Waitaminute. I thought you said upthread that people that fund research don’t know what the researchers will find before they fund. So how could private money be funneled toward the anti-AGW side? Honest question, no gotcha intended.
Also, as I’ve stated, I think that the nature of climate research is different from other fields in how it relies so heavily on models as opposed to actually performing experiments or finding hard data. What field are you in?
No, we were actually wondering whether you would express any embarrassment at your inability to distinguish a fact from an opinion. [Shakes magic 8-ball] All signs point to “No.” [/blah]
I actually know the difference. Talking to you is like talking to a schizophrenic. You’re just completely divorced from reality.
Okay, so let’s go with this: you know the difference between a fact and an opinion. That is a fact.
You think AGW is an opinion, and not a fact. That is also a fact.
So then, why do you argue so belligerently about the subject, given that it’s all just a matter of opinion?
Essentially, there are two types of discussions: one is where two sides argue using a set of facts to try to resolve an issue, sort of like a court of law. And one where two sides argue based on opinion, think religion.
You have made yourself a religious nut case trying to bring God (your opinion) into a scientific discussion (facts about global warming).
So that’s fine. Have your opinion. Then shove it up your ass. What more is there to include in the discussion other than “it’s my opinion that elves are responsible for climate change.”
Or, you could man up and realize that your opinions are based on lies as opposed to facts.
You keep saying that as if saying so makes it true. It don’t.
If you owned an island where you made people’s dreams come true, you’d be Retardo Montalbán.
Ah, middle school. Thanks for taking me back.
I bet those were the best five years of your life. 
Upthread I was speaking about how federal funding works, which is where nearly all academic scientists get their funding. In my last post, however, I did throw an addendum that private industry funded research could operate more like you originally suggested, as they have no obligation to have open calls for proposals which are subject to peer review, but could instead recruit people to produce the results they want. I don’t actually have any experience with private research funding, though, so that is pure supposition.
I do computer modeling and simulation. I face the exact same issues the climate modelers face in terms of both the approximations and assumptions that are built into a model a priori as well as numerical errors that can arise from limited computer resources (e.g. coarse-grained simulation grids).
So you’re right about the difference between modeling and experiment, but no one who works in the modeling field simply accepts whatever comes out of the computer as the truth – verification against experimental data is an integral part of the process.
More like the best five years of your mom’s life (to stick with the middle school humor).
Now somebody say he knows what the other guy is, but what is* he*?
She still misses you. Every once in awhile she’ll carve a life size pic of your wang into a piece of scrimshaw.
She practices the ancient Japanese art of miniature sculpting, nut-sakky?
By SDMB standards, that still leaves you pretty doughy.
And so, the “Hey, everyone! Let’s all ignore Rand Rover!” thread has turned into yet another episode of the Ongoing Great Rand Rover Dog and Pony Show. Well done, everyone. Kudos.
Oh come on. Don’t act like you didn’t laugh.
It takes a very steady hand and infinite patience to work with goldfish teeth.
That’s because DNFTT doesn’t work, and never will.
If reading about RR is that great a hardship, maybe reading a thread dedicated to him is unwise?
I thought you data modellers just kept at it until the output graph looks like a pterodactyl. 