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 (1642)	6/11/2007 7:08:31 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4152

He is not to my knowledge advancing his own theories, only noting the gaps in the theories being presented. Which is why my warning bells went off. Standard practice for anti-anything group. I'm well familiar with it from the creationist camp. "You can't explain everything accurately enough, therefore your theory is wrong, and my nonsense (which has no support) must be correct." Science explains the big picture, why the bulk of the evidence fits. Contrarians always search for the anomalies and magically claim that these invalidate all the other evidence. Anomalies often are of interest, but the explanation cannot claim that the mountain of other evidence just vanishes. If the climatologists had solid scientific proof for their theories of anthropogenic global warming, we would not now be treated to the ridiculous spectacle of being told that the thing is a mystery too complicated to be properly understood by a man whose background is "merely" as an eminent physicist specializing in quantum mechanics. Nobody is saying he can't understand it, except possibly himself. He is free to educate himself. You could too for that matter. BTW, what did you think of Nobel Laureate (physics no less!) Bill Shockley's "most important work"?