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: LindyBill who wrote (18415)	12/15/2007 12:53:00 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 36917

LOL. I feel like I'm living in parallel universes. Long discussion on TOD... Okay, let's take a look at the names... Out of 100 so-called scientists, only four (4) "FOUR" had any connection with the IPCC, and their connection was "reviewer", whatever that means. Here are the names... * Tom V. Segalstad - geologist * Richard S. Courtney - Technical Editor for CoalTrans International(!) Vincent Gray - Coal Researcher Madhav Khandekar - meteorologist But you don't need to believe me, check the names yourself. canadafreepress.com Notice, no climatologists whatsoever. Always, check the source and follow the money michigan on December 14, 2007 - 10:27am theoildrum.com == Pitt the Elder on December 14, 2007 - 1:04pm \| Permalink \| Subthread \| Comments top Out of 100 so-called scientists, only four (4) "FOUR" had any connection with the IPCC, and their connection was "reviewer", whatever that means. "Reviewer" is someone who reads the report - checks it for errors, makes suggestions; a proofreader, basically - and not someone who writes the report. Assuming you're correct, I would categorize the linked story as intentionally deceptive, and possibly outright lying. Not only is it deeply misleading to describe 4 as "many of" 100, it's at least as misleading to imply that they were authors of the report, rather than reviewers. That kind of deception appears to be an attempt to give people the false impression that the IPCC authors have changed their minds, when in fact these are simply different people. ==== CrystalRadio on December 14, 2007 - 11:10am Just to be a bit of a poop, jrwakefeild, I counted 90 not 'over 100' signatories, seems a bit of disingenuous reporting right from the opening.