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: neolib who wrote (18438)	12/15/2007 2:46:35 PM
From: miraje	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36921

The AGW bashers and creationists do it exactly the same way. If you want to continue to hyperventilate over such obvious nonsense, then it's no skin off my nose. You keep blowing up a false balloon and I stuck a fork in it, as could anyone with an IQ higher than their body temperature. Repetition will do nothing to validate a fallacious argument. Get over it...

To: neolib who wrote (18438)	12/15/2007 7:59:30 PM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36921

There are typically many "holes" in complex scientific theories Sometimes what appears to be a hole isn't one at all. For example Einstein's theory of Special Relativity stated that the speed of light must be constant, so that when computing distance (distance traveled = Speed * time) he concluded that for different distances of light travel, if the the speed couldn't change than the "time" must change. This was considered a great hole in the theory. When they actually made time measurements it was discovered that in fact time was different in different circumstances. It wasn't a hole at all, just an indirect way to find out something very unusual and profound about the universe. TP

To: neolib who wrote (18438)	12/15/2007 9:01:17 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Respond to of 36921

One more time for the mentally retarded AKA neolib.... The fingerprint of the totality of data, and developed theories of the IPCC... Followed by the reality of current actual temperatures.

To: neolib who wrote (18438)	1/7/2008 1:01:44 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 36921

2) There are typically many "holes" in complex scientific theories such as atmospheric science, or evolutionary biology. 3) Some individuals focus on the "holes" and claim this invalidates the overall theory. And you shouldn't toss out all of atmospheric science or evolutionary biology because of those holes, you should rather try to close them (either by fixing the specific ideas that are dominate in the field or by coming up with new ideas, or if the hole is just a lack of data by finding the data). Which doesn't mean you can close all of them, but you can have less and/or smaller holes (or have the same number of holes in the field but have the field cover more and explain more). But you should distrust predictions of the future based on science where there is more than the usual number of such wholes, or where the understanding isn't extensive enough if the first place. You don't say atmospheric science is useless, you don't say evolution doesn't happen, you don't say "the earth hasn't warmed" or "CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas", but considering that our knowledge of atmospheric science is BOTH limited and full of holes, you don't make major expensive changes based on its current predictions.