Republican or Democrat?

Hibby said:

Ok. Not much in the mood to get really verbose but I'll splash for a second. Common core is a race to the bottom. If a man does not work, he shall not eat (extreme circumstances excluded of course). You know it's a cold winter when you see a democrat with their hands in THEIR OWN POCKETS. It really %#!?$'n sucks to have MY hard earned money pay for some lazy MF and his brood via entitlements. Rewarding mediocrity is what makes this country worse than it used to be. I'm an ESTJ - get over it. Most republican politicians are crooks. Most democrat politicians are maggots who also like to be crooks and who have turned welfare into indentured servitude for a large portion of the electorate.

Ahh, the extroverted judger (ESTJ). Love that book and you are living your type out loud. Give Em hell tiger.

That's alot of long words you fellows are using above. Now I'm confused

@nolaegghead‌
Now you are speaking my language

huh?

thetrim said:

Most people think that when someone speaks with an English accent, they are smarter than you.  

That's funny because I always just assumed they were from the UK.    I think there's some confusion here, because weather and climate aren't the same thing, to begin with.  Secondly, climate science does not involve absolute certainties about the future.  It never has.  The best we can reasonably hope for is to speak in terms of probabilities.  

That's it.  I'm done.  Stick a fork in me (unless I'm a Sleep Number).  I'm going back to the mattress forum. ;D

Fred, actually the opposite is true.  The politicians are taking away the discretion of the scientists on the board to award grants.

Fred19Flintstone said:

@Hibby - I'm just surprised...well, not really I guess....when an issue devolves into ad hominem comment rather than talking about the issue.  **** science isn't political.  If that's condescension, then guilty as charged.

Pretty naive bud. Many scientists get funded through public universities and government studies. Those funds are largely controlled by politicians. If you hope to be considered for those funds, you better not be a "global warming denier". Oops, "climate change denier". That's not science, that is politics.

Within the US, most of the funding for climate science comes from NSF, NASA, and NOAA.  The DoD actually funds some important work as well.  Public and private universities don't actually provide much funding on their own, at least not in comparison.

Fred19Flintstone said:

Your proof is from Mother Jones? What? Nothing from The Nation or Huffington Post? The politicians aren't going to award grants or otherwise subsidize scientists that have views contrary to their own. They have too much invested to let that happen.

Politicians in DC don't get into the weeds of panel reviews. They're involved in setting the overall budgets for the agencies but that's about where it stops. I've been on dozens of review panels. I've never once seen a politician attend one.

@nolaegghead Forgive Fred. He lives in the stone age.

My favorite "science" stories are when global warming, sorry, climate change meetings or seminars occur or are cancelled due to blizzard conditions. Who's in attendance? Al Gore & other political types. It's all political. They may not sit on these boards or panels, but the boards know where their bread is buttered.

Fred19Flintstone said:

My favorite "science" stories are when global warming, sorry, climate change meetings or seminars occur or are cancelled due to blizzard conditions. Who's in attendance? Al Gore & other political types. It's all political. They may not sit on these boards or panels, but the boards know where their bread is buttered.

Hey, let's declare a truce between science/logic/reason and magic/religion/tradition camps.  I don't care about where you put your prayer mats, or if Dumbledore hooked up with Delores Umbridge one night drunk on butterbeer, or whatever/whichever anyone believes or subscribes to of the thousand different religions that exist.  Freedom of religion, or to be crazy, or sane, or even (shudder) think science and research is real, it all goes in my book as long as you're not in anyone else's ****.  That's what we're about.   If you believe jerkin' the gherkin sends you to a fiery hell, I can only hope for determinism through some kind of quantum duality if that's the route you chose.   If you want to bring it to the realm of public policy, let's use what works - the same **** that gives you the computer you're on right now.  Painting some conspiracy and giving it equal weight with reasonable argument is counter productive.

He is fat, however, which pretty much negates all of climate science.  Or so I've been told.

What part have you been told? That global warming is BS or that Al Gore is fat? Both?