Science!! Fucking magnets, how do they work?

Thread starter Flunklesnarkin_sl
Start date Dec 17, 2012

Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!

Go here and give us your nominations! Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi

<Silver Donator>

Oct 8, 2015

#3,921

a_skeleton_03_sl said:
They did and just because a few cases happen doesn't mean it's rampant or anything else.

You dont get to appeal to potentialities you have no evidence for, sorry fuckwad. Demonstrate widespread malice aforethougt and fraud.

The thing with theoretical research is you can't just say "well they didn't get this funding by making it all up". They can in fact make it up.

No, and you are now conflating the term theoretical with conjectural. Typical anti science ignorance from the bible thumping set.

Theoreical work isnt a guess, and you dont just " make it up"

Oh and Schoens work was primarily for Bell Labs aka private sector. Not public.

A

a_skeleton_03

<Banned>

Oct 8, 2015

#3,922

Hodj what are you not an expert on in your opinion? You are like Vaclav who has a relative in every industry but for you it's intimate knowledge of anything that has ever touched academia.

You want only physics fraud so that it's narrow as can be.

2 U of H physics professors indicted on charges | News - Homethis one is $1.3M

You complained that Schon worked for Bell Labs and then link the funding agencies for Icetop of which they are not all public funding.

Just so you know the NSF didn't even give them a full $1M for Icetop.

NSF Award Search: Simple Search Results.

Theoretical is exactly what they call it and what you call it and everyone calls it.

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi

<Silver Donator>

Oct 8, 2015

#3,923

a_skeleton_03 rebuts with an ad hominem when his shit opinion is refuted by the facts big surprise there.

Let me know when you find a massive international organization conducting research with collaboration involving hundreds of scientists with fraud at the scale of this project. Right now youve got bumpkiss. A couple of small cases involving individuals an a few million bucks mostly private sector with no outside or international collaboration is a false analogy fallacy and straw grasping butthurt.

A

a_skeleton_03

<Banned>

Oct 8, 2015

#3,924

hodj_sl said:
a_skeleton_03 rebuts with an ad hominem when his shit opinion is refuted by the facts big surprise there.

Hodj ignores the real data I posted and goes right to the feels data. ~ just hodj things

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi

<Silver Donator>

Oct 8, 2015

#3,925

The real data you just posted was more nonsense. As is most of what you post.

A

a_skeleton_03

<Banned>

Oct 8, 2015

#3,926

hodj_sl said:
The real data you just posted was more nonsense. As is most of what you post.

The NSF awards page is nonsense? Got it.

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi

<Silver Donator>

Oct 8, 2015

#3,927

a_skeleton_03_sl said:
The NSF awards page is nonsense? Got it.

No, your POSTS are nonsense.

Might as well stop posting right now because my next post is going to eat you alive.

Also, you didn't even cite the actual page from the NSF, you just provided a link to a search engine for them.

You're retarded.

A

a_skeleton_03

<Banned>

Oct 8, 2015

#3,928

No no, I get it, you made it sound like they were pulling serious money and then complained when I couldn't find fraud anywhere near that level. I found it and you found it in 2 seconds of googling a case of $20M and yet here the NSF only has given just a bit less than $1M total for Icetop. You have no other data on how much has been put into this research, all you did was go to their website and link me a page from there I already read.

You are doing some serious goalpost shifting right now.

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi

<Silver Donator>

Oct 8, 2015

#3,929

No, sir, you're not getting away with this shit.

Icetop includes over 300 researchers from 12 nations.

It has an operating budget of $300 million dollars, is on schedule and within its budget

One thing about the IceCube project - it is HUGE! It is the largest research project ever attempted in Antarctica, with approximately $300 million in funds from the US and additional from other nations and organizations. And unlike most enormous projects along these lines, it is apparently on schedule and within budget! That is amazing and nearly unheard of on a project like this.

2 December 2009 Big day for IceTop! | PolarTREC

Get fucking trucked son.

Meanwhile, you're over here citing fucking single researchers involved in private sector research who were publishing papers and got fucking nailed to the wall and their careers destroyed for it.

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi

<Silver Donator>

Oct 8, 2015

#3,930

I don't know what's funnier here, that a_skeleton_03 is so stupid he thinks he can get away with this shitty argument, or that he's so stupid he thinks a project of 300 members from 12 nations can be run in fucking Antarctica for less than a million dollars.

His citation for this million dollars isn't even complete. He just cites the NSF page where you can search for funding. What time period was this less than a million dollars from the NSF during, a_skeleton_03? Hmmm? How's about you tell us that?

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi

<Silver Donator>

Oct 8, 2015

#3,931

Oh and he's lying as well, here's a fuller list of IceTop's funding for various projects. He apparently is citing just the first one, which is just one research initiative, which received 750k dollars

And when you search IceCube and you get 4 pages of results like that. I'm not going to bother adding it all up, but just this page I've cited is over 5 million in research funding.

NSF Award Search: Simple Search Results.

That's what I thought. Shut your dumb ass right the fuck up.

A

a_skeleton_03

<Banned>

Oct 8, 2015

#3,932

hodj_sl said:
No, sir, you're not getting away with this shit.

Icetop includes over 300 researchers from 12 nations.

It has an operating budget of $300 million dollars, is on schedule and within its budget

2 December 2009 Big day for IceTop! | PolarTREC

$300M is big money for sure.

So how much fraud do I need to find in order for you to say that it's a possibility that some other research could be just making it up for grant money.

Oh wait let's go over the previous posts here.

a_skeleton_03_sl said:
Well, to be fair people do that kind of fraud all the time. I know nothing about this research at all and probably barely enough about physics but you can't just say that there is no way they could design an experiment that would pay their own bills regardless of the outcome. It's kind of what theoretical physics is, isn't it? It's just something to spend grant money with nothing "useful" yet to come out of it? I am not starting into a debate about it by the way.

So there is me saying that research fraud happens all the time, not physics per se but just research fraud. I brought up that unlike some of the other sciences what we are doing in physics is so theoretical (their term not mine) that it would probably be easier since as of this date we still really haven't gotten anything "useful" out of it.

I then brought up some cases of some decent fraud. You then complained that $2.7M wasn't big enough to compare.

a_skeleton_03_sl said:
Umm that was the settlement price. Do you know how much Icetop has received? Northeastern mishandled over $20M for 10 years. I just picked the top from google that I remember. Those are both big deals.

You were just saying that they wouldn't get a multi million dollar deal if they were tricking everyone and I showed you $20M mishandled just in 2 seconds. How much is multi millions to you? I am guessing your threshold is at least $21M? Where do you want to move the goalposts to?

I asked for further clarification so that I could see if there was anything near that number. I asked for direct numbers since you gave this vague "multi million" number.

hodj_sl said:
Icetop is of a scale far larger, subject to international review by multiple bodies. Youre dumb and strawgrasping all over, trying to create false analogies and hair splitting by comparing the 2.7 million to tens of millions of dollars.

You then brought up tens of millions of dollars because at this point you have zero idea what their budget is. I already showed $20M and that is 2 x 10 millions of dollars. I didn't reach $300M but at this point you had no idea.

a_skeleton_03_sl said:
They did and just because a few cases happen doesn't mean it's rampant or anything else.

Here I am reiterating that I don't think this is rampant but the potential is there. One case alone would show potential, I have shown multiple cases though.

a_skeleton_03_sl said:
You want only physics fraud so that it's narrow as can be.

2 U of H physics professors indicted on charges | News - Homethis one is $1.3M

You complained that Schon worked for Bell Labs and then link the funding agencies for Icetop of which they are not all public funding.

Just so you know the NSF didn't even give them a full $1M for Icetop.

NSF Award Search: Simple Search Results.

I then bring in yet another case of physicists committing fraud for grant money. I bring up that Icetop has private funding which you used to disqualify Schoen for. Then I brought up how much the NSF gave. The NSF gave Icetop less than they give Northeastern or the U of H guys. So the guys that committed fraud got more money from the NSF (they are the government by the way) than Icetop did, that doesn't count I guess since Icetop also got private funding.

hodj_sl said:
a_skeleton_03 rebuts with an ad hominem when his shit opinion is refuted by the facts big surprise there.

Let me know when you find a massive international organization conducti g research with collaboration involving hundreds of scientists with fraud at the scale of this projwct. Eight now youve got bumpkiss. A couple of small cases involvi g individuals an a few million bucks mostly private sector with no outside or international collaboration is a false analogy fallacy and straw grasping butthurt.

Then you shifted goal posts even further because it's only about how many people are on staff and the scale of the project and not the amount of money taken. Well I think that's what you said, I guess you are typing that out on an ipad? See this is just a little funsy ad hominem that you will cry about and read only this but it's just for funs.

I like that you said I would probably only find private sector funded research .... guess where Icetop's money comes from? It isn't all government.

hodj_sl said:
No, sir, you're not getting away with this shit.

Icetop includes over 300 researchers from 12 nations.

It has an operating budget of $300 million dollars, is on schedule and within its budget

2 December 2009 Big day for IceTop! | PolarTREC

Get fucking trucked son.

Meanwhile, you're over here citing fucking single researchers involved in private sector research who were publishing papers and got fucking nailed to the wall and their careers destroyed for it.

You then basically say because they have a large staff and large funding that they are infallible. Columbia University was caught with $125M in grant fraud and 200 individuals involved in the project. That is HUGE! It happens.

I would post all your logical fallacies in picture form but too many pictures would just be annoying.

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi

<Silver Donator>

Oct 8, 2015

#3,933

a_skeleton_03_sl said:
$300M is big money for sure.

So how much fraud do I need to find in order for you to say that it's a possibility that some other research could be just making it up for grant money.

You need to cite an example of fraud involving a project of this size and scale.

Either put up or shut up.

So there is me saying that research fraud happens all the time

Citation required

I asked for further clarification so that I could see if there was anything near that number. I asked for direct numbers since you gave this vague "multi million" number.

And I was on my phone and ipad at the time and couldn't do proper searches until I got home.

I knew the project was much larger than anything you were citing, and the rest of your point on this topic is non sequitor fallacy.

Here I am reiterating that I don't think this is rampant but the potential is there.

This is you contradicting yourself

Rampant = all the time

ramp?ant
'ramp?nt/Submit
adjective
1.
(especially of something unwelcome or unpleasant) flourishing or spreading unchecked.
"political violence was rampant"
synonyms: uncontrolled, unrestrained, unchecked, unbridled, widespread; More

There you go. So you're doing what you always do, which is talk about both sides of your fucking mouth, you dishonest piece of shit.

I then bring in yet another case of physicists committing fraud for grant money.

You then bring another example of very small research groups that is a false analogy.

Rest of your post is blah blah blah.

No goal posts were shifted, I said at the outset

hodj_sl said:
Give me an example of a major physics laboratory defrauding the public on a project of the scale of Icetop or gtfo.

The person who shifted goal posts here is you by trying to compare tiny research programs to something this massive to justify your wild assertion that fraud on this scale happens all the time.

Fuck you, fuck off.

I like that you said I would probably only find private sector funded research .... guess where Icetop's money comes from? It isn't all government.

More mealy mouthed disingenuous misrepresentation from a_skeleton_03. Some private sector funding =/= Mostly funded and run by the private sector, such as with bell labs research.

This is just you being a complete moron strawmanning faggot again.

Then you shifted goal posts even further because it's only about how many people are on staff and the scale of the project and not the amount of money taken.

As I just demonstrated, from the beginning my position was that size and scale of the project mattered.

Let me help you again

hodj_sl said:
Give me an example of a major physics laboratory defrauding the public on a project of the scale of Icetop or gtfo.

Brad2770

Avatar of War Slayer

Oct 8, 2015

#3,934

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi

<Silver Donator>

Oct 8, 2015

#3,935

The Columbia case did not involve fraud in misreporting or fabricating results, and they didn't misuse the full 125 million in funding.

http://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/...university-and

These grants are governed by certain rules that require, among other things, that grantees track the work performed by the recipient's employees and, with limited exceptions, charge grants only for work actually performed as a part of that grant. Columbia claimed to accomplish this by producing effort reports for ICAP's New York City-based employees purportedly detailing the employees' distribution of work across federal, state, and private grants, as well as Columbia-sponsored projects. These reports were used to determine how much a given grant was charged for work performed by individual employees.

For nearly 200 individuals, however, these reports were not created or verified by the individuals to whom they applied. Instead, Columbia's Finance Department provided information for these reports even though the employees of that department had limited or no knowledge of which grants the individuals actually worked on. In addition, the effort reports were certified as correct by the principal investigators on the grants without using suitable means to verify the accuracy of the reports. Instead of taking the appropriate steps to determine whether the reports were accurate, the principal investigators would certify large batches of the reports, without making any inquiry into whether the allocation of work among the grants was accurate. Moreover, ICAP's management was well aware of the inaccuracies of the effort reporting system.

This resulted in Columbia charging grants for work that was not performed on the project being funded by that grant. For instance, an ICAP Finance Analyst stated that he spent approximately 15-20% of his time on MCAP in fiscal year 2010, but his effort report falsely listed his MCAP effort, and related salary charges, as 85%. Likewise, in fiscal year 2010, an ICAP Subcontracts Manager's effort report listed her effort as 100% MCAP, but the Subcontracts Manager actually worked on three other grants, in addition to MCAP, that year. The time submitted for many other employees was similarly mischarged.

ICAP also charged federal grants for time spent on activities that are not chargeable to any federal grants, such as competitive grant proposal writing. For example, an ICAP Grants Manager spent a significant amount of her time writing competitive grant proposals, but her effort report showed that all of her time was charged to grants, with as much as 92% of her time charged to MCAP in some years.

Another false analogy from a_skeleton_03.

Basically Columbia messed up some paperwork and some of their people were working on non grant related projects, like writing proposals for other grants, and being compensated for that time with the AIDS/HIV grant money.

Not the same shit we're talking about here, which is FAKING DATA in order to obtain FEDERAL GRANT MONEY and then NEVER DELIVERING on the project results, or FAKING the project results.

More proof here

Columbia University to Pay $9 Million to Settle Allegations of False Claims in Connection With AIDS/HIV-Related Grant: Hodgson Russ LLP

A Hodgson Russ team led by Daniel C. Oliverio, and including John L. Sinatra, Jr., Reetuparna (Reena) Dutta, and Margaret M. Cmielewski, represented the whistleblower who alerted the government of the grant fraud. A subsequent investigation revealed that the university, as administrator of the $125 million Multi-Country Columbia Antiretroviral Program (MCAP) grant it received through the federal President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief program, failed to verify that ICAP was charging the grant only for work its employees performed in service of approved projects, resulting in significant overcharges to the U.S. government. For example, ICAP falsely charged MCAP for 85 percent of one employee's salary, despite that employee dedicating only 15-20 percent of his time to MCAP-funded projects.

You simply grasp at anything you can tenuously link to try and justify your case, expecting I won't read it or rebut it.

You're stupid, is what I'm saying.

A

a_skeleton_03

<Banned>

Oct 8, 2015

#3,936

So basically I have to find a $300M project caught in the act of fraud and that is all you will accept? How many scientists minimum need to be on the project exactly? How many countries must be involved? How many of the scientists need to be female? How many days must the program be running for? What zipcode does the project need to happen in?

You want to make sure the goalpost is about like this picture.

tethered_3d197_uprights_goalPosts_football_craft__PVC_pipes_3.jpg

Does fraud happen when it comes to grant money? Yes.
Does it happen often enough? Yes.

End of debate.

Moogalak

<Gold Donor>

Oct 8, 2015

#3,937

Christ you two get a room and just get it over with.

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi

<Silver Donator>

Oct 8, 2015

#3,938

You need to find a similar sized project which faked its data and results to get federal grant dollars, yes, and that's not shifting any goal posts. That's exactly what I claimed at the outset.

hodj_sl said:
Give me an example of a major physics laboratory defrauding the public on a project of the scale of Icetop or gtfo.

Read it again and again, click the link to the post, see that it came at the start of this debate, realize you're the one shifting goal posts, realize you're done here, as this last post by you demonstrates.

Does fraud happen when it comes to grant money? Yes.
Does it happen often enough? Yes.

These are not the parameters of the discussion. This is a great example of how you're trying to shift the goal posts and then project that onto me.

A

a_skeleton_03

<Banned>

Oct 8, 2015

#3,939

hodj_sl said:
You need to find a similar sized project which faked its data and results to get federal grant dollars, yes, and that's not shifting any goal posts. That's exactly what I claimed at the outset.

Read it again and again, click the link to the post, see that it came at the start of this debate, realize you're the one shifting goal posts, realize you're done here, as this last post by you demonstrates.

You didn't give me any more of the scope, you are trickling out information little by little and making the definition more and more narrow.

For instance if I came here with a $1B public health sciences project that was fraud you would say "doesn't count, it's not physics".

Give me the lowest common denominator you will accept. Narrow something down for once in your posts. Define it.

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi

<Silver Donator>

Oct 8, 2015

#3,940

a_skeleton_03_sl said:
You didn't give me any more of the scope, you are trickling out information little by little and making the definition more and more narrow.

For instance if I came here with a $1B public health sciences project that was fraud you would say "doesn't count, it's not physics".

Give me the lowest common denominator you will accept. Narrow something down for once in your posts. Define it.

All I'm seeing here is you crying because your shitty strawmanning of the conversation didn't work out, yet again.

You've been given your parameters. You can't meet them because it doesn't exist. And that's my point, and has been all along:There is no example of a major laboratory of any kind publishing false results after defrauding hundreds of millions of dollars in collusion with hundreds of researchers spread across 12 member nations.

Its conspiracy theory nonsense. They would all have to be in on the scam. That's why all the cases of fraud of this nature you can scramble together involve one or two researchers, generally working in the private sector. The Columbia case was an administration paper work deal, not a fraud case where data was being manipulated or outright made up, but rather where grant money was being used to compensate for work outside the scope of the grants. Not the same fucking thing.

Show hidden low quality content

You must log in or register to reply here.

Share: