This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.
Earmarking money has always been a little bit of a mystery to me. We say "This money must be used to improve the grounds". The money might actually get tagged as "This money must be used to purchase foliage". Of course that begs the question of where does the money come from to plant the foliage.
There sort of has to be a little wiggle room on such tags. Any wiggle room though and it is just a matter of properly allocating your time and wording your descriptions. Getting caught violating the tag requires someone to be watching and tallying. Where is the money coming from to watch and tally? How many watch and talliers can we afford?
We scream about this but the whole process of getting grants is rife with it.
There are people working full time to get grants for scientific efforts. Where did the money come from to pay for them to work on getting the grant.... Another grant! There may be a convoluted path in the accounting department to make it look like it wasn't. But from the side I was looking, it was pretty **** clear. A bunch of the grant money was there to work on getting the next grant.
How do you truly untangle the skein? If you work too slow, you do not get the grant. There are timelines.
I do not know how I swore here...
I apologize for failing to recognizing the word....
I suspect I used a d word related to failing to live up to godly values...
I was wondering whether the swearing filter (or profanity filter) would still be operating after JEB deactivated the spam filter which had been causing JMW months of difficulties in posting. It appears that it is still operating. It's got a very low threshold, asterisking out words like dàmn and héll.
While I'm here, I might as well check whether the swearing filter still throws out the word gobbledêgook, that is gobble****ok (without the special characters to get it through the filter). I noted a few years ago that it asterisked out the racial slur term dëgo that it is present within that word.
I thought I'd check up on what has happened regarding the issue of UK university researchers potentially being banned from using taxpayers' money to lobby the government. If this legislation was being applied to academics, it should have started from May 2016. But if it was being applied, I'm pretty sure I would have noticed the left-liberal media continuing to make a fuss over the issue, and Bob ward would also have been making a lot of noise. That suggests to me that the issue might have been resolved in a manner that is favourable to the academics.
A quick bit of Googling confirms my suspicion. This article from the Independent in April 2016 called "Government forced to back down on plan to gag academics and scientists" gives the details:
Bob Ward does seem to be strangely effective at what he does. He tends to be treated as a bit of a joke by AGW sceptics, who see him as a loudmouth who makes nit-picking comments. Josh, the cartoonist featured on the Bishop Hill and WUWT blogs, draws him as a green coloured alien, presumably because of his bald, somewhat conically-shaped head. But it looks like his campaign to stop the anti-lobbying legislation applying to academics has been largely successful. Ward also played in a key role in Channel 4 appearing to have been frightened off in commissioning further anti-Green and climate change-related documentaries by Martin Durkin.