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 : New FADG. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (1605)	6/11/2007 12:51:00 AM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4152

I don't deny that there are those how latch on to fads, but comparing the science of global warming today to eugenics of 100 years ago is not useful. If you think it is, why not instead compare what science thinks about cancer and smoking today, vs. what medical doctors claimed about it 100 years ago? I can only assume that you are wise enough to realise that what medical science claimed 100 years ago in no way discredits modern medical science. This is a very common problem in the USA. People doubt science, and scientists routinely on evolutionary biology, atmospheric science, etc, but trust the same methods with great faith when they head to the hospital. Slight disconnect there. Regarding climate models. Those denying global warming are free to try and develop more accurate ones that produce the results they desire. It is rather telling that they specialize in bitching about other models, but don't produce anything themselves. To anyone familiar with science bashing, this puts them in the same category as evolution deniers. The point being that the models do a pretty good job when run against the measured data from the last 100 years. Anyone is free to develop there own model that does just as well on that stretch of data, but then shows something much different going forward. Thats the problem, nobody can.