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 (17889)	12/1/2007 8:54:08 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36921

The issue is the arguments and statement by Lindzen than Brumar quoted. Whatever Lindzen is or is not, does not make those statements true or false. Deal with the issue not with the people talking about the issue. Do you think that EVERY statement made by creationist sceptics of evolution is without merit? I don't. They certainly find holes and can function as useful critics. On rare occasions, they have even done some good science on their own which gets accepted by the mainstream scientific community. Now, do you think ANY of that casts legitimate doubt on evolution as an historical fact and as the foundational theory for biology? If you do think so, then I guess there is not much I can say to you. On the other hand, if you don't think so, then could you kindly explain why the AGW debate is different for you? Why do you accept one mode of operation in the field of climate science but reject it in the field of biology (assuming you do in fact reject it there). Critics are good, they are the "accountants" of science. However, top honors go to those how do the "science", not the "accounting".