"Of course I want research, but I want to have research done in a way that focuses on growing our economy, not on ancient mating habits of whatever."
I want to do research into the psychology of Democrats slavering for a tidbit of Republican Saying Something Stupid.
November 8, 2014
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
54 comments:
Saying something stupid? Or is it saying something that hit a nerve? Both often produce the say volume of braying.
The obvious followup would be to ask what science funding the State should not fund.
Specifics, that is.
But why would a "Journalist" do that?
I noticed the university spokesman never addressed the subject brought up by the politician. There is real research going on about topics that sound funny but are not. There U could have mentioned something like prairie voles mating behavior.
The result of this research is increased understanding of autism and maybe a cure one day.
Now, a new Stanford paper publishing online this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences adds interesting details to our understanding. The study is the largest ever to examine blood oxytocin levels in children with autism and two comparison groups without autism: kids who have autistic siblings and children who do not have siblings with autism.
The researchers found the same range of blood oxytocin levels across all three groups, with similar numbers of children with low, medium and high oxytocin levels in each category. Although, as expected, the kids with autism had social deficits, blood oxytocin level was clearly linked to social ability within each group. Children with autism who had low blood oxytocin had poorer social ability than autistic children with high blood oxytocin, for example, and typically developing kids with low blood oxytocin also had poor social ability compared to other typically developing children.
This is a huge research subject in neurobiology but university spokesmen rarely understand what they are talking about. He probably knows more about lesbian student protests.
So called research keeps the Phds off the streets and the University gets a cut of the loot. Think of it as the political science of following the money.
If Vos wants to put strings on the research dollars the State provides to the UW, fine, but that is a small fraction of the research dollars expended.
Once again Michael K provides a voice of reason.
It is odd that this twit Vos is complaining since it is unlikely that UW-Madison is providing any significant funding for research. This is largely done by federal agencies, NSF, NIH, DARPA etc. UW-Madison makes money off this research through overhead charges.
The growth of anti-intellectualism on the right is not smart policy. China's rise is driven by a shrewd investment in a very broad range of research, which is reversing what had been a very substantial brain drain to the US. Research is the life blood of modern economies and the US is not competing at the level it once did. Germany, China, Korea are all rising while the US declines.
ARM thinks you're reasonable, Michael K.
Thanks ARM but "The growth of anti-intellectualism on the right is not smart policy."
applies as well to the left.
I was talking to my middle daughter who is a lefty and very well educated, but not in STEM subjects or she would be a lot more prosperous, and I mentioned the theory that progressivism has roots in the Puritans of New England who have given up belief in God but have otherwise stayed the same. The difference is that global warming and environmentalism have been substituted for God.
I am not certain that global warming after the Little Ice Age ended is over but it probably is. The subject of the obsession with virtue on the left is an interesting one and she had not previously given that any thought. We will talk about it again.
I cannot talk to my two oldest children about politics. They are both lawyers and hard lefties. She is reasonable and, while I don't expect to convert her, it is interesting to exchanges ideas with someone who is of different opinions but willing to listen.
My other two children are conservative, maybe even more than I am. I consider myself libertarian, especially on social issues.
I want to do research into the psychology of Democrats slavering for a tidbit of Republican Saying Something Stupid.
Is is stupid though? It wins them elections. A lot of people love hearing this stuff. Like piss testing poor people or the unemployed. Stupid policy, and it solves nothing. But a lot of people love hearing it. Certainly the Pro Lifers like to hear Republicans are keeping a close eye on what is being researched at the UW.
Sometimes a blind squirrel finds a broken clock, Original Mike.
It's reassuring to see that garage never wavers in his fixation on the mote in the other fellow's eye. Oh sorry. I think that might be from the Bible.
Original Mike said...
ARM thinks you're reasonable, Michael K.
Michael K said...
global warming and environmentalism have been substituted for God.
I spoke too soon.
Concerns about the long term effects of pumping a billion of years worth of sequestered carbon into the atmosphere is not irrational. It may or may not be overstated but it is not irrational.
If ARM called me reasonable, I'd consider slitting my wrists. Fortunately, I'm not worried about it.
Original Mike said...
If Vos wants to put strings on the research dollars the State provides to the UW, fine, but that is a small fraction of the research dollars expended.
This is quite a reasonable point.
I'm sure glad I quit shaving decades ago.
Damn.
Concerns about the long term effects of pumping a billion of years worth of sequestered carbon into the atmosphere is not irrational.
Especially for mollusks.
"Concerns about the long term effects of pumping a billion of years worth of sequestered carbon into the atmosphere is not irrational. It may or may not be overstated but it is not irrational."
I didn't say it was irrational. There you go with that Puritan ethic again. You are a weak Puritan because you do admit it might be overstated. I'm willing to discuss it so I am destined for the hell that the left still believes in although it is probably somewhere in the New York Times' basement.
"Concerns about the long term effects of pumping a billion of years worth of sequestered carbon into the atmosphere is not irrational"
If ARM promises not to call me reasonable again, I will agree that we should definitely be concerned.
What is irrational is funding this stuff.
"This is an attempt by very large cash generating companies that have billions on their balance sheet to get a federal bailout, i.e. a bailout from us - the taxpayer for their pet project," said Reason Foundation VP of Research Julian Morris. "It's actually rather obscene."
The Ivanpah solar electric generating plant is owned by Google and renewable energy giant NRG, which are responsible for paying off their federal loan. If approved by the U.S. Treasury, the two corporations will not use their own money, but taxpayer cash to pay off 30 percent of the cost of their plant, but taxpayers will receive none of the millions in revenues the plant will generate over the next 30 years.
This is going to be fun to watch. Keep us posted, Althouse.
I saw a report on the Ivanpah solar plant which said that management blamed the plant's lower than expected output on less than expected sunshine. How in the world can that be true? It's in the stinking desert.
AReasonableMan said...
"Concerns about the long term effects of pumping a billion of years worth of sequestered carbon into the atmosphere is not irrational. It may or may not be overstated but it is not irrational."
Studying the effects would be good. But the problem is when the answers are already known and alternative hypothesis are ignored. When the results are changed to achieve the answer that gets you more grants. Warming advocates have been caught multiple times lying and adjusting. This is not science and we should not be funding it.
For example methane is far and away more powerful a "greenhouse gas" and there are huge piles(haha) going into the atmosphere. But then again there always are because there is always poop.
There are individual volcanoes that have dumped more crap into the atmosphere than all of our CO2.
The one thing that a direct correlation has been drawn to is solar activity which makes more sense than a 50ppm change in a micro-component of the atmosphere.
I grow plants indoors. The difference between 370 ppm CO2 and 420 ppm CO2 is literally 50/1,000,000. 1/20,000. Closer to 0 than anything that would change climate. And funny thing is plant respiration goes up when CO2 levels go up.
The problem is the government can't take over the economy if it finds that the sun, volcanoes, or methane alter climate. But if it can blame fossil fuels then it can regulate the energy that fuels(haha) our economy. Everything points to a giant power grab by the governments of the world and bureaucracy. When wealthy people stop flitting around the world in private jets to global warming conferences in tropical tourist traps I will take another look.
Michael K said...
What is irrational is funding this stuff.
"This is an attempt by very large cash generating companies that have billions on their balance sheet to get a federal bailout, i.e. a bailout from us - the taxpayer for their pet project," said Reason Foundation VP of Research Julian Morris. "It's actually rather obscene."
This is entirely rational. Both entities donate extremely large piles of cash to the right people in government. They get elected and give our money back to the people that gave them money to get elected.
The only way to stop this kind of crap is smaller government.
My condolences, ARM.
And this is what is so good about the US mid-term results. Not only did they personally cost Steyer many millions of dollars in wasted campaign expenditure - nearly $75 million of the funding for his Nextgen Climate superPAC came out of his own pocket: think how many tartan ties you could buy with that! - but they represented the US electorate's comprehensive repudiation of the notion that "climate change" is the most pressing political issue of our age.
No it isn't. It really, really isn't. Anyone with half a brain could have told you that the economy, for a start, is much more important. The idea that anyone should ever have thought otherwise - especially people as eminent and influential as the President of the USA and his Secretary of State John Kerry (who considered climate change at least as great a threat as Islamic State) - will surely remain one of the greatest puzzles to future historians of the Obama administration.
Why, these historians will wonder, did Obama choose to stake his reputation - in his second term especially - on an issue so relatively trivial and so liable to blow up in his face as new scientific evidence emerged (eg the fact that there has been no "global warming" since 1998)?
One of the answers they'll come up with, presumably, is Tom Steyer.
Tell me again who the big money is going to ?
Original Mike said...
"I saw a report on the Ivanpah solar plant which said that management blamed the plant's lower than expected output on less than expected sunshine. How in the world can that be true? It's in the stinking desert."
In order to get funding for the project they had to properly "adjust" the raw data. The numbers were good so they got the grant. It is what we call science now. And if you don't like it you are a climate denier.
Michael Mann probably ran the original numbers.
Here is an explanation of why I simply don't believe the alarmists and have contempt for their rejection of any discussion.
A more minor point, but one that disguises the sampling frequency problem a bit, is that the last dark brown shaded area on the right that is labelled “the last 100 years” is actually at least 300 years wide. Based on the scale, a hundred years should be about one dot on the x axis. This means that 100 years is less than the width of the red line, and the last 60 years or the real anthropogenic period is less than half the width of the red line. We are talking about a temperature change whose duration is half the width of the red line, which hopefully gives you some idea why I say the data sampling and smoothing processes would disguise any past periods similar to the most recent one.
Update: Kevin Drum posted a defense of this chart on Twitter. Here it is: “It was published in Science.” Well folks, there is climate debate in a nutshell. An 1000-word dissection of what appears to be wrong with a particular analysis retorted by a five-word appeal to authority.
And that, in a nutshell, is why I don't believe them.
When it comes to competition for public funds, research should be relevant to the public interest.
But the public sector funding source itself raises the risk that the perceived "relevance" can be subsumed and perverted in pursuit of specific political and policy objectives.
Interesting video from Matt Ridley on how economic growth and wealth creation, not "green" policies, are likely the best way to limit the effects of global warming.
(Cued to conclusion; go back if you want to see whole 18 minute video.)
@Achilles: Yeah, the only thing that makes sense to me is that they misrepresented expected output to get funding, but that's a hell of a risk (unless you can count on a compliant government to bail you out).
Either that, or the report I saw was incorrect (vis-a-vis the reason for the output deficit). I'd really like to read the original source.
But since then the plant has not lived up to its clean energy promise. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the plant produced only about a quarter of the power it's supposed to, a disappointing 254,263 megawatt-hours of electricity from January through August, not the million megawatt-hours it promised.
A NRG spokesman blamed the weather, saying the sun didn't shine as often as years of studies predicted. However by the four-year mark, NRG has "every confidence that the plant will function as anticipated for the life of the facility,"according to the company.
The weather has been so abnormal that plant output is only 1/4 predicted? In the desert?
Original Mike said...
@Achilles: Yeah, the only thing that makes sense to me is that they misrepresented expected output to get funding, but that's a hell of a risk
Oh, it's not that much of a risk.
All you have to do to fool the moron "true believers" like climate scientist garage and ARM is hide your raw data, fight lawsuits against you to provide that data to others, and then, when you finally lose those lawsuits in court you simply...... "lose" the raw data.
Ta da!
We don't have it anymore. For some reason we didn't have an adequate backup!! 'cuz we're scientists!
Ever notice how many lefties fail to back up data they are required by law to back up /and or make available to the public?
It's all just a coincidence I tell ya!
There really should be a study on why some dems think adding a few thousand people to the island of Guam can tip the island over.
It must be true though, since it was uttered by a dem.
"Ever notice how many lefties fail to back up data they are required by law to back up /and or make available to the public?"
Yup, but "it was published in Science !"
This goes back to Scientific American, which I read for many years. When I was a medical student, we even had the publisher, Gerard Piel out to Los Angeles as a guest speaker. He was a typical leftie but we gave him a respectful audience.
Typically, "Piel graduated from Harvard University with a bachelor of arts degree in 1937."
Standard leftist scientist.
Rather than paying off the Ivanpah's investors loans, the government should be investigating whether there was fraud in their initial funding.
"I saw a report on the Ivanpah solar plant which said that management blamed the plant's lower than expected output on less than expected sunshine. How in the world can that be true? It's in the stinking desert."
Yes, but imagine their dismay when they found out the sunlight was only available on an average of twelve hours a day.
They had to lay off the entire night shift...
Considering the CDC and NIH blew how many millions on "why do lesbians get fat" and "bunny massage" studies, and then tried to tell us they didn't have enough money to fight actual contagions, I think the "mating habits of whatever" quote is quite to the point.
Apparently we need to resurrect William Proxmire's "Golden Fleece" award...
"They had to lay off the entire night shift..."
Ya know, if they based their prediction on sunlight available on the summer solstices and forgot about the night, that might produce a factor of 4 error.
richard mcenroe said...
Considering the CDC and NIH blew how many millions on "why do lesbians get fat" and "bunny massage" studies, and then tried to tell us they didn't have enough money to fight actual contagions, I think the "mating habits of whatever" quote is quite to the point.
As usual ARM leaves out some of the damning details. A lot of the research DARPA and NIH undertakes is actually funded by private sources. Rather than cash grants DARPA offers prizes. Other people spend their own money to win the prizes. this is a graet way to to "fund" research and it also has a collateral benefit of limiting fraud. Pharmacutical companies routines spend billions on research that is freely available to the NIH. The EPA does fund research. it likes to fund research that will support it's preconcieved notions of what id environmentally damaging.
ARM says;
"The growth of anti-intellectualism on the right is not smart policy. China's rise is driven by a shrewd investment in a very broad range of research, which is reversing what had been a very substantial brain drain to the US. Research is the life blood of modern economies and the US is not competing at the level it once did. Germany, China, Korea are all rising while the US declines."
I think we are still way out in front on LGBQTXYZ studies. Of the 35 known genders, only two were not discovered in the US.
A good summary of the matter, which has all the ingredients of a typical leftist scandal.
"Concerns about the long term effects of pumping a billion of years worth of sequestered carbon into the atmosphere is not irrational. It may or may not be overstated but it is not irrational."
Concern over climate change is perfectly rational. Research into climate change is money well spent.
The problem with the field is that disagreeing with the consensus has become professionally toxic. It doesn't help that central figures in the field have violated some of the most basic tenants of data sharing and retention, and of methodological transparency.
The consensus may be absolutely correct, but in a research environment where skepticism is punished and basic data isn't as trustworthy as possible you can't call what's happening in the field science. Sad, really.
You know, accurate research can be completely discredited by lies that may not even be the main point of the discussion. Rolling Stone did a big piece on TARP and what a fraud it has turned out to be.
It's a good article
The only problem is with this sentence:
The White House and leaders of both parties actually agreed to this preposterous document, but it died in the House when 95 Democrats lined up against it. For an all-too-rare moment during the Bush administration, something resembling sanity prevailed in Washington.
The trouble is that that isn't true ! Or at least isn't the fact.
Even The New York Times has the facts right
"The vote against the measure was 228 to 205, with 133 Republicans turning against President Bush to join 95 Democrats in opposition. The bill was backed by 140 Democrats and 65 Republicans."
Why lie about who stopped the bill ? It weakens my confidence in the rest of his article.
The main body of the piece is about the Obama administration's lies and dissembling but why weaken your argument with a lie trying to make Democrats look better ?
Global warming has the same problem. Years ago I read about the Urban Heat Island problem and some fake data from China. Then came the e-mail scandal at EAU. Then the "hockey stick."
Michael K. that's it exactly. It stops being "science" when scientists stop behaving like scientists and instead behave like politicians.
Anthropogenic climate change may be a big problem. It may be a negligible problem. At this point I simply don't have faith that I'm getting good data from anyone.
FWIW, John Holdren, currently Obama's "science czar" in the late '60s became famous for predicting that overpopulation would lead to global catastrophe;
The proposition that technology can solve the problems posed by the sheer size of present and projected world populations is examined in detail. The probable potential for short- and long-term gains in agricultural technology, ocean fisheries, desalination of seawater, nuclear power production, and related areas is evaluated in the framework of known and predicted requirements. It is concluded that in the absence of effective population control measures any imaginable technological effort will fall short.
-- Populations and Panaceas, A Technological Perspective
There's always been a market for catastrophes, and people compelled to serve that market. I think of it as the "Hooked on Eschatonics" crowd. Climate science has been co-opted by it.
It's really sh*tty when you spend years and years of your life in grad school and post-doc and so on to become a great expert on some arcane subject, and then you have to go to some bozo who barely graduated from college and went to some drinkwater law school, and then got himself elected to the state legislature -- and brilliant you have to ask stupid him for the money you need for your next project. Rep. Dumbass can't even UNDERSTAND your project.
My advice: If you want the money, suck it up and stop complaining. At least, don't complain in public and use your own name.
Thanks for the Ivanpah link, Michael K.
Here is something about that 97% myth.
Another widely cited source for the consensus view is an article in Eos: Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists, and claimed “97 percent of climate scientists agree.” Most scientists who are skeptical of man-made catastrophic global warming would nevertheless answer “yes” to both questions. However, the survey was silent on whether the human impact – or the rise in temperature – is large enough to constitute a problem. It also failed to include scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.
There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.
you can find more at Wattsupwiththat.com
Godfather, then brilliant you should beg for money from a rich benefactor, willing and able to take the risk, rather than a shady politician who has no business taking the taxpayer's money and spending it on things that have nothing to do with the running of government the way it was meant to be run.
Mark said...
"There's always been a market for catastrophes, and people compelled to serve that market. I think of it as the "Hooked on Eschatonics" crowd. Climate science has been co-opted by it."
And the only constant with these people is the solution to these impending disasters. It is always the same. More government control. More bureaucracy. More taxes.
The growth of anti-intellectualism on the right is not smart policy. - ARM
Lefties preaching innumerate blather on global warming are doing more to undermine the "intellectual class" than righties ever could.
It was the intellectual class who thought that WWI was a capital idea, and even worse, thought the Treaty of Versailles was a better one. They need to be tightly controlled.
We should commission a study one why lefties think that somebody who believes America built an "intercontinental railroad" is smarter than a governor from Alaska who correctly predicted what a problem Putin would be while the intercontinental railroad guy said she was "stuck in Cold War thinking."
AReasonableMan said...
The growth of anti-intellectualism on the right is not smart policy.
You know I'd believe that, except the sum total of Leftist/liberal/progressive/Democrat intellectual thought is embodied in sites like this: Derek zoolander center for Tea Party Patriots
Very revealing. Just another indicator that Progressivism is a cult.
a quote from James Delingpole: “If you had to pick one person who embodied everything that is most irritating and wrong about the Obama administration — the Solyndra-style crony capitalism; the war on free markets, small business,and cheap energy; the hypocrisy; the injustice; the dogged pursuit of suicidal leftist causes — then liberal billionaire Tom Steyer is your man.”
Damn Iphone keypad.
Post a Comment