My thought is that they are not the world's best scientists. They do not use the scientific method and do not deal with real problems, yet instead imagine way to exaggerrate the problems that they are looking at to the point of being able to scare govts out of research funding.
The best scientists are in the Pharma industry and other sectors that still actually use the scientific method. Further these people are paid to do real work that has made a difference. Example is with the drugs developed millions upon millions upon millions of lives have been saved. In the AGW field they have to pretend some disaster is coming, pretend that it will be catastrophic and pretend that humans can do nothing to even pretend like they can save one life.
Why don't the physicists go back to trying to make a living by imagining some other type of "dark matter" or imaginary universes ro dimensions that can explain away why their equations don't work and leave the real science to those who are capable?
I truly hate to be this harsh, but honestly given that you do not even understand linear regression but claim to have an MS in physics, with Paul also not understanding and claiming a PhD in Physics, my faith in physicists is beginning to wain. To add to your demonstrations of not understanding statistics, which is almost always necessary in performing the scientific method, you have your group leading the charge with assinine statements of impending doom. Further they make even dumber statements on the economic policy that the US should engage in, as if they are economists. All of this done because of computer models that have failed to make accurate and precise predictions, all the while understanding that they do not have a grasp on the feedback effect of clouds. HELLO! Clouds are pretty prevalent in the atmosphere. I dare say more prevalent than CO2, yet you are claiming certainty on the effect of CO2 and the climate in general for 100 years into the future to the point of scaring the public and suggesting economic policy!!!
Your arrogant broad is making us real scientists look bad.
Linlyons, don't forget about
Linlyons would say "I have nothing important to add to the conversation right now, so I will just insult. Its all I am even capable of doing and still I come across as no better at it then a second grader."
Further to address your assinine comment.
You are well aware of Dana's constant questioning of my statistics background, even though he has demonstrated no ability to even do linear regression. Given the amount of statistical knowledge currently needed in every field of science, this is a valid concern. Or are you denying the amount of statistics currently seen in every field of science. Perhaps you are denying that they constantly use linear regression for the trend lines seen in AGW altogether. Nope you don't deny this at all do you. You just like to insult when you ahve nothing better to say.
Virtualguy,
You are right, some scientists falsify their data. The difference is that in the Pharma industry, we have the FDA EMEA and others watching our every move and checking our every calculation and sitll you have fools that try to buck the system and those that do lose tons of money. In the AGW arena, you don't even have to follow the FOIA. But I am sure you are right. I am sure it is easy to come up with cures for AIDS and CANCER. Its just child's play right? Good call genious.
Beren,
More likely, they would be embarrassed to call you a friend. Your rant truly shows your own ignorance. Further I would suggest if that scientist ever got ahold of your data, he would change his tune instantly. He would realize that at least the pharma industry has someone to answer to for inconsistently kept ill-managed data and for making claims that are not supported by that data. Further, as all of you people seem to have a problem with reading comprehension, I certainly did not suggest the Pharma was the only industry that performed science, but used it as an example. Thank you for demonstrating my point though. You have a high degree in physics and can't perform reading comprehension to the standards of a middle schooler. But your firend is correct that there are problem in the pharma industry as there are in any human institution. Otherwise I find it humorous that you address problems that are entirely different than the one I have addressed in your field. Nice evasion, but you might want to try it on the less educated stooges that buy every piece of garbage you sell.
Gary F,
Small minority of cases in an extremely large industry is your evidence? My evidence is that AIDS IS NO LONGER A DEATH SENTENCE. I think my evidence trumps yours. But your worthless answer displays the inability of greeners to understand even the simplest concept, so I thank you for that.
Also while the industry is secretive about the compound they place their results and methods of obtaining those results for the public to see. Maybe you should think before you write.
Francis Galton was where regression got it name. Not that the name is important as it should truly be called the least squared method.
Anta,
Could not make heads or tails of what you said, except that you do not like my viewpoint. That is alright, we are all entitled to our own viewpoint.
Squid,
Shoudl CO2 be reduced, yes. Is it causing some warming, yes. But pretending as if it will end the world, is not even jsutifiable by the most ardent AGW scientists, yet they are parading around this tripe and asking to institute a tax in the middle of a recession, all to fix a problem that could be fixed by increasing the use of nuclear power. No psychologist necessary to figure out that this is wrong.
Virtualguy,
Your ignorance is astounding given that in the pharma industry we have to have two independent phase 3 trials (not to mention all of the other trials required and the post-drug approval trials that are required, plus the FDA looks at the process the data management, and everything else. Instead you are impressed with many labs coming to many differing conclusions with large variations in the results (1.5 to 12 degrees on averages of computer models), all of which come from the same mismanaged datasets, from the same mismanaged sites, with the same mismanaged or complete lack of standards. Forgive me if I do not agree.
This is almost entertaining. Seriously I don't even believe what I wrote about physicists (except that you all need a shot of humility especially when you try to act as economic advisors), and still you can barely defend against the attack. Probably because you know that while many physicists understand statistics and do good work, many of you AGWers have allowed yourselves to get caught in rhetoric more than science. You look at how you can use statistics to make your point instead of allowing statistics to inform you. Certainly this becomes apparent when you claim certainty on the predicted results of a chaotic model for 100 years from now. You all really have not been representing physicists well. The physicists that I know would not think a physicists should be advising economic policy. Also to inform you, I respect someone that know their weakness in statistics and gives it over to biostatisticians over a group that doesn't and makes grossly exaggerrated claims of certainty.
GaryF.
Ask for something clearly and stop acting like an idiot. We were talking about linear regression, I gave you the answer you know was correct and then you changed the question. You want to play childish games like this, you may be able to fool your uneducated stooges, but not me. Further luckily even if you do not understand brain chemistry, but you find a compound that works, you can use the scientific method of testing to show that it works. You should probably look into that. Further while I am glad your sister is better, your assinine comments that it has nothing to do with the new medications is just stupid. You have demonstrated more ignorance than normal today.
Now if you are asking where you can retrieve the information of how the studies were conducted and their results, I will give you that web page. If you are curious how chemotherapy works I will tell you. If you want to know how to do other forms of regression or even time series analysis, I will tell you, but it will be by email because this is too short. If you want to just continue playing childish games, then grow up.
BTW until they introduced statistics, physicians gave no better chance of survival than them not being present.
Virtualguy,
Then, also having worked with both, I call into question your entire statement and think you are wrong. My "handwaving" at the ugliness of the data comes from the programmers statements who worked with the data and from having looked at poor coding job done. You worthless handwaving at some credentials in place of fact is exactly what I am talking about!
Further the multimillion dollar lawsuits serve as more of an incentive to stop fraud than anything you can poitn to in the university setting. Only a fool would pretend that every peice of research coming from academia gets more than a cursory "peer review". The standard for Pharma is much higher, and I don't think you ever worked with the FDA, if you do not know this. I worked with academics that did not even understand that our process of double-blind means that the analysts did not get to know the randomization of the drugs until the study was complete. You have no idea what you are talking about.