Man, where do I start with this nonsense.
You've got to be kidding me. You have either gone utterly nuts, or you're just flailing to try and prove a point.
You want to sit there and tell me that you can take a Masters or a PhD class in a prestigious US university, pass, and not know how to write English?
Nice try.
That's good to know. If in an Excel table your formula of 2+2 ands up equaling 5, you submit a paper with that crap, it gets peer reviewed, and them published...well...that's all that I need to say.
What mindless drivel you've started to spout.
Ok, I'm going to assume that you're talking about climate science here.
You want me to provide statistical data to rebut statistical data where neither can accurately predict the outcome of weather, and whose models are in no way complete? If THIS is what you call "science," your science is a complete and total fraud. It is akin to selling snake oil.
A model is only worth something where all of the inputs and variables are known, and the process is documented and complete. Otherwise, it is nothing more than a shamanism, where some guy with a feathered headdress and a bone through his node kills a chicken and tries to divine the future by looking at its liver.
Again, if this is what you call science, your science is a fraud. Period.
In my line of work there are no assumptions (I know a lot of your statements make huge leaps in logic from affecting the genes of flatworms to doing the same thing with primates...which are NOT flatworms). The climate modeling as it exists today relies on a mountain of assumptions (like percipitation or the lack thereof) whose inputs and variables are neither proven, and whose processes are not fully understood and known. That is not a model. It's academic masturbation at best.
So, again, nice try.
Yes, I said that PhDs are full of mediocre people. I did not say they are unilaterally mediocre. And the world "unilateral" came from you, not me. I didn't even come close to that. End of discussion.
You need help looking up that word, Victor?
Anecdotes are evidence. That's why they call it "anecdotal evidence."
I frankly don't know what business you're in, but when I see rejects writing climate models for a major university, that there is a BIG red flag to me.
But obviously not to you. Because it is pretty clear to me, given your staunch position that because someone has an advanced degree they somehow cannot be a moron, that you are so horribly blind and ignorant to reality. You've gone out of your way to stake your ground at that point. All that's left to conclude is that your bias is so extreme, that you're beyond being rational.
Unilaterally, or not unilaterally? Because the person who seems to have a hard time staying on target here is you.
I've already given examples, Victor. You dismissed them. If this is your glorious vision of science, then it is a total sham and a fraud.
I actually kept some of those resumes and cover letters, Victor. They were so funny, I thought I'd keep them around for a laugh. They're in storage.
Maybe you're so exhausted because you're doing a lot of excessive running around plugging holes in your arguments. I mean, the holes you're leaving behind are actually so massive that I could drive a truck through them.
First, most pain medication doesn't work on me. So you've basically failed in that area.
Second, I love this comment, because it is so illustrative:
" I don't know much about the other fields, but I can guarantee you..."
So, let me see if I get this straight: you have no frickin' clue as to the populations of other groups of PhDs, yet you defend them, and challenge me to prove my point? Is THIS that type of discipline and rigor you use in your work? Because, if so, it's crap.
You try that BS working for me, in my line of work, after the third time your application crashed (and it would crash), I'd replace your sorry a**.
Did I specify PhDs in the biotech field? Did I make that exclusive claim anywhere?
The answer would be: no.
So this really boils down to a couple of things at this point: first, you are utterly delusional. Your reasoning, and your ability to discriminate facts, given what I've see, is beyond suspect. You accuse me of making unilateral statements - which the record here shows that I haven't - then try and weasel your way around that fact when I call you to the carpet.
Then - as laughable as that is thus far - challenge me to prove my assertions when you yourself have no clue as to whether they are correct or not. And you basically admit as much.
I hope you're not expecting anyone to be impressed by this. Seriously. I personally have lost a lot of respect for you and your abilities on all of this.
You have alredy said I'm full of sh*t. And you've already proven - and stated as such - that you'll simply dismiss anything I'd post. So even if I did have irrefutable evidence, you'd call it BS, ancedotal, irrelevant, and move on.
As for your ability to discriminate facts and to reason things out given the evidence, well, you've proven to be a total frickin' whackjob.
So there's no point. You've already soiled that bed.
Again, nice try Victor.
jpotts wrote:
