Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices Message Board

STOCKTALK

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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (1169413)	10/8/2019 4:21:00 PM
From: maceng2	Read Replies (1) of 1571338

Thanks. I read it. So... and I was going to say this several posts ago.... it would be nice to see how the funding went with those studies. One would have thought equal amounts of funding would be applies to all three possibilities... "stead state", "cooling", "warming". That does not look to be the case. Maybe that was a bit unscientific. Of course it could be said they "knew" what the outcome was so applied the funds accordingly. The real reason Peterson wrote that paper was to justify the idea that climate scientists actually know what they are doing and have been right all along. Sorry, I dont buy that one either.. There is a glaring error.. a HUGE hole in the analysis ... anytime some religious man made CO2 warming climate change whacko starts talking about "runaway global warming". Can you figure out what it is? It looks obvious to me. Another thing about the "skepticalscience.com" website. It is not scientific. It is very clearly and obviously quasi religious fascist doctrine that Goebbels could be proud of. There is only one "truth". It's a matter of indoctrinating the world to the holy gospel of global warming. It is infested with loonies who have no idea of what science actually is. Just have a second look at this... it's regarding the the graph of interactions of all the things apart from greenhouse gases. It looks highly suspect to me and I read in the comments...... "There's always a trade-off between detail and clarity. The figures are already getting cluttered, and adding more information makes them more difficult to interpret. I know most SkS readers have no problem interpreting more complex graphics, but these are the sorts of things that could potentially get spread around to a larger audience, in which case simpler graphics have much more impact." There's a phrase good communicators abide by, and is discussed at length in the Debunking Handbook - in short, K.I.S.S." skepticalscience.com These guys are barking f**king mad ! This is like a political convention. It is about funding and it is plainly about bullchit and nothing else.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next