Yes, absolutely. At the moment the postgraduate researcher who has an interest in, say, cheese-making, knows that the way to get funding is to invent a project looking at the changes in cheese-making due to global warming. The warming is taken as a given, the changes are invariably for the worse, and the meaningless results, with the obligatory boilerplate acknowledgement of how appalling this imaginary crisis will be, is guaranteed publication. Meanwhile the useful things this person could and should be finding out about cheese-making by doing real, verifiable science go undiscovered.

Coincidentally, just after I posted the previous comment I came across the following on Watts Up With That:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/17/climate-change-is-sucking-funding-away-from-biodiversity/

"Kent research suggests that recent high levels of media coverage for climate change may have deflected attention and funding from biodiversity loss."

the pROBLEMS OF FUNDING..are huge
the tools modifieRS AND MODELS ARE SIMPLY SPIN BLING[JUST TO GET THE NEXT SIN TAX IN]

BUT THE THING IS THE ONE WITH THE MONEY
CHOSES WHICH PATH THE RESEARCH TAKE'S[THEN THERE IS THE eager t0 please..scum/who will say and do anything to refute real proofs[but it works predictably[if govt noticed it*..some one plans tpo make money from it.[and if guilt can sin tax it/thats it\..next thing ya gpot a drug wart[govt actually declares ipon its masters[us]

the servbant drive us by bad law
based u[pon bad dacts[HEALTH COSTS OF SMOKING =jusat under one billion[mot 32 billion]..govt expenditure for medicine..is aqllready too huge/so they planned to steal nicoteen delivery[so how many studdies we need to get 3 billion dr roxon?]

i see the satudy[saying the numvbers wil drop
so yo ensure revenue we recomend indexation an extra 3 billion [for 3 years]..to make up for the few who will quit.[wanna bet?]..

The history of tobacco control rarely sees any single initiative produce the spectacular changes demanded by such critics. One such example is that a February 2013 Department of Finance paper shows, **without providing data,..>>

PLEASE NOTE[DATA=OPTIONAL/PLUS 'modified"[like i recall deaths from booze[ACTUAL DEATH NUMBERS*]..were modified..from 5000/year..to 3000[because of the 'deemed/benifit'..of a few drinks[really 2000 who died of booze..didnt die of booze

its too clever trev

o numbers..UET*..<<..that the unprecedented 25 per cent tax increase on tobacco introduced overnight on 29 April 2010 led to an 11 per cent fall in apparent consumption (amount smoked), nearly double the 6 per cent which had been forecast at the time of the announcement.""

This sort of information is of critical importance to assessment of policies to reduce tobacco use.

<<..Tobacco customs and excise data are absolutely critical to the evaluation of Australia's plain pack law and its total program of making smoking history. Data has been available since the turn of the last century. Without it we will see a continuation of the data-free bluster from govt and lobby wanting ever bigger tax from sin[what they legislate as sin

bah

Government has no rational way of distinguishing "good research", even in its own terms, for reasons Mises identified in his essay that exploded the intellectual foundations of all socialism: "Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth": http://mises.org/pdf/econcalc.pdf . Though this categorically disproves the case for government funding of research before any is handed out, the "scientists" never refute it, because they can't. So we get the crazy situation that the scientists embrace refuted fallacies in the justification for their research in order to get to square one. Then they talk down to the rest of the population about not understanding science!

The flaw in the argument is always in assuming that the funding was worthwhile, without ever being able to demonstrate that it was in terms of whatever one defines as the ultimate human welfare criterion, once opportunity costs are taken into account. They also never take into account the coercive nature of the funding, or the sacrifice of values. So we get this irrational method, of accounting for a quantity on one side of the equation but not the other - a thumb in the scales.

It's easy to disprove their claims in every case - they can never answer how they know whether funding was too much, too little, or just the right amount.

There are also huge negative externalities to government funding of research, namely the growth of the anti-rational sector, because this sector's effect on policy is also anti-human. An example is recent policies diverting food production so well-fed westerners can feel good about themselves in their new religion of fine-tuning the weather by pouring food grain as biofuels into their cars, at the cost of starving large numbers of poor people in the third world to death.

Funding "research" is not a valid function of government, is a natural prey to corruption and waste, and should be abolished.

Don, the most significant thing that springs to mind here is the enormous demands exerted on our budget by very high immigration.

This means that the funding of basic infrastructure and services take priority over the funding of research, and will do so progressively to a larger extent in the coming years.

It means that as things become harder right across our society, and there is a greater need for good research to find solutions to our mounting problems, our research capability will be progressively reduced... or at least not expand proportional to the expansion of the population and economy.

Surely scientists and researchers of all sorts must realise this.

So I wonder why then that there isn’t a concerted and united push from all these people for a major reduction in our immigration intake, and for a stabilisation of our population…. and thus for a big reallocation of funds away from all the population-growth-supporting infrastructure and services and into things which can actually improve our society and environment.

It seems to me that the whole scientific and academic fraternity is being highly remiss in not realising the enormous significance of this.

It is doubly strange, because all of these intelligent people must know that we simply MUST strive to achieve a sustainable society, of which a stable population – or at least one that is growing at a much lesser rate than at present – is of critical importance.

<< Funding "research" is not a valid function of government, is a natural prey to corruption and waste, and should be abolished. >>

What!!??

That’s awfully extreme isn’t it Jardine?

Sure, there are inefficiencies and elements of corruption. Of course governments need to control these as best as possible. But is going far too far to project this to the extent that they should simply not fund any research!

...Medical researchers know, they ply a trade which taps into a “crowd neuroticism” of industrial proportions! Does snake oil ring a bell?

The whole point of the government being involved in scientific research funding is to address the market failure. There are large numbers of research areas that have no immediate economic pay-off, so won't be invested in by industry. These areas may have significant societal pay-offs (e.g. much of preventative health research) or may have economic spin-offs way in the future (e.g. early research into wifi).

Failure to invest in scientific innovation leaves a country more at the mercy of international drivers. Australia will soon be importing most of its innovation from China. Innovation will still occur, but Australia will only get what is delivered to it.

Priorities are something governments impose to reassure voters taht they are spending money wisely. They do skew the landscape as researchers look at ways to bring their skills to bear on new problems and you can end up training too many people in one area at the expense of others.

research funding..is never..a problem..[any/funding..is\an..opportunity].or.[test]...
plus..insider/knowing..plus..a share*..in the big payoff

[hint]

the..research..into/new*smokeless-cigarettes..with..infinite-tastes..[artificial/FLAVOURS\COLOURS..ETC..]..*MOSTLY MORE..*CARCINOGENIC THAN CIGGIE-SMOKE]..but/yet..arnt part of//.the inclusion\limitation..of smoking..*[yet]

but*..its..the fastest/all/them\tastes..steamed..into your mouth.its/a
growing fad*

and.if you looked..[researched]..at it..under the..'name'..of nicotine addiction..delivery..[instead\of 'smoking]..ie..only one..'new'-method of..fad'delivery'..THEN THE/NUMBERS\re-search/WOULD show/.these new*products\more..socially-acceptable..fast outstripping the market..they set-out..to capture..[20years ago]..see/the\re-search.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-26/chapman-show-us-the-data-on-tobacco-sales/4845010

QUOTE..*<<..This is a..'social experiment'..*that..the Cancer=Council
has been working on..for at least 13 years,.[that I know of]...They received funding..and political support..from the Howard/government, then..the Rudd gov,..then..Gillard gov,..and will likely continue to receive funding..and support..from the/party..that wins the next election>>

resear[ch/indicated\32..bilion[per year-pay/day]
so/spin/that..as the cost-of/smoking[actual/cost=800 milion]

<<>.The decision..to bury*[research/the volume\of tobacco.>>
much/depends..on what/volume\measured.[how/much..ua neED?]

COMPLETELY..IGNORES\THE\'HARMFULL..NICOTEEN*
IE/THE..*[ACTUAL DRUG]..ADDICTION..'PROBLEM?'

but heck..how many
caffeine-addicts..drink coffee

lol
OH/NO..FALLING REVENUES*..SMOKERS MARKET/DEAD/DYING
REVENUE/STREAM..TAX TAKE..DECLINING..research/RESEARCH*..facts

[confidential/fact]...now
what/next\..rebrand?..re-design/whats..the lab-got?

nicotine replacement/delivery\systems?
..its repackaging..of,,a fast\dying habbit/oldies/smoking
[ever/more govt mandated/smelly;oldies dying..we need..a gimmick for the young..liKe lolly ciggies../cause\thumb..sukKing/NANNY-STRAIGHTS/feels good

<<..entering into retail-trade..in Australia..on this excuse is>>>..easy for two reasons...money/franchise oppertuinity[with infinite smokeless 'tastes'//

malbro taste anyone..its smokeles
[even uses batteries]..EVER-READY SMOKE..GUILT-FREE STREAM
the new..money stream..[GREAT/PRIVATISED-RESEARCH...MORE MONEY-SOON

thaNKs/heaps..CANCER COUNCIL
WHO FOund..the money..by blaming.all the causation's of cancer.onto smokING-LEAVES..NOT INDUSTRY-POLUTION..s[at best toobaco kils 10 percent of the number..'attributable..to smoking leaves..
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16263&page=10

ha/ha/ha..JOKES/ON\ME*

First,..tobacco companies..[ETC]..have long*>>..[note]<<.*bought commercial shelf/audit data..from the main supplier of this information in Australia>>,..

GOVT-AGENCY.IE..bUying influence/directing/from\the rear

<<so they already/have\very detailed\SECRET/[IN-CONFIDENCE]..*in-formation>>

ditto..the cancer council
[and..other..SECONDARY...lobbies]..feeding the cancer cure/sham

Reich harmonics/.kills cancer//\\*..simply with vibration[sound-WAVES
FOR FREE*..but then..we wont,..need*...no more*cancer council TO hide/subvertde-fund/research..into reiche*harmonics..[not one ever]..

too clever/by half

<<research.>>Data..on brand share...is also published.>>

reveal the gum/and
the patches and the data..on smokless ciggarettes..=GROwth*

[in stead/of allowing us\to die off/the publicity..has revived the petro-pharma industry into a huge addictive payday[just like dupont stole hemp/via the same lies of science/lobby/spin..propaganDA

SAME SAME SHAME

a
LOttA- treason/malfeasance/focus groupies
plenty/of\WORK/BUT..HUGE PAYOFFS.ALL ROUND

This is a 'social experiment'
that the Cancer Council has been working on for at least 13 years,
..funding and political support from the Howard government,..then the Rudd gov,..then Gillard gov,..and,..

now/phoney-toni..[sold-out/by..official malfeasance/mainly..to protect..industry/corporate-mercantilism..orjust/oppertuinism

Ironically, I made some of the same points about directed research in a speech I gave last night on the issue of scientific research. http://www.openaustralia.org/debates/?id=2014-06-17.126.1&s=speaker%3A10337#g126.2

Dennis

US studies show, that for every government dollar spent on research, 30 more are handed back as tax.
Of course the usual mantra muttering simpletons are going to reject that, and for the same simpleminded reasons they have always rejected research; or indeed, incontrovertible evidence?
Professional forensic auditing, will invariably expose the cheats and the corrupt.
One or two very occasional rotten apples or forged credentials, has never ever meant, they all are, and the rest can be saved, just by exposing and eliminating the one or two bad apples! To use the colloquial.
As for scientific research into cheese?
If we can develop a powerful variety that drive rats absolutely bonkers, like that found in the ancient quartermaster's store, we could put two or three hundred rapidly running, cheese chasing Rodents, in a medieval lifting wheel, and adapt it to run Jon J's motor car?
More tea anyone, jolly nice party what?
What is that incredibly uninviting smell? I can smell it from here!
What? Jon J's cheese crackers?
I thought it was something that exited out of the south end of a north bound camel?
Y'uck y'uck y'uck.
Rhrosty.

frosty/note..<<>.US studies show,..>>

wow//it took..more than one..?
a study/is done by\those doing studies..?
its/much like..a fox protecting..his hen house dinning table

THIS/believers\found..<<...that
for every..*government dollar spent..on research,..>>

HOW/ABOUT\PRIVATES?
actual hard research?[SOUNDS/MORE\LIKE..number/crunching[publish-or-perrish

/by what measURE/QUAITY/CONTROL/QUALIFICATION
..AS A GENERIC/statement..THEN REFUTE..one..ONE REFUTES ALL

EVERT..DOLLAR..[NOT YEN
FRANKS..NOR ANYTHING NOT YANKI..?..
OR..SIMPLY..WIThin the outliNe/parrameters

govt/gave\..$1
=30 more..are handed back..>>

that ..30/fold..sounds silly enough
but..then add.in this little bit..<

handed;lol..back..<..as tax.}..=fraud/math\accounting?

please mate..i need challange that

govt gives you one dolar
you give them 30 back..lol..in tax revenue
[yet still claim full detuctability..too cever by half

in other words..[if no 'for proffit tax minimisation funds get one tax dollar//govt gets 30 back?..mate its too pat..

[every research..or just specific/like sure..making gmo
[ie.we\buy seeds/for life\from monsanto\..but heck pal/how about that study/that gives a thesus..on wether fred flintstone is real or not

monsanto sure/*/give them..a dollar/they steal 30/BUT TAX RETURN?
NEVER A PENNY/PAID IN TAX?..BUT..THE TRANSACTION-TAX.ON THE SEED

OR..[SO THE STUDY FOUND]..LOL

I DONT LIKE OPINION POLLS..[THATS NOT RESEARCH/BUT YES
WE TASTED..YA MARS BARE/AND WOUD LIKE TO HAVE SOME MORE..*tESTS..[BUT 9 OUT OF TEN..new product/movies/songs/business/parties..STILL FAIL

WHERE IS GRAHAM..he loves numbers
so these..polls on who is the best leader
i studdied..*them intently..im allowing..a factor for error for fraud

but then i checked..the numbers..[in 1999\...APPARENTLY 900 out of 1000 got tested for drunk driving[same study that modified the deaths from booze numbers

studied results..indicaTE A BIAS..of that payed to be studied
but 30-percent[sorry 30/fold]..tax return..on study..of juliars fat dressings charts..where is the return[but/from the wage taxes/on the grantees.

lets keep it real
not all stidy..is worth the price
not all gives return/..in fact most the returns are..only studying yet other 'modified study/numbers'..

how goes the saying..rubbish-in/rubbish/out..fools\damm lies and statistics..study them carefully..most studies..are limited/bought/paid\4..thus biased.or..so generalised as to only summise generalisations..OR/BULK-UP..BIASED CONCLUSIONS

the return..on this studdy..is now gaining 30 fold tax return
that means at 30%..tax rate..one dollar returns value..of 100 dollars
anD IF WE ADD AN EXTRA 0..[LIKE..1999/QLD\SATUDIES]-THAT 100 FOLD EXTRA TAX..BECOMES..1000/FOLD_4_OLD-WEALTH

STUDY..MY HAND..the bias staNDS..
IS..TOO LOUD/TOO-PROUD\sold-out/bought-off..
spin for hire-4-ever/more\higher[taxation]read govt funddd dddddddddddddddding*

Pollie, you shot yourself in the foot with your opening sentence.
" that the free market is the best driver of progress, provided that that market has integrity".
What makes you think that "the market has inegrity". Go and watch "The wolf of Wall Street"

David

...Pollie.

...Your talking to real people here Polli. Firstly, all markets in Capitalism are manipulated for a desired outcome! (eg. the classic of the housing market(what a sick f#$%’n joke is that one)). Your fanfare praise for research is “inductive hyperbole”!

...For a real time assessment of the value of research, why not present an excuse for the sqillions of research dollars sinking down the drain, with the squillions of research papers following down the same drain, never to be heard of again. That is the reality of research.

...Research is nothing more than jobs for the boys, and in the case of the Abbott medical research joke, so proudly propped-up with a seven dollar co-payment, paining the poorest the most, two dollars of the stolen money will immediately line the pockets of doctors, for no other reason than to buy silence! Are we that stupid?

...We don’t need more research mate, we need hugely LESS of it!

Diver Dan, you are the one not living in reality. Are you seriously stating that you think Australia would be better off significantly cutting research? If so, should we, in your opinion, have any research at all? If we are, who do you suggest defines research direction? Do you think Australia would have a globally competitive economy in 20 years if we cut research? These are all questions for you to consider rather than the rather simplistic statement you have made above.

po/quote..<<..Diver Dan,,,you are the one not living in reality.>>

SAYS THE DOTTY pot to the/AIR\kettle metal

<<..Are you seriously stating..>>that you think Australia would be better off significantly cutting research? >>

he just said so didnt he
I AGREE*..im sick of these studdies that return 30 FOLD NEW TAXES RETURN

YES ANOTHER TAX STUDDY
WE CANT READ BUT THAT PRIVATISES INFO TO THOSE IN THE KNOW

WE PAY FOR THEM TO KNOW
POLLIE Mate you and your pals gotta go

reveal the public paid studies to us paying for them

not inconfidence bull cra ppp

<<>..If so, should we, in your opinion.. have any research at all?>>

weneed sit back and ratify whats true and whats faulse
so much has been simplyaVIDEDLIKE REAL CURES/THAT DONT REAP ETERNAL REVENUE FOR SYMPTOM SUPPRESSING THE SYMPTOM/BUT comveniently never actually curing the disease

much sickness is from deliberate dietry poisening
simply vitamin depletion iodine/and

<<>.If we are, who do you suggest defines research direction?>>

i think school kids are best placed/each school tests double blind..true or faulse/both will be further funded\till the 3 rd school refutes it and all get a bonus[either wat]

<>> Do you think Australia would have a globally competitive economy in 20 years if we cut research?>>

we want life quaity
we are smarter/your wasting a huge first world brain trust[perfectly SUITED TO TEST OUT THEORY/AT REASONABLE SOPHISTICATED LEVELS UNCONCIEVED BY NARROw right winG NANNY STATE PANDERING TO THE LOWEST COMMON DENOMIATION

<<..These are all questions for you to consider rather than the rather simplistic statement you have made above.>>

NOW YOU*[WHAT..THATS THE BESTYOU CAN DO?]

...Listen carefully Polley...My lips are moving! You identify as a politician, you are the untrustworthy "one" by reputation, not me!

...My question is; If any industry presented such a huge litany of failures, as does the research "Industry", why would it not be abandoned for the failure it is?

...The ping pong ball is in your court!

So diver, where would you be without wifi? How about without semiconductors? How about without lasers? How about without GPS, satellite communications, I think you get the picture. So, you still think we should have no research?

Pollie:

Here is the question for the third time:

...My question is; If any industry presented such a huge litany of failures, as does the research "Industry", why would it not be abandoned for the failure it is?

...Well...The overpriced white elephant has been abandoned by the industry to benefit the most from its overly-sparse success rate; the medical industry, and handed to the "TAX PAYER" to pay the tab.

...And the outrage this situation is, becomes more outrageous when considering which segment of the community are press-ganged into paying proportionately the most of it, the poor and sick among us!

....The problem with you and your fellow politician mates in the halls of irrelevance, is your total disconnect from the human race, and the damage that disconnect has on the lives of the "lesser" folk you pretend to serve, by dishing up this particular research "Porky" as truth!

Oh come on! Of course there are failures, that is the nature of research. The point is it is the successes that more than counteract the failures. Risky research has potential huge payoff, but of course also has a great potential for failure. It is the nature of the beast and life. Same thing goes for various investment strategies. There is a lot of incremental research, extremely low risk but also extremely low reward. Hence you need a portfolio with various risk levels. Your solution seems to be no research. If that is the case, then there will be no improvement, and we will have same old same old, with no advance. You might choose to be a Luddite, I prefer a world where there is improvement.

Pollie, Ludwig

You do understand that you're arguing that socialisation of the means of production makes society fairer and more productive?

It's enough to dispose of your arguments that you can't identify by what rational criterion you know whether research in any given case, or in general, is too much, too little, or just the right amount.

Answering as you have done by ignoring the question, and fluffing yourself up with indignation, proves my case, not yours.

Your technique amounts only to alleging the benefits while assuming the costs are worthwhile, or asserting they are without any demonstration in units of a lowest common denominator, which is simply irrational.

Quote Don

“The cuts that have been made are not severe, and to me they suggest a warning from the Government to the research establishments that it is serious about the need for good research, not research that is suitable to a previous government's agenda. Of course I have global warming in mind here, and feel like warning the Government not to want its own supportive research too.”

This smacks of wanting the government to only support science, which happens to support your view of the world. I would suggest that climate science is an extremely useful area of research, for a vast range of activates such as agriculture, shipping and aviation to name but a few. Narrowly focusing your attention on AGW does not alter the fact that research into climate is going to improve both short and long range predictions.

<< … Ludwig you do understand… >>

No, sorry Jardine, I don’t understand what you saying that I am supposed to understand!!

However, it is surely a very silly argument that government should not fund any research because we can’t….

<< …know whether research in any given case, or in general, is too much, too little, or just the right amount. >>

I am not in agreement with Pollie re:

< …the free market is the best driver of progress, provided that that market has integrity. Planned economies have clearly failed… >>

But I do concur with this:

<< Of course there are failures, that is the nature of research. The point is it is the successes that more than counteract the failures. Risky research has potential huge payoff, but of course also has a great potential for failure. It is the nature of the beast and life. >>

i think what your all missing..is the easy stuff/has been found
the 'new stuff/needs rely on other invention/from here ON IN/WE CAN MAKE THINGS SO SMALL..we cant see their uses or dangers

[too/big..to find..TODAY..WE LOST TOO MUCH ALLREADY
THE TRUE SKILL IS IN RETAINING..RE-DICOVERY

polies said..<<>.So diver,..where would you be without wifi? >>

how much should we invest on the next stage>
or wait till its true cost is found..[think cane toads]

<<..How about without semiconductors?>>

yes those lev trains hoW GREAT..of course its too expensive[and energy has doubled]..so these thing[mag lev=dead]..of course there are other apps/but can you rebuild it/like we can eASY REBUILD A CANE TRAIN/RAILWAY TRACK AFTER THE FLOOD?..

<<..How about without lasers?>>..how about dynamite/atomiC BOMBS GMO/CANCER CLUSTERS?..HOW ABOUT THE ONES THAT HAVE NEGATIVE RETURN/FOR SPURILOUS EVEN DESTRUCTIVE INVEntive attention.

<<>How about without GPS, satellite communications, I think you get the picture. So, you still think we should have no research?>>

there is reasonable..reasearch/that invents
then there is the other[think ink jet printer ink scam[or the light bulb conspiricy/or the research that invented 500 child proof lighters that all now have gone[but the onethat was big before[bic]

point is we had vhs/and beta..that came from the phylips tape cassettes'invenmtion'..no sooner had we bought the vhs/than we went dvd..certainly better.but we went foppy disk/hard dick..dicette/to chip[in sound we went from wax cylenders to 78/33/45..to reel to real/from super 8 MM TO 37mil..yes we got storage of data now to a stage..where we need chose what worked best[i dont the research..and the reply is 33..1/3..rpm DISC[IE lp-RECORDS]..for personal use/and govt in hard copy[we know digetal data corrupts.

thing is we have had far too many formats/to much viral inventtion
we found too much knowing[so much so that our kids now must spend the\first half of the ir life in study/we ned ratify the knowing we have[secure what we got/before it all goes bust

to few know to much
if public payed public must have acces]
buisness in confidence =insider traitering

What exactly is a research "failure"?

It must be easy to define, because we have so much of it apparently.

I would suggest Bugsy, you take a glance in any university, where you will find thousands of "professors" doing as little as possible to justify the grant for their concocted, just for funding, "research project".

You know the one. That's right, they have been doing it for years, although they have known for years, that it was going nowhere. Still it avoids them having to concoct a new grant application, & should cover them until retirement, with any luck.

That is perhaps the research failure you are looking for, with eyes wide closed.

So you obviously don't know either then Hasbeen.

The 'university' you envision exists only in what's left of your mind.

THE PROBLEM..clearly,,is<<..What exactly is a research "failure">>
funding the wrong rubbish elite
who are expert at sucking off the public cash coWS[qango's]

It is/only to easy to define,
because we have so much of it
apparently..some are so comfortable,,too comfortable
but its best if we dont blame them,,[see special intrests/got into highr education,,and they been slowly training us to know facts..but not how to form..our own validation;fact file.

teach a man to fish
you feed him for life
teach the man to leave the breeding fish breeD/he feeds his nation,

to eat life,,is what life is about[more blessed the lion that be meat for man[than man who be meat for lie.[lying]..best to..look at life lightly.some take this living too seriously/first laugh/at others then laugh at leaders/then laugh at self,

"So you obviously don't know either then Hasbeen.

The 'university' you envision exists only in what's left of your mind."

Exactly, Bugsy.

Hasbeen lives in some sort of alternative universe where research funding goes on for ever rather than being limited to 3 to 5 year projects like happens in every other universe.

This is the same alternative universe where thousands of scientists lie so they can fight amongst themselves over a miniscule amount of research funding and no one but Hasbeen seems to notice.

Wow! Doesn't a little home truth stir up the boys.

Gets them off the teat long enough for them to cry foul.

Better get back to sucking boys, or you might get an airlock, & have trouble restarting the flow.

It must be fun to live in your own mind.

But then again, since it's your mind, it probably isn't.

Still don't have an answer to what constitutes a 'research failure' though. Random mumblings about fraudulent academics doesn't quite cut it.

Hasbeen rather than providing any evidence to back the assertions, simply resorts to abuse.

How typical.

God there are so many examples it would take weeks.

However with all that taxpayer money to protect, the legal hassle the universities would cause to descend on me, would be too much trouble.

You know the truth, hence the huge squeal, but there is no chance of honesty from a sector who still support CO2 caused global warming, is there?

Still no evidence from Hasbeen.

But what would you expect from someone who completely fails to understand how research funding is awarded and what it can be used for?

rE-SEARCH fun*DING*

LISTEN/..WE NEEd a new global tax
something we can TAX BY THE TON..a new energy currency we the MONEYED elite control..NOW CAN YOU 'TRICK UP THE DATA for us?

no sweat BRO..HOW MUCH DOUGH WE GOT TO GIVE THE SCAM A GO?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16208&page=0

HERE IS A LIST..OF 100'S
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/fallacies.html
http://www.nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-120-gibberish-papers-1.14763?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureNews

http://cecaust.com.au/main.asp?sub=global_warming&id=main.html
http://patriotrising.com/2014/06/18/amount-fraud-across-board-epic-weve-never-seen-anything-like/

http://investmentwatchblog.com/the-death-of-the-rust-belt-there-are-many-american-cities-that-were-once-truly-great-that-are-now-truly-frightening-to-visit/

http://www.redressonline.com/2014/06/materialism-and-misery-and-the-need-for-change/
http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/35385/Repudiate-the-Public-Debt-How-About-Corporate-Personhood-and-Monopoly-Central-Banking/