you should probably stfu.
Temper temper. I didn't mean to get under your skin and bother you so much that you've got to resort to lines from 6th grade. Honestly, it was an accident. You need to calm down and breath a bit. Take a break for the interwebz if it's getting to you that much. Easy killer, don't throw your monitor across the room or anything.
I believe that the handful of researchers you talked about were the ones responsible for providing most of the scientists in the world the data for their models.
You also believe in creationism, but I'll just give you the benefit of the doubt and say you actually formed these thoughts on your own.
To the point, which specific scientists get their data from these guys? I'm sure since you're an expert on the topic, you've got a couple names sitting in your back pocket. Are they assistant or associate profs? For which institutions and clusters? Who are their collaborators? Do these guys sit on review panels? Which ones? Which specific grants fund their research? What sort of methods do they use to analyze this data they get from other people? What statistical post-tests did they use to determine significance? Was it a two-tailed or one-tailed test? Maybe Tukey's post-test or Dunnett's post-test? What was the resulting p-value for each of the analyzed data sets? Confidence interval? Standard deviation? Standard error?
Please enlighten me, oh all-knowing ambassador of the scientific community.
While you're at it, would you suggest using a modular budget for the NIH K99/R00 bridge grant award that my wife is writing? She's already got IRB approval she can carry over from her SF424 application last year, so that should really help with the study section.
We've been through this before... several times. You have no clue how this works. Not one iota, nada, un-uh, nothing, zip, zero, zilch.... Not the faintest whiff of a shred of experience.
What you believe, or should I say what you've been told by Beck and Limbaugh bears absolutely no resemblance to what's actually going on and how each individual scientist goes about collecting and analyzing their own data. It's a really
poorly disguised attempt to implicate the entire scientific community because a couple of scientists typed out poorly thought-out emails because the Bury-your-head-in-the-sand-this-isn't-happening-drill-baby-drill-mine-mine-mine-gimme-gimme-gimme camp is so desperate for SOME sort of coherent sound scientific consensus supporting their side of things that they'll resort to this kind of crap.