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 : The Trump Presidency
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Lane3 who wrote (22190)6/20/2017 9:41:56 PM
From: i-node  Read Replies (1) of 354702
 
>> I do not think that those who say they believe IN AGW are intending to convey a religious or supernatural belief even if they are claiming a scientific conclusion beyond what is scientifically supportable.

That surely is true.

But it is hard to explain the 2009 "Climategate" or "Emailgate" leaks in that context -- where the focus was clearly on promoting cause itself rather than the underlying science. I you want to think about something damaging the scientific cause, I would put a lot of the blame on that incident.

The entire history of the Michael Mann situation is unsettling if one's interest is in the science (there is a fantastic book on the subject that is a fascinating read, like a spy novel -- called "The Hockey Stick Illusion"). The fight to get any acknowledgement of the statistical problems (notably, the mishandling of the Principal Component Analysis portion, but also some outrageous manipulation of tree ring data to fill in the missing pieces) was insane. The peer review process was totally dysfunctional and may still be for all I know. McIntyre was also highly critical of some findings of IPCC 3. IPCC 5 has other problems.

I'll stop here. But MY point is that while there are scientific elements that are strong, there continue to be "supernatural" elements presented BY the scientific community and one really does have to question why that would be. For me, and it is a personal sort of thing, there is an extremely high bar for proving a once-in-eon event measured at 0.4C above the mean. When measuring devices couldn't even resolve to 0.4C in the base period used for comparison!
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News