SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Politics of Energy

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: RetiredNow who wrote (14530)12/3/2009 12:22:11 AM
From: Little Joe1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) of 86356
 
"So all I'm saying is that if you deny the globe is warming and that is your theory, then prove it with data and let it be peered reviewed. Empty criticism of someone else's theory doesn't bring you credibility."

I don't agree. The way I understand Science works is that you put forth your theory and you provide your data and methodology and you subject it to scrutiny from other scientists. The fact that they conclude that your evidence is not sufficient to prove your theory, does not mean that they have to prove some other competing theory. They just have to shoot holes in your theory.

For, example, I am still waiting for someone to explain the MWP,without using the words scientific consensus.

I was particularly amused by the fact that Holdren claims that there is nothing in the documents that causes him to question the alarmists theory. There is certainly too much material to review and evaluate, than could have been considered since the info was leaked.

Clearly at the least, this leaked information will have to be thoroughly evaluated before any conclusions can be reached as to what it means. The fact that he is willing to dismiss the evidence without review. clearly shows where he is coming from.

lj
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext