In the private sector, we engineers and scientists have to be right. People’s lives depend on it. I am doing a lot of avionics and defense work these days which has to be perfect – or people will die. Companies will certainly die if the product is flawed.
The problem with academic researchers who have never worked in product R&D, is that they have no grounding in reality. Some believe that they can spew any BS which suits their imagined needs, and imagine that it is good enough. They have never felt the consequences of error, and have no concept of how much damage they are doing with their lies and hallucinations.
These same people depend on others (whom they imagine are evil) to keep the lights on and food coming to the store – yet they do everything they can to undermine them. I feel sorry for people who are so completely useless and self-destructive.
Get a real job, hippies. Grow up. Stop acting like scared pre-teenage girls. If you keep up your lies, your children will suffer the consequences of your actions. At some point you will succeed in destroying the infrastructure which society depends on.
Pretty much why Hansen would never be able to get a job in the human flight division; his work is grounded in fantasy.
😆
I trained as an engineer in undergrad, and later used to practice as a physician. I could not agree with you (Steve) more.
It is our job to look at the science and make life-and-death decisions. You cannot simply take a drug company-funded research study as Gospel – you need to know the strengths and limitations of the particular study and understand how applicable the findings are to a particular patient. While weighing risks and benefits of a particular intervention for a particular patient doesn’t have anywhere near the degree of certainty needed in engineering fields, it is still wise to always be a skeptic and have a good B.S. meter and possess strong critical thinking skills.
The political activist scientists apparently do not have this training, or worse, choose to forget it in favor of their ideology.
well you amazing man:-) the first doc I have come across who admits taking pharmas blurb is less than a bright move:-)
the exciuse oft used of being too busy?? to read the trials..uh uh. bad move. trust a pharma reps word? never!
since being very ill some years ago, and becoming worse not better with the meds, I also learnt to ask for data and then go read the trials for myself, as see how the stats were spun(or not)
the similarities to “experts” who we are supposed to blindly trust to “save us” be it medico or climate wise is apt.
It’s funny that just simply correcting vitamin D deficiency will fix a lot of health problems. No more big pharma trying to influence for the sake of profits.. They actually knew about wide spread vitamin D deficiency so pharma are working on vitamin D knock offs to see which one works and use that to fix vitamin D deficiency rather than dirt cheap OTC vitamin D3 supplement.
http://www.naturalnews.com/032202_vitamin_D_deficiency_disease.html
Correcting vitamin D deficiency is enough to bankrupt big pharma and medical industry… 4 trillion dollars a decade less for them…
http://lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi111.html
You can thank sun scare for that…
If anyone is not familiar with how vitamin D (specifically in its steroid hormone form Calcitrol) works – http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health-conditions/
.
Vitamin D has it’s place but is not a panacea. That said, it is cheap with little downside unless you overdose.
What does one make of a modelling paper that speculates about a catastrophe that might happen 100 years in the future? The assumptions cannot be verified. The conclusion cannot be verified. Why does this get published in climate journals, because it is not ‘science’ in the accepted sense? What exactly is it? Mathematical or philosophical speculation? Hard to say.
Or what does one make of a study that purports to assert that, say, butterflies have declined in number, or fish have increased or decreased in size? Especially when the conclusions reached in the paper (or at least the press release about that paper) cannot be reasonably drawn from the data in the study? I.e., the attempt to attribute to global warming or climate change when there are manifold other factors that cannot be disentangled. More clearly this is junk science in the traditional sense.
Steven
This post says it so succinctly — enough of a challenge to cause an honest reader to give a thoughtful response, or to identify a yahoo, who will yelp uncontrollably. It’s a classic. I’m going to quote it every chance I get (unless you don’t want to be quoted).
VERY well-written! (and VERY true)
Careful there, Steve… they will label you as terrorist… http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/07/dhs-continues-to-target-conservatives-patriotic-americans-while-ignoring-islamists-video/
Absolutely agree, Steve. The problem with academia is that once someone gets a tenure, they essentially have a job for life, from which they are unsackable, to all intents and purposes. Therefore they can usually get away with being as lazy and/or poor at the job as they like, for years on end, sometimes without even being detected as such. I’ve seen it for years, and realised how substandard some academic research being done is because of this, and it makes me angry…
Academia, the last refuge of communist revolutionary activists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers