like this. One more thing I can't take seriously.

[ QUOTE ]
*** You are ignoring this user ***

[/ QUOTE ]

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
As far as technology I'd say that the transistor; nuclear technology; and space technology are at least 3 of the most important areas of technological development in the last 80 years or so. I think it's fair to say that U.S. government sponsored research has been vital for all three. I also think that it's probably fair to say that research spending skewed towards defense has also been vital for all three. I could be convinced otherwise though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because the US federal govt spends money and advancements occur as a result does not mean that advancements can only occur as a result of federal spending. I hope anyone who is confused by that will go look up the definition of a "false dichotomy". The false dichotomy in this case could be formulated as "EITHER the federal govt spends money on researching transistors OR no transistors will ever be developed".

Much of the research funded by US federal govt is conducted at private and state public universities. The money's provenance is irrelevant to the research being conducted. Some guy in a lab splicing genes to make chimeras won't conduct variably effective research based on if the dollars are federal, state, corporate, private, or whatever.

The only question then becomes will research funding continue to occur in the absence of federal spending? The answer is obviously yes. It may be allocated differently (due to less politics, monopoly power, coercion and corruption, I might add) but one cannot logically conclude federal spending is crucial to scientific advancements.

At this point it has only been shown to be coincidental.

PS: also, I would put the microchip and dna technologies far above the ones you listed in terms of importance. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

natedogg

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
Some guy in a lab splicing genes to make chimeras won't conduct variably effective research based on if the dollars are federal, state, corporate, private, or whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are missing the point. Sure a private dollar spends the same as a public dollar. However, what many of us are saying is that it's where the government sends the dollars (what it funds) that's the difference.