Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (1066771)	4/25/2018 3:02:38 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	1 Recommendation Recommended By THE WATSONYOUTH Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 1578590

As a real engineer scientist who did real science and engineering I know consensus is the pablum of dull minds. I take no-one as expert or endorse any person's ability unless I personally have reviewed and analyzed there work product. When I have determined by review someone knows science and common sense I may take there opinions with a lesser requirement of personal review. And this also applies to all individuals I use for any service. Consensus is not a litmus test. Your belief it is a litmus test is a cue the your are science comprehension stupid. Or the limus paper that makes up your brain is color blind. I took statins, still had to have a quad bypass before questor was available. I took crestor for years and it sorta lowered my LDL. All things medical are DNA dependent. You have lucky or unlucky DNA. But in most things of common life usage I personally design, build, repair everything, auto, electronic, appliance home. If I need a special tool I make it or buy it. And my main tool for finding out how is.. but xen1 was replaced by xen2 and xen2 I5 cpu with 32 gig memory and it drives the left four displays. On my local gigabit network there is only about 20 terabytes of storage.

To: RetiredNow who wrote (1066771)	4/26/2018 1:07:29 PM
From: PKRBKR	4 Recommendations Recommended By FJB locogringo RetiredNow THE WATSONYOUTH Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578590

I don't see a compelling case to saying scientists would risk their reputation by fudging numbers to push a story that they don't personally benefit from Huh? These scientists are all funded by government grants in one way shape or form. The great thing about the AGW gravy train is there really is no definitive ending so they can continue to scare money out of the lemmings in government.

To: RetiredNow who wrote (1066771)	4/26/2018 2:29:43 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578590

Mindmeld, Why would scientists make up stuff about AGW? How do they benefit? Because science is actually a very low-yielding profession. There are very few breakthroughs. Most of science is just data-collecting and formulating hypotheses that either don't pan out or are not much different than previous hypotheses. There is a real temptation to fudge data or publish studies where the data doesn't support the conclusions. You get publicity, you increase the reputation of whatever department you represent, but you don't need to be peer-reviewed and you don't have to suffer any consequences if your conclusions don't pan out. One of my favorite examples is the ubiquitous computer model. How many articles do you see on climate change that reference computer models? Yet these models aren't meant to predict the future. They are only there to test out hypotheses and see how well they hold up to real world results. Most of the time, they don't, and that's either because the hypothesis is invalid, or there are many other variables that weren't taken into account. Bottom line is that there are many ways scientists can benefit from fudging the data or publishing articles that are meant more for publicity than for peer review. Tenchusatsu