Cap and Trade vote on Friday

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by pgardn

1.Yes it is according to you. You do not believe we are in a warming period.

2.You read nothing I wrote before.
Sorry about all the other stuff before this.

Lastly.
A problem with basic research illustrated today.
This would be in the category of storage of electrical energy.
Except this is about grants possibly wasted on Cancer research.

Many other grants involve biological research unlikely to break new ground. For example, one project asks whether a laboratory discovery involving colon cancer also applies to breast cancer. But even if it does apply, there is no treatment yet that exploits it.
The cancer institute has spent $105 billion since President Richard M. Nixon declared war on the disease in 1971. The American Cancer Society, the largest private financer of cancer research, has spent about $3.4 billion on research grants since 1946.
Yet the fight against cancer is going slower than most had hoped, with only small changes in the death rate in the almost 40 years since it began.
One major impediment, scientists agree, is the grant system itself. It has become a sort of jobs program, a way to keep research laboratories going year after year with the understanding that the focus will be on small projects unlikely to take significant steps toward curing cancer.
“These grants are not silly, but they are only likely to produce incremental progress,” said Dr. Robert C. Young, chancellor at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia and chairman of the Board of Scientific Advisors, an independent group that makes recommendations to the cancer institute.
The institute’s reviewers choose such projects because, with too little money to finance most proposals, they are timid about taking chances on ones that might not succeed. The problem, Dr. Young and others say, is that projects that could make a major difference in cancer prevention and treatment are all too often crowded out because they are too uncertain.

I can see how if consevative means what I think it does,
it may not be compatable with significant new findings in
Science. I would hope this is not the case.

You know what I love? When you begin to argue with yourself. Then try to equate being Conservative with cancer research.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

You know what I love? When you begin to argue with yourself. Then try to equate being Conservative with cancer research.

Again totally disingenious.
The point of the article basic research funds
are not going into projects that will yield signficant results.
I then quipped that the way this funding works might
be a conservative way of thinking.


And of course I argue with myself all the time.
Because I hope to look at everything in order
to find 'the truth'. This is a difficult subject area,
but not as much if you limit your questions. I purposely
look (as odd as it may seem to you) for sources that
go against my initial reactions to events and such.

And I fail to see how I argued with myself in the post,
but I definitely argue and question my own leanings.
I happen to think its healthy to be honest in trying
to find out how things work.

But if you prefer not to take any self examination of
your views that is your choice. Dont be dissappointed
when the world does not work like you want it to.

This is really a basic philisophical difference between
people. Some people question, others seek comfortable
views and seek affirmation of those views. Cover
those eyes.

I am not and never have been an environmental freak.
I do like a good kayak trip in quiet water. I am a water
hugger.

Guilty.