Research grants dude, research grants. Big money, you're in charge, you can advance people's careers, make sweet connections, hand out sub-contracts, it's the Holy Grail for shit sake.

Oh, I forgot. That can't be. To suggest it is trolling. AGW 'insisters' are all monastic apolitical world-savers. They have nothing to gain. Just the advancement of science.

Ah, I can't even maintain sarcasm, much less malice. Look, just because a bias works in a subtle manner in a complex human system doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It isn't trolling to point out that the government can get what it wants, when it comes to government-funded studies and research. When has that ever NOT happened?? Such "research" will always point to measures the government must take that a) will result in greater government regulatory power/taxation/control and b) require distributing money to some people TBDL but probably friends of whoever is in charge of the expenditure.

It's discouraging. People who seem otherwise intelligent, informed, and logical (or at the very least capable of making smug, irritating liberal arguments with excellent grammar) remain convinced that having the government in charge of a response to AGW is a good thing. Unbalanced skepticism is dangerous, and their faith is based on zero examples. In my lifetime, the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty and the Just Plain War to Kill Foreigners (I think it's some "Mission to Spread Democracy and Freedom" or something in the official parlance) have without exception caused more problems to the actual citizenry than they have solved and have without exception enriched some pretty vile, undeserving people. Who are not all in the polluting professions.

So no. The suggestion that there is likely to be corruption and waste in the meteing out of the "Save the World Fund" or "War on Warming Package" or whatever they'll call it is NOT trolling.

There is also selection pressure on research.

Compare the relative "popularity" among other researchers, grant-seekers, and government agency employees of a study that shows little anthropogenic effect (or worse, the uncomely "inconclusive results") and a study that shows a little validation for it and which just might, if released at the right time of the week on a slow news cycle, result in scary headlines. Keep in mind that the group judging these papers are quite likely to be peer-reviewers AND people whose careers will be positively effected by more concern for AGW.

Not as blatant as the "paid off by Big Oil!" ad hominem, but just as consistent with the way the world works.

And I'd hope no one would want to be a Selection Pressure on Research denialist??

But...but..how would we do that thing you said..."colonize another planet", was it??

Wouldn't we need some kind of large governmental agency dedicated to...oh, I get it.

Ah. "Conservatism is what liberals say conservatism is."

Got ya.

I have an avatar that says we should virtually try him for treason.

Heh. Possibly even better for you than avoiding the religious indoctrination was seeing an adult contest what is largely set up to be seen by children as
"the absolute authority" of the school.

Note that this was a principled (and in this case, correct) disagreement with the school system, and not just an excuse to get out of school on a spring day and shout slogans, as many of today's yutes seem to see "dissent", "rebellion" and "protest".

This latter is especially painful to see when they are being used as pawns by the teachers' unions. "lockstep dissent" is as ugly as it is oxymoronic.

Our species, up to and including our most advanced thinkers*, is too wedded to unexamined assumptions and too fond of creating self-referential aphorisms and/or ironic maxims to realistically model first contact with non-human species.

*-apparently.

My god, I stole this from something I saw not two weeks ago and already forgot where it was...

Subject: Censorship

Fuck you, cowards.

Strong letter to follow.

Amen.

That was the third thing I thought of. (first, the "running over hot women" thing, then the "That comment will be -1, redundant in about 5 minutes".)

What the fuck is the market for this?? I mean, I have as much empathy for paraplegics as anyone but I wouldn't think the potential sales would justify the development cost.

I had a '59, '58 Ford 3/4 ton once long ago (yes, it was already old), no power nothin'. Manual steering, brakes and a long stick floor shifter. That thing was a job to drive, like actual work (still easier than walking, especially with a dozen bags of sand). So I can understand the move to Hydraguide (look it up) and automatic transmissions and power brakes...it was to make driving more practical for bluehairs, girls, stick-armed wimps and lazy people. Now THAT'S a market share.

But apparently the momentum of "making things easier" has swept automotive engineers past the point of rational analysis of what they are actually trying to accomplish.

Unless I'm missing something...

I'm not so sure the moderation of "troll" is really accurate.

The account of the banning of freon (related to the "ozone hole", which has certainly receded as a catastrophic concern...how many of you observed "Ozone Day" this year??) exemplifies an admirable cynicism. While there were definitely environmental concerns, who would be so naive as to think the expiration of DuPont pantents played no part in the ban??

However convinced many are of the nobility and innate goodness of the Gaia-lovers and Earth-savers who promote ecological actions for improving the environment, those good people* do operate in a world where the levers of power are pulled by political animals and corporate entities for their own purposes. Cynicism about their motives and actions is warranted in every case.

*-I actually find many of them to be vile misanthropes, but hey...

FTW? Where's my meta-mod points??

It isn't "-1, flamebait" to dissect opinions someone has put forth in a post. Gates' action does indeed represent a logical argument ("Agree with me because...") and does indeed demonstrate a rare double fallacy, as it consists entirely of an argumentum ad misericordiam (appeal to pity) combined with argumentum ad baculum (threatening the audience).

I've seen other posts in this thread, sound of argument and duly informative (but apparently of inadequate Ecological Correctness) modded down, ignored or modded flamebait when the content merely presented an alternative opinion. *tsk-tsk*

Guess we'll see.

Yes, First World ecological concerns about "wetlands" and raptor eggs are inappropriately transferred, by eco-NGOs and lobbying groups, to malaria-relief efforts in Africa. It is not "flamebait" to point out the millions of preventable deaths as a result thereof.

As for the claims that DDT was banned in part because it "causes cancer", we should do a little risk analysis comparing the number of deaths (not to lab animals) due to DDT-caused cancer (0) against deaths among the "poor people" Gates is so empathetic towards from malaria (many millions).

That DDT-resistant strains of mosquitoes may arise as a result of using DDT is not an argument against its use, and devalues the millions of lives that would be spared in the interim. Also, "This might not work in the future!" is decidedly not an argument we present when considering the futility of using vaccines against microorganisms, using laws against anti-social behavior or using charity against poverty. The proper response to this argument is "So what?".

Calling the current UN policy towards malaria treatment in Africa 'genocidal', 'murderous' or 'arrogant' may be flamebait...ish. Pointing out that said policies are misguided, self-indulgent and the result of shallow analysis warped by the necessity to be ecologically correct is not.

And I meant a "/pointing out painfully obvious" tag. derr.

Regardless of one's opinion of the FPS genre (The novelty long ago wore off for me, and eventually the interest in playing them waned...sometime after Castle Wolfenstein (the first). So I share his experience there.), the designation "troll" was generous, assuming the OP would know that posting of such an obtuse comment constituted the dangling of the irresistible "low-hanging fruit" in front of /.ers. This is "trolling".

Actually responding as if he were serious, ex: "They develop them because people still buy them derrr.", or pointing out that the comment is as remarkably clueless as an old man wondering why people still have sex when he's been disinterested in it for a long time, would require a tag.

Hence, the ridicule. THIS. IS. INTERNETS!!!

ps) I read your (recursively ironic) post whining about the "bully" mods in Comic Book Guy's voice and it was equally lame, but very funny. See, the mods are tasked with judging whether this guy was trolling or just a little thoughtless, whereas you jump in with butthurt nitpickery to do the same to them just to make yourself look...ummm, I'm not sure what you were going for. But it's certainly a subjective judgement, eh?