Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (23355)	1/7/2004 4:10:27 PM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794221

Uncertainties is a very clever wording. What in life is CERTAIN. You can read that sentence and still think that most scientist believe the models are pretty good. In fact, most scientist agree the models are worthless for predicting future climate changes. And when they run this story on the broadcast media, and they will, they will leave even this tiny concession to reallity out.

To: LindyBill who wrote (23355)	1/7/2004 4:20:00 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 794221

Hey, Bill, the caveat was in the second sentence. That's not bad at all. That they have it at all is surprising. That it's above the jump is remarkable. You should be tickled, tickled, tickled with the second sentence. People believe the headline and miss the waffling. What would you have made the headline? The story is about a study that claims what it claims. Again, the headline read "Study Says Global Warming..." rather than "Global Warming May..." You're getting greedy if you complain about that. <g> I thought that was a pretty good job. The only way the article could distance itself more from the findings would be to not report the story at all.