Quote: (07-05-2018 02:24 PM)PapayaTapper Wrote:
Do you understand how research is funded?: Specifically the decisions to grant certain proposed theses versus which are denied funding ?
Did you read Judith Curry article?
You didn't answer my question, so I'm guessing you just posted that PDF to look smart.
The Judith article is simply stating that she was frustrated with how the industry works, which is understandable.
I've read a lot of her work; she's bearish on the "warming" aspects of climate change but believes it is still happening, albeit at a perhaps slower rate than the majority of other scientists in the field have shown.
She certainly doesn't deny climate change, and if anything, offers up some interesting and more robust policy ideas that are level-headed and non-partisan in regards to how to address the issue.
Were you trying to use her one-time frustration to dismiss the work of thousands of scientists (including her) that have reached consensus on climate change?
Quote: (07-05-2018 02:24 PM)PapayaTapper Wrote:
Do you understand how research is funded?: Specifically the decisions to grant certain proposed theses versus which are denied funding ?
Yes, I understand it. Like anything, there is going to be bias introduced. But it's curious that the majority of scientists across the majority of developed nations have all reached a consensus on climate change.
Are you suggesting that because of the natural bias in scientific funding that therefore no scientists can be trusted on any matter of importance?