there is epidemic of bad science resulting from overfunding for anything related to c02 research.
it's nonsense. it's not 'wrong' because 'wrong' is falsifiable in one direction or another it's BAD science because it is inconclusive wasted effort with crap data and nothing verifiable.
fine, believe in the immanent global catastrophic VERSION of climate warming caused and potentially preventable by mankind resulting from c02 emissions. GO AHEAD AND PULL YOUR HAIR OUT.
BUT CAN WE PLEASE STOP FUNDING CRAP ASS SCIENCE RESEARCH THAT WAS NEVER INTENDED TO YIELD CONCLUSIVE FALSIFIABLE RESULTS OTHER THAN X MAY CAUSE Y , OR IT MAY NOT.............
THE CULT OF BAD SCIENCE ..........AND PSUEDOSCIENCE..........continues...........
I find climate change very depressing, though I'm a complete believer in it. So I normally welcome any debunking of articles like this, since its good to know things aren't as bad as they could be.
But your debunking is not useful. Capitals are unpleasant to read and imply someone ranting/unhinged. You don't seem to actually address anything specific in TFA. You allege there is an epidemic of bad science but provide no links or backup to your claims.
A complete believer? Welcome to the Church of CAGW! It has to be 'Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming' because no 'denialists' deny the fact that carbon dioxide produced by humans helps the atmosphere retain more of the sun's heat. That's not up for belief; it's a fact. The question is: to what extent and what is the nature of the relationship? We do not yet know the answer.
Google search for "may contribute to" (with quotes) yields:
> Cartilage protein may contribute to the development of breast cancer
> Zinc deficiency may contribute to increased inflammation among HIV-positive individuals
> Neurotrophine-3 may contribute to neuronal differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells through the activation of the bone morphogenetic protein pathway.
...and thousands of others.
Do you object to all of them for being "CRAP ASS SCIENCE RESEARCH THAT WAS NEVER INTENDED TO YIELD CONCLUSIVE FALSIFIABLE RESULTS OTHER THAN X MAY CAUSE Y", or do you only object to those with political implications regarding fossil fuel industry?
I object - I can't even begin to keep straight whether I'm supposed to eat eggs or run in fear of them, or whether blueberries prevent cancer or if antioxidants give you mega-uber-cancer this week.
I don't think you understand how research works. Unless you have a super no-strings research grant (e.g. Nobel award or something), the expensive gold-standard research you're asking for just isn't funded in the first round. Instead, you get funded to do lower standard correlation type research first then if that pans out, you report on it and apply for the higher standard one to completely prove/disprove your theory.
But if all caps helps you get that inner rage against how science works out, then shine on I suppose.
there is epidemic of bad science resulting from overfunding for anything related to c02 research.
it's nonsense. it's not 'wrong' because 'wrong' is falsifiable in one direction or another it's BAD science because it is inconclusive wasted effort with crap data and nothing verifiable.
fine, believe in the immanent global catastrophic VERSION of climate warming caused and potentially preventable by mankind resulting from c02 emissions. GO AHEAD AND PULL YOUR HAIR OUT. BUT CAN WE PLEASE STOP FUNDING CRAP ASS SCIENCE RESEARCH THAT WAS NEVER INTENDED TO YIELD CONCLUSIVE FALSIFIABLE RESULTS OTHER THAN X MAY CAUSE Y , OR IT MAY NOT.............
THE CULT OF BAD SCIENCE ..........AND PSUEDOSCIENCE..........continues...........