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 : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (17872)	12/1/2007 2:40:15 PM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 36921

Failing to recognize the limits of our current knowledge would be better labeled cluelessness.

To: TimF who wrote (17872)	12/1/2007 4:08:02 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36921

You are the one saying you don't know anything. The IPCC 2007, which is the result of lots of very well educated scientists in their fields says otherwise. Why the heck would I believe you? I might note that your response is very Lindzen like, and Lindzen is clearly a well educated scientist in his field. He's even done good work. He's not going to get any prices this time, (besides the speaking fees he pockets) because he has adopted this attitude: His position with regard to the IPCC can be summed up with this quotation: "Picking holes in the IPCC is crucial. The notion that if you’re ignorant of something and somebody comes up with a wrong answer, and you have to accept that because you don’t have another wrong answer to offer is like faith healing, it’s like quackery in medicine – if somebody says you should take jelly beans for cancer and you say that’s stupid, and he says, well can you suggest something else and you say, no, does that mean you have to go with jelly beans?"[7] Lindzen's failure, and yours as well, is that you don't understand that the other answer is not wrong. That is your own fault and nobody elses. But more to the point, it shows that you don't understand science. Science looks at all the evidence and synthesis a coherent picture. The coherent picture does not fall apart if a critic finds some small errors. Critics do provide a valuable service in searching for errors. An example was McIntrye's (SP??) discovery of some numerical errors in the recent temp record for NASA. This is good. Unfortunately, lots of numbskulls drew the wrong conclusion. McIntrye is doing good arithmetic, but he is not doing good science. He is not trying to forge a coherent climate model. That is not his goal. Lindzen is not either. But none of that should prevent you from education yourself. Lindzen should spend his time trying to figure out the science so he can suggest something else. Otherwise he will increasingly find himself the butt of ridicule as time goes forward.