DallasTeleAg said:

---

larry culpepper said:

---

DallasTeleAg said:

---

I always love this narrative that "science is unbiased".

Science requires funding. Funding is given by donors who are interested in a particular outcome or intellectuals who care about the same.

I guarantee you it would be hard to get funding if you walked into a University and said you wanted to do a 2-year study with the Hypothesis that the natural climate change of the earth is impossible for man to prevent.

---

pretty amazing how the scientific research around the world, including all the places free from US political influence, is in near-unanimous agreement on this issue.

---

Yeah? Cite all the scientific research from around the world for me. Also, provide what person or organization funded the research.

---

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C47&q=causes+of+climate+change&oq=causes+of

You're welcome.

larry culpepper said:

---

DallasTeleAg said:

---

I always love this narrative that "science is unbiased".

Science requires funding. Funding is given by donors who are interested in a particular outcome or intellectuals who care about the same.

I guarantee you it would be hard to get funding if you walked into a University and said you wanted to do a 2-year study with the Hypothesis that the natural climate change of the earth is impossible for man to prevent.

---

pretty amazing how the scientific research around the world, including all the places free from US political influence, is in near-unanimous agreement on this issue.

---

There are liberal morons all over the world. Especially outside of the US. They have the same incentives to use "climate change" to push socialism as American socialists.

aTmAg said:

---

larry culpepper said:

---

DallasTeleAg said:

---

I always love this narrative that "science is unbiased".

Science requires funding. Funding is given by donors who are interested in a particular outcome or intellectuals who care about the same.

I guarantee you it would be hard to get funding if you walked into a University and said you wanted to do a 2-year study with the Hypothesis that the natural climate change of the earth is impossible for man to prevent.

---

pretty amazing how the scientific research around the world, including all the places free from US political influence, is in near-unanimous agreement on this issue.

---

There are liberal morons all over the world. Especially outside of the US. They have the same incentives to use "climate change" to push socialism as American socialists.

---

Brilliant. You've figured it out. It's all a conspiracy. Even 1980s Exxon is in on it.

After reading this thread, we clearly need a term for when the first person attempts to politicize an argument then they've thus lost the argument- similar to Godwin's Law

As far as the movie- for me and me alone it was simultaneously both pretty accurate and the most depressing thing I've seen in a movie in a while. But well done regardless- it didn't feel as long as it was

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

larry culpepper said:

---

DallasTeleAg said:

---

I always love this narrative that "science is unbiased".

Science requires funding. Funding is given by donors who are interested in a particular outcome or intellectuals who care about the same.

I guarantee you it would be hard to get funding if you walked into a University and said you wanted to do a 2-year study with the Hypothesis that the natural climate change of the earth is impossible for man to prevent.

---

pretty amazing how the scientific research around the world, including all the places free from US political influence, is in near-unanimous agreement on this issue.

---

There are liberal morons all over the world. Especially outside of the US. They have the same incentives to use "climate change" to push socialism as American socialists.

---

Brilliant. You've figured it out. It's all a conspiracy. Even 1980s Exxon is in on it.

---

It's not a "conspiracy". They don't get together in some secret meeting. They all independently use whatever "emergency" they can to push their liberal policies. Whether it is a natural disaster, terrorist attack, covid, recession, climate scare, etc. It's what you guys do.

And academia, which gets the vast majority of it's money from government has every incentive to keep their gravy train rolling by producing the results their benefactors want.

aTmAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

larry culpepper said:

---

DallasTeleAg said:

---

I always love this narrative that "science is unbiased".

Science requires funding. Funding is given by donors who are interested in a particular outcome or intellectuals who care about the same.

I guarantee you it would be hard to get funding if you walked into a University and said you wanted to do a 2-year study with the Hypothesis that the natural climate change of the earth is impossible for man to prevent.

---

pretty amazing how the scientific research around the world, including all the places free from US political influence, is in near-unanimous agreement on this issue.

---

There are liberal morons all over the world. Especially outside of the US. They have the same incentives to use "climate change" to push socialism as American socialists.

---

Brilliant. You've figured it out. It's all a conspiracy. Even 1980s Exxon is in on it.

---

It's not a "conspiracy". They don't get together in some secret meeting. They all independently use whatever "emergency" they can to push their liberal policies. Whether it is a natural disaster, terrorist attack, covid, recession, climate scare, etc. It's what you guys do.

And academia, which gets the vast majority of it's money from government has every incentive to keep their gravy train rolling by producing the results their benefactors want.

---

Lol. Yes, government has made the academic endowments. Your ignorance about how research works is showing. Put up or shut up. Provide research proving the work on anthropogenic climate change is all wrong.

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

larry culpepper said:

---

DallasTeleAg said:

---

I always love this narrative that "science is unbiased".

Science requires funding. Funding is given by donors who are interested in a particular outcome or intellectuals who care about the same.

I guarantee you it would be hard to get funding if you walked into a University and said you wanted to do a 2-year study with the Hypothesis that the natural climate change of the earth is impossible for man to prevent.

---

pretty amazing how the scientific research around the world, including all the places free from US political influence, is in near-unanimous agreement on this issue.

---

There are liberal morons all over the world. Especially outside of the US. They have the same incentives to use "climate change" to push socialism as American socialists.

---

Brilliant. You've figured it out. It's all a conspiracy. Even 1980s Exxon is in on it.

---

It's not a "conspiracy". They don't get together in some secret meeting. They all independently use whatever "emergency" they can to push their liberal policies. Whether it is a natural disaster, terrorist attack, covid, recession, climate scare, etc. It's what you guys do.

And academia, which gets the vast majority of it's money from government has every incentive to keep their gravy train rolling by producing the results their benefactors want.

---

Lol. Yes, government has made the academic endowments. Your ignorance about how research works is showing. Put up or shut up. Provide research proving the work on anthropogenic climate change is all wrong.

---

Just look at how wrong their computer models have proven to be. Strange how they are always ridiculously higher than reality. It's been a joke.

In reality, 95% of academia is a joke. Hell people submit fake articles for "peer review" all the time that get approved for academic journals. One of the few areas I still respect are the cosmologists. At least that is real science and not cargo cult "science".

aTmAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

larry culpepper said:

---

DallasTeleAg said:

---

I always love this narrative that "science is unbiased".

Science requires funding. Funding is given by donors who are interested in a particular outcome or intellectuals who care about the same.

I guarantee you it would be hard to get funding if you walked into a University and said you wanted to do a 2-year study with the Hypothesis that the natural climate change of the earth is impossible for man to prevent.

---

pretty amazing how the scientific research around the world, including all the places free from US political influence, is in near-unanimous agreement on this issue.

---

There are liberal morons all over the world. Especially outside of the US. They have the same incentives to use "climate change" to push socialism as American socialists.

---

Brilliant. You've figured it out. It's all a conspiracy. Even 1980s Exxon is in on it.

---

It's not a "conspiracy". They don't get together in some secret meeting. They all independently use whatever "emergency" they can to push their liberal policies. Whether it is a natural disaster, terrorist attack, covid, recession, climate scare, etc. It's what you guys do.

And academia, which gets the vast majority of it's money from government has every incentive to keep their gravy train rolling by producing the results their benefactors want.

---

Lol. Yes, government has made the academic endowments. Your ignorance about how research works is showing. Put up or shut up. Provide research proving the work on anthropogenic climate change is all wrong.

---

Just look at how wrong their computer models have proven to be. Strange how they are always ridiculously higher than reality. It's been a joke.

In reality, 95% of academia is a joke. Hell people submit fake articles for "peer review" all the time that get approved for academic journals. One of the few areas I still respect are the cosmologists. At least that is real science and not cargo cult "science".

---

You are a walking, talking example of Dunning-Krueger in action. Fake articles are approved for legitimate peer-reviewed journals all the time? Which ones? Not predatory journals that you pay to publish in, but legitimate peer-reviewed journals. Go for it, provide a list.

And the projections made have been remarkably accurate.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right.amp

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/how-climate-models-got-so-accurate-they-earned-a-nobel-prize?cmpid=int_org=ngp::int_mc=website::int_src=ngp::int_cmp=amp::int_add=amp_readtherest

Try harder. Put up or shut up. Where's your evidence for denying anthropogenic climate change?

Wrong:



Just because the mean of a small fraction of blind models sorta hovers around an acorn doesn't mean they know what they are doing.

aTmAg said:

---

Wrong:



Just because a small fraction of them find an acorn doesn't mean they know what they are doing.

---

That hadcrut data is wrong.

https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT5.0Analysis.pdf


Not sure about UAH because the UAH dataset is not very good.

MBAR said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Wrong:



Just because a small fraction of them find an acorn doesn't mean they know what they are doing.

---

That hadcrut data is wrong.

https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT5.0Analysis.pdf


Not sure about UAH because the UAH dataset is not very good.

---

I don't know if you have the same data. I assume NH is northern hemisphere and SH is southern hemisphere and Global is the global I don't see anything on yours about surface temperature.

Secondly. The NASA thing took a small subset of them took the mean and said "hey it sorta matches!!! We are RIGHT!!!" Never mind that each individual hand picked model may be wrong. But if we average out their wrongness it's sorta right! That is not a legit model. I've done modeling for most of my professional career. If we tried to make a claim like that, our customers would laugh in our face and revoke our accreditation.

Furthermore, here is the GISS temp (NASA) data



Here is the NOAA data


Data is here:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/ann/11/1880-2021

Those are perfectly in line with the model output.

Now, feel free to dismiss this as deniers like you always do.

aTmAg said:

---

MBAR said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Wrong:



Just because a small fraction of them find an acorn doesn't mean they know what they are doing.

---

That hadcrut data is wrong.

https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT5.0Analysis.pdf


Not sure about UAH because the UAH dataset is not very good.

---

I don't know if you have the same data. I assume NH is northern hemisphere and SH is southern hemisphere and Global is the global I don't see anything on yours about surface temperature.

Secondly. The NASA thing took a small subset of them took the mean and said "hey it sorta matches!!! We are RIGHT!!!" Never mind that each individual hand picked model may be wrong. But if we average out their wrongness it's sorta right! That is not a legit model. I've done modeling for most of my professional career. If we tried to make a claim like that, our customers would laugh in our face and revoke our accreditation.

---

You're obviously not familiar with general circulation models and climate models because having several runs where one variable is different in each is a standard practice in order to help test the reliability and robustness of the models in question. This is used in weather forecasting and in climate forecasting. We would never use one model because they work differently and do various things differently so in order to make sure we have a good handle on the overall situation, multiple models are run with one or two things changed. This will lead to a wider range of output. Its not meant to land on an exact solution, but rather a plausible range of solutions that are all a certain percentage to be correct.

This is why future projections are included with confidence intervals.

What you describe as a problem is actually intentional in order to make sure we cover the most likely range of scenarios. Its a feature, not a bug, and its a sign the scientists know what they're doing.

Oh, you're going off one guy funded by fossil fuel interests (that should matter, shouldn't it, based on your critiques of everyone else)?

Edit: I'll leave the link, but MBAR is busy crushing your skull in, so I'll let him do it.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/05/comparing-models-to-the-satellite-datasets/

MBAR said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

MBAR said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Wrong:



Just because a small fraction of them find an acorn doesn't mean they know what they are doing.

---

That hadcrut data is wrong.

https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT5.0Analysis.pdf


Not sure about UAH because the UAH dataset is not very good.

---

I don't know if you have the same data. I assume NH is northern hemisphere and SH is southern hemisphere and Global is the global I don't see anything on yours about surface temperature.

Secondly. The NASA thing took a small subset of them took the mean and said "hey it sorta matches!!! We are RIGHT!!!" Never mind that each individual hand picked model may be wrong. But if we average out their wrongness it's sorta right! That is not a legit model. I've done modeling for most of my professional career. If we tried to make a claim like that, our customers would laugh in our face and revoke our accreditation.

---

You're obviously not familiar with general circulation models and climate models because having several runs where one variable is different in each is a standard practice in order to help test the reliability and robustness of the models in question. This is used in weather forecasting and in climate forecasting. We would never use one model because they work differently and do various things differently so in order to make sure we have a good handle on the overall situation, multiple models are run with one or two things changed. This will lead to a wider range of output. Its not meant to land on an exact solution, but rather a plausible range of solutions that are all a certain percentage to be correct.

This is why future projections are included with confidence intervals.

What you describe as a problem is actually intentional in order to make sure we cover the most likely range of scenarios. Its a feature, not a bug, and its a sign the scientists know what they're doing.

---

The fact that they "work differently" and "do various things differently" is the problem. The world doesn't "work differently".. it works in one way. If my simulation doesn't match real world, it's WRONG. And we go and figure out where we messed up. We don't get to say, "oh well these behaves differently".. and hope if we could find the proper subset of wrong ones that we can average up to sorta match reality. That's something one would do if they were trying to pull the wool over somebody.

I'm not saying that we could do the climate it any better. I get that modeling such a complex system is incredibly hard, and is much more complex than what we model. If climatologists were to try to model the climate to the level of fidelity of ours it would likely cost the entire federal budget or more.

But we should NOT be basing worldwide decisions that will likely starve many people based on something we know so little about. Show me A SINGLE model that is gnats ass, and have it show that it will kill more people than the green new deal and THEN we can talk.

And this just proves how little you know. Thanks for that.

aTmAg said:

---

MBAR said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

MBAR said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Wrong:



Just because a small fraction of them find an acorn doesn't mean they know what they are doing.

---

That hadcrut data is wrong.

https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT5.0Analysis.pdf


Not sure about UAH because the UAH dataset is not very good.

---

I don't know if you have the same data. I assume NH is northern hemisphere and SH is southern hemisphere and Global is the global I don't see anything on yours about surface temperature.

Secondly. The NASA thing took a small subset of them took the mean and said "hey it sorta matches!!! We are RIGHT!!!" Never mind that each individual hand picked model may be wrong. But if we average out their wrongness it's sorta right! That is not a legit model. I've done modeling for most of my professional career. If we tried to make a claim like that, our customers would laugh in our face and revoke our accreditation.

---

You're obviously not familiar with general circulation models and climate models because having several runs where one variable is different in each is a standard practice in order to help test the reliability and robustness of the models in question. This is used in weather forecasting and in climate forecasting. We would never use one model because they work differently and do various things differently so in order to make sure we have a good handle on the overall situation, multiple models are run with one or two things changed. This will lead to a wider range of output. Its not meant to land on an exact solution, but rather a plausible range of solutions that are all a certain percentage to be correct.

This is why future projections are included with confidence intervals.

What you describe as a problem is actually intentional in order to make sure we cover the most likely range of scenarios. Its a feature, not a bug, and its a sign the scientists know what they're doing.

---

The fact that they "work differently" and "do various things differently" is the problem. The world doesn't "work differently".. it works in one way. If my simulation doesn't match real world, it's WRONG. And we go and figure out where we messed up. We don't get to say, "oh well these behaves differently".. and hope if we could find the proper subset of wrong ones that we can average up to sorta match reality. That's something somebody would do if they were trying to pull the wool over somebody.

I'm not saying that we could do the climate it any better. I get that modeling such a complex system is incredibly hard, and is much more complex than what we model. If climatologists were to try to model the climate to the level of fidelity of ours it would likely cost the entire federal budget or more.

But we should NOT be basing worldwide decisions that will likely starve many people based on something we know so little about. Show me A SINGLE model that is gnats ass, and have it show that it will kill more people than the green new deal and THEN we can talk.

---

All simulations are wrong, but that doesn't mean that they're not useful. You're obviously ignorant of what goes into numerical prediction and that's fine. We don't all have to be experts on this. But you thinking you know better than the experts is the problem. We use these models all the damn time to make trillions of dollars worth of decisions and somehow you declare them wrong because you a) don't understand how they work and b) have decided its politically inconvenient.

On the other hand, those with actual money at stake trust these models constantly. Airline industry trusts them. The insurance industry trusts them. All logistics companies trust them. The military trusts them. Wall Street trusts them (so much that they're always trying to convince the people who create the models to come work for them).

But hey, you've decided we can't use them and they are unreliable. Ok.

Sapper Redux said:

---

And this just proves how little you know. Thanks for that.

---

Pathetic retort. Sorry to ruin your ignorance parade.

'deniers' = people who want rational policy with a logical goal and based on sound science. OK.

for the last 8000 years, you know, when mankind began to flourish, the world has been several degrees warmer than it is now almost the entire time. When it wasnt, everyone was starving and killing each other and freezing the Thames, etc., etc., etc., (i.e. the little ice age).

before that was a REAL ice age, where mankind almost went extinct.

There also happens to be this large fiery orb nearby which is the source for 90% of 'climate', which fluctuates on its own, and which remains very mysterious to current science.

and you want to destroy our lives and surrender our prosperity because of an ambiguous tiny 50 year one degree blip, at best?

and you ignore that the entire elitist government/political/education and scientific funding is predicated on sucking the ecomony to prove this theory, rather than to research the real science? and you ignore the outright, proven fraud by supposedly credible sources that put out graphs like you are citing to?

MBAR said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

MBAR said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

MBAR said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Wrong:



Just because a small fraction of them find an acorn doesn't mean they know what they are doing.

---

That hadcrut data is wrong.

https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT5.0Analysis.pdf


Not sure about UAH because the UAH dataset is not very good.

---

I don't know if you have the same data. I assume NH is northern hemisphere and SH is southern hemisphere and Global is the global I don't see anything on yours about surface temperature.

Secondly. The NASA thing took a small subset of them took the mean and said "hey it sorta matches!!! We are RIGHT!!!" Never mind that each individual hand picked model may be wrong. But if we average out their wrongness it's sorta right! That is not a legit model. I've done modeling for most of my professional career. If we tried to make a claim like that, our customers would laugh in our face and revoke our accreditation.

---

You're obviously not familiar with general circulation models and climate models because having several runs where one variable is different in each is a standard practice in order to help test the reliability and robustness of the models in question. This is used in weather forecasting and in climate forecasting. We would never use one model because they work differently and do various things differently so in order to make sure we have a good handle on the overall situation, multiple models are run with one or two things changed. This will lead to a wider range of output. Its not meant to land on an exact solution, but rather a plausible range of solutions that are all a certain percentage to be correct.

This is why future projections are included with confidence intervals.

What you describe as a problem is actually intentional in order to make sure we cover the most likely range of scenarios. Its a feature, not a bug, and its a sign the scientists know what they're doing.

---

The fact that they "work differently" and "do various things differently" is the problem. The world doesn't "work differently".. it works in one way. If my simulation doesn't match real world, it's WRONG. And we go and figure out where we messed up. We don't get to say, "oh well these behaves differently".. and hope if we could find the proper subset of wrong ones that we can average up to sorta match reality. That's something somebody would do if they were trying to pull the wool over somebody.

I'm not saying that we could do the climate it any better. I get that modeling such a complex system is incredibly hard, and is much more complex than what we model. If climatologists were to try to model the climate to the level of fidelity of ours it would likely cost the entire federal budget or more.

But we should NOT be basing worldwide decisions that will likely starve many people based on something we know so little about. Show me A SINGLE model that is gnats ass, and have it show that it will kill more people than the green new deal and THEN we can talk.

---

All simulations are wrong, but that doesn't mean that they're not useful. You're obviously ignorant of what goes into numerical prediction and that's fine. We don't all have to be experts on this. But you thinking you know better than the experts is the problem. We use these models all the damn time to make trillions of dollars worth of decisions and somehow you declare them wrong because you a) don't understand how they work and b) have decided its politically inconvenient.

On the other hand, those with actual money at stake trust these models constantly. Airline industry trusts them. The insurance industry trusts them. All logistics companies trust them. The military trusts them. Wall Street trusts them (so much that they're always trying to convince the people who create the models to come work for them).

But hey, you've decided we can't use them and they are unreliable. Ok.

---

There is "wrong" and there is "tailored to push a political agenda".

And it's one thing to trust something for the flight of a single plane vs making a 300 year decision that can ruin entire economies and uncountable number of people. For example, if AOC got her way, a CRAP ton of people would die. I would take 2 degree increase over 100 years over that.

"Alexa - stop watching this thread"

Do you have any clue how many will die if the planet warms by 2 degrees C?

Lol... this thread.

One thing the last 2 years has really opened my eyes to is how biased directed the scientific community is. I don't follow the climate change debate as closely as I did the COVID pandemic, but seeing "scientific" groups pedal one opinion and constantly spouting "Trust the science" while simultaneously silencing and ostracizing any scientist who disagrees has left me with a complete distrust of it all.

I followed two of the links in those articles posted, and looked up the writers to see where they work. Then did my best to find where the funding for the work came from. Basically impossible to find any of that. Though the one from the author who works for the Australian National University allowed me to look into who is funding the research. Of course, the research was funded by the Institute for Climate, Energy & Disaster Solutions, which is largely controlled by 3 people. You think they would fund a qualified person who was looking to challenge the idea? Nope. They start from the pre-conceived notion that climate change will already be the death of us.

That led me to an article by a PhD candidate who was awarded a grant from this group, and I was basically reading her citing climate change as a reason for everyone to conform to what sounds like a communist paradise. Then I looked further into what this fund looks at, and they specifically mention, "Preference will be given to students from the emerging generation who are Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander, from Pacific Island nations, or from rural and remote areas."

So this apparent "science" cannot be challenged and one of the important factors in providing funding for those looking into it is they must be from an emerging generation and some form of minority or apparent "oppressed" people?

That's called mixing identity politics with science and is just one of the many reasons I can't take academia seriously.

I'm not spending the rest of my day reading and researching every journal there, but I would love to see every paper or journal published also publish the provider of the grant and who else was considered for said grant so I can see the biases in that.

Also, because personal politics seems to be so tied up into someone's "science", I would love to ask each of these authors how many genders there are. Let's see how their "science" works with that question.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Do you have any clue how many will die if the planet warms by 2 degrees C?

---

FAR fewer than if libs got their way.

aTmAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Do you have any clue how many will die if the planet warms by 2 degrees C?

---

FAR fewer than if libs got their way.

---

It's amazing how juvenile your posts are when you know you're losing an argument.

You're looking for a reason to discount the research, so naturally you're going to find it. Congrats, you entrenched yourself firmly in your preconceived position.

Sapper Redux said:

---

You're looking for a reason to discount the research, so naturally you're going to find it. Congrats, you entrenched yourself firmly in your preconceived position.

---

It's how your climate change science works, so why do you not accept it when I do it?

Nothing I posted was a lie and was found in 20 minutes of googling.

Sapper Redux said:

---

You're looking for a reason to discount the research, so naturally you're going to find it. Congrats, you entrenched yourself firmly in your preconceived position.

---

Like "candidate must be of aboriginal descent" kind of preconceived position?

Staff should put this thread out of its misery.

javajaws said:

---

Staff should put this thread out of its misery.

---

And be accused by one side of protecting the position of the other?

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Do you have any clue how many will die if the planet warms by 2 degrees C?

---

FAR fewer than if libs got their way.

---

It's amazing how juvenile your posts are when you know you're losing an argument.

---

How is stating facts "juvenile"? Just go look at what the "great leap forward" did in China for an idea of what socialism does. Look at the death rates in other socialist nations. It would make most genocidal leaders blush.

If anything your posts on this thread show a lack of maturity of a somebody who has nothing intellectually to offer.

Jesus this thread has been killed, resurrected, and then atmag-ed.

schmendeler said:

---

Jesus this thread has been killed, resurrected, and then atmag-ed.

---

So made better?

(Which is interesting since Sapper has 10X the political posts on this thread as me. Yet somehow it's "atmag-ed" and not "sappered".)

maroon barchetta said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

You're looking for a reason to discount the research, so naturally you're going to find it. Congrats, you entrenched yourself firmly in your preconceived position.

---

Like "candidate must be of aboriginal descent" kind of preconceived position?

---

How is encouraging people traditionally left out of high level science a bad thing? It's not as if this is the only grant in existence for people to earn.

Sapper Redux said:

---

maroon barchetta said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

You're looking for a reason to discount the research, so naturally you're going to find it. Congrats, you entrenched yourself firmly in your preconceived position.

---

Like "candidate must be of aboriginal descent" kind of preconceived position?

---

How is encouraging people traditionally left out of high level science a bad thing? It's not as if this is the only grant in existence for people to earn.

---

There it is.