Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

Donald Trump running for president

ax1 said:
Thats pretty cool actually. The Department of Education and the public school system is trash and having it being loaded with mass propaganda is nothing new.

The thing is both Republicrats have propped up the very system that is biting them back. They could have chosen to Abolish the DoE, promote localization and choice but they didnt. And wow, no child left behind was a conservative joke!
Click to expand...
i agree...i wish republicans would have abolished DOE---maybe next time?

do you have children @ax1
 
thebigt said:
i agree...i wish republicans would have abolished DOE---maybe next time?

do you have children @ax1
Click to expand...

No I do not have children, nor do my wife and I want any. I have no interest in bringing any to this world and I am pissed I have to pay for others to have them, socialism is immoral.

We are thinking about getting a Pug someday though, maybe lol.

Yes we still have a good sex life :)
 
thebigt said:
show me your list i'll show you mine, lol.:geek:
Click to expand...

That's not fair, I would actually have to research a list whereas you can write nothing
 
Jiigzz said:
What? I don't speak conspiracy theorist
Click to expand...

There is nothing conspiratorial about it, Bareback's father was General Lolo Soetoro

Barebacks real name isnt Barrack Obama, its Barry Soetoro. Bareback's grandfather was CIA, and his mother worked in CIA side projects.

You cannot dispute the facts by throwing the CIA's favorite creation during the JFK days, "conspiracy, nothing to see here folks, dum duh dumb dum"

Invalid Link Removed
 
ax1 said:
No I do not have children, nor do my wife and I want any. I have no interest in bringing any to this world and I am pissed I have to pay for others to have them, socialism is immoral.

We are thinking about getting a Pug someday though, maybe lol.

Yes we still have a good sex life :)
Click to expand...
:giggle:
 
Jiigzz said:
That's not fair, I would actually have to research a list whereas you can write nothing
Click to expand...

The highest earners are on approx 100k, whereas the average offshore oil worker is on 150k-300k.

So the average oil worker makes more than the top climate scientists.

So where is the real money at?
 
ax1 said:
There is nothing conspiratorial about it, Bareback's father was General Lolo Soetoro

Barebacks real name isnt Barrack Obama, its Barry Soetoro. Bareback's grandfather was CIA, and his mother worked in CIA side projects.

You cannot dispute the facts by throwing the CIA's favorite creation during the JFK days, "conspiracy, nothing to see here folks, dum duh dumb dum"

Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

Wtf LOL

And Trumps dad was a packet of Cheetohs
 
Jiigzz said:
The highest earners are on approx 100k, whereas the average offshore oil worker is on 150k-300k.

So the average oil worker makes more than the top climate scientists.

So where is the real money at?
Click to expand...

And if any of those climate scientists find something contradictory to what the government wants then they have to find a job waiting tables for $2/hr, LMFAO!!!!

Incentives, follow the money.
 
thebigt said:
you are the one who said climate scientists make 60-80k
Click to expand...

Those are the ones that make up their own data and feed them to all the other scientists without their knowledge.

That usually guarantees that the stolen tax payer's money goes to their department.
 
thebigt said:
you are the one who said climate scientists make 60-80k
Click to expand...

They do, on average.

Whereas the average oil worker makes MORE than the top climate scientists. So again, who stands to gain/lose the most?

I'll give you a hint - it's the industry that relies on invading others
 
ax1 said:
And if any of those climate scientists find something contradictory to what the government wants then they have to find a job waiting tables for $2/hr, LMFAO!!!!

Incentives, follow the money.
Click to expand...

Most scientists don't work for the govt, but I'm not surprised you don't know that given you thought journals wrote articles lol
 
Jiigzz said:
Most scientists don't work for the govt, but I'm not surprised you don't know that given you thought journals wrote articles lol
Click to expand...
scientists do get funded by governments and corporations though-eh?
 
thebigt said:
scientists do get funded by governments and corporations though-eh?
Click to expand...

Where else will they get their funding if not one of those 2? Do you expect them to fund the research themselves? How else are they supposed to generate funding? lol.

That's like saying "you do know that employees get paid for by their employers, right?"
 
Jiigzz said:
They do, on average.

Whereas the average oil worker makes MORE than the top climate scientists. So again, who stands to gain/lose the most?

I'll give you a hint - it's the industry that relies on invading others
Click to expand...
i think you would be surprised at how many scientists are employeed by the oil industry.
 
Jiigzz said:
Where else will they get their funding if not one of those 2? Do you expect them to fund the research themselves? How else are they supposed to generate funding? lol.

That's like saying "you do know that employees get paid for by their employers, right?"
Click to expand...
employees usually do and say what employers want-eh?
 
thebigt said:
i think you would be surprised at how many scientists are employeed by the oil industry.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be, their are scientists in every industry - including the tobacco etc.
 
thebigt said:
scientists do get funded by governments and corporations though-eh?
Click to expand...

I didn’t say much because I honestly don’t know the extent of it but where I was getting at is and I’m assuming the big government ones are the ones feeding the rest of the independent scientists the false data, such as happened during Climategate and the leaked emails back in 2009.
 
thebigt said:
employees usually do and say what employers want-eh?
Click to expand...

funding is different to being an employee.

Companies fund research all the time, and not all of it is positive. Usually when that happens the researchers can change tact or just not publish the data.
 
Jiigzz said:
funding is different to being an employee.

Companies fund research all the time, and not all of it is positive. Usually when that happens the researchers can change tact or just not publish the data.
Click to expand...
i was under the impression that whoever does the funding owns the rights to the findings?
 
thebigt said:
employees usually do and say what employers want-eh?
Click to expand...

That's pretty insulting given that I have done (and continue to do) research backed by federal grants and even military contracts. Scientists research things and report the results based on their training, not the bias of the grant providing them money.

Let me know when you become grant-funded and then maybe you can talk about it like you actually know something about it firsthand. Most scientists are ethical and report what they find by producing scientific results without incorporating bias as much as they possibly can.
 
thebigt said:
i was under the impression that whoever does the funding owns the rights to the findings?
Click to expand...

That all depends on the grant or contract. It differs from grant to grant and project to project. That's why universities have their own legal departments dedicated to grants and contracts.
 
Misfit28 said:
That's pretty insulting given that I have done (and continue to do) research backed by federal grants and even military contracts. Scientists research things and report the results based on their training, not the bias of the grant providing them money.

Let me know when you become grant-funded and then maybe you can talk about it like you actually know something about it firsthand. Most scientists are ethical and report what they find by producing scientific results without incorporating bias as much as they possibly can.
Click to expand...
look here smartass, that is why i put a question mark behind that, making it a question rather than statement. :rolleyes:
 
Jiigzz said:
funding is different to being an employee.

Companies fund research all the time, and not all of it is positive. Usually when that happens the researchers can change tact or just not publish the data.
Click to expand...

Yep, I'm working on several contracts with a large and well-known funder and we are producing results that could be construed as negative as well as positive.
 
thebigt said:
i was under the impression that whoever does the funding owns the rights to the findings?
Click to expand...

Sure, and what happens when the research isn't favourable? The research is hidden. This is more common in private industries where Coke might fund research on health markers and if the results are unfavorable then the research wont be published.

But the climate isn't owned by anyone, and so research is independent. A University doesnt stand to gain or lose anything from the oil industry or its competitors, and so favourable and unfavourable research is more likely to be published.
 
Jiigzz said:
Sure, and what happens when the research isn't favourable? The research is hidden. This is more common in private industries where Coke might fund research on health markers and if the results are unfavorable then the research wont be published.

But the climate isn't owned by anyone, and so research is independent. A University doesnt stand to gain or lose anything from the oil industry or its competitors, and so favourable and unfavourable research is more likely to be published.
Click to expand...
is it true that only 30% of phd's stay in academia for longer than 3 years?

maybe it's because they only make 60-80k :)
 
Last edited:
thebigt said:
is it true that only 30% of phd's stay in academia for longer than 3 years?

if true then 70% of research is done by outside sources?
Click to expand...

Not all PhD's conduct research. So the assumption being made here is that 100% of all PhD's are involved in research in some capacity. Some are, but many aren't. Research isn't the only path a PhD graduate can take.

There isn't enough research jobs at Universities for every PhD graduate to remain there in a research capacity.
 
Jiigzz said:
Not all PhD's conduct research. So the assumption being made here is that 100% of all PhD's are involved in research in some capacity. Some are, but many aren't. Research isn't the only path a PhD graduate can take.

There isn't enough research jobs at Universities for every PhD graduate to remain there in a research capacity.
Click to expand...
it said only 30% stay in academia, period.

maybe it's because they only get paid 60-80K :)

if they aren't employed by academia who then? and if employed by corporations then isn't their research owned by corporation?
 
thebigt said:
is it true that only 30% of phd's stay in academia for longer than 3 years?

maybe it's because they only make 60-80k :)
Click to expand...

Independent research isn't very lucrative - it earns a respectable wage. But doesn't that just reinforce why they aren't in it for the money?

I mean, if someone stands to lose millions as we shift away from Oil (i.e. many sitting senators), why should they be trusted MORE than someone earning 60k?
 
thebigt said:
it said only 30% stay in academia, period.

maybe it's because they only get paid 60-80K :)

if they aren't employed by academia who then? and if employed by corporations then isn't their research owned by corporation?
Click to expand...

Who says all PhD graduates are researchers?
 
thebigt said:
it said only 30% stay in academia, period.

maybe it's because they only get paid 60-80K :)

if they aren't employed by academia who then? and if employed by corporations then isn't their research owned by corporation?
Click to expand...

Researchers from the Met Office Hadley Centre, for example work for that centre but money is pumped in via the BEIS who are supported by a further 42 agencies.

By having so many parties involved in funding, the research is more likely to be impartial and unbiased. Whereas if you have a person heavily invested in oil telling you that climate change is a scam despite thousands of articles indicating otherwise, then the real issue is why are people trusting the one person over the thousands of researchers?
 
Jiigzz said:
Sure, and what happens when the research isn't favourable? The research is hidden. This is more common in private industries where Coke might fund research on health markers and if the results are unfavorable then the research wont be published.

But the climate isn't owned by anyone, and so research is independent. A University doesnt stand to gain or lose anything from the oil industry or its competitors, and so favourable and unfavourable research is more likely to be published.
Click to expand...

You have it half right, climate change is infested with a multi trillion dollar corrupt politically motivated industry. There is no saying no when trillions are a stake and corruption is rule of law.
 
thebigt said:
the question i googled is how many scientists stay in academia--the answer was 30%...my money says it's the piss poor pay?
Click to expand...

I think I found your source. Is this it? Invalid Link Removed

It's based on following the careers of young researchers in the Dutch speaking part of Belgium. Pretty small sample size there if you ask me ;)

"The “Centre for R&D Monitoring” Research Group at Ghent University of Invalid Link Removedfollows up the career paths of young researchers in the Dutch speaking part of Belgium. Their data clearly indicate that about 30% of young researchers in natural sciences, engineering and life sciences continue their career in academia. This means that about 70% find a job outside academia – for example in industry, government or hospitals. In humanities and social sciences the percentage of PhD graduates who stay in academia three years after their PhD is about 50% (ECOOM-Belspo: CDH survey 2010). "
 
thebigt said:
the question i googled is how many scientists stay in academia--the answer was 30%...my money says it's the piss poor pay?
Click to expand...

Is a single Google result the authority? Is a Google search a reliable source of information?
 
thebigt said:
is it true that only 30% of phd's stay in academia for longer than 3 years?

maybe it's because they only make 60-80k :)
Click to expand...

The fact is it doesn’t matter your level of education, if you challenge global new world order policy they wipe shyt all over you.

Sad but true, and I live a greener life than most liberals I know.
 
ax1 said:
You have it half right, climate change is infested with a multi trillion dollar corrupt politically motivated industry. There is no saying no when trillions are a stake and corruption is rule of law.
Click to expand...

Are you seriously trying to say that oil is a less politically motivated industry?

This has got to be a joke lol
 
Jiigzz said:
Are you seriously trying to say that oil is a less politically motivated industry?

This has got to be a joke lol
Click to expand...

Absolutely. How many politicians line their pockets with oil money? A LOT, and imagine that mostly Republicans......

Invalid Link Removed
 
thebigt said:
the question i googled is how many scientists stay in academia--the answer was 30%...my money says it's the piss poor pay?
Click to expand...

If the US government really wants to cool the planet they can start today. All the tech is there.

I just can’t believe how many people fall for the lies.
 
Misfit28 said:
Absolutely. How many politicians line their pockets with oil money? A LOT.
Click to expand...

It kind of reminds me of when a politician made a certain medication mandatory in schools(?). Guess whose company produced that specific medication? His Daughters lol.
 
ax1 said:
If the US government really wants to cool the planet they can start today. All the tech is there.

I just can’t believe how many people fall for the lies.
Click to expand...

*sigh*.

It's that easy for sure man. Nobel peace prize for you!
 
ax1 said:
If the US government really wants to cool the planet they can start today. All the tech is there.

I just can’t believe how many people fall for the lies.
Click to expand...

That's the statement of the decade right there. Although it's amazing the spectrum of what people consider a lie. Confirmation bias is real.
 
Misfit28 said:
That's the statement of the decade right there. Although it's amazing the spectrum of what people consider a lie. Confirmation bias is real.
Click to expand...

Very much so
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top