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: Brumar89 who wrote (20263)	2/11/2008 9:43:20 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 36917

Let me predict - everything below is not credible: I suspect for once you may be correct. How about you get to pick the one you'd like to hang your hat on, and we'll go from there? However, since I will spend the time to honestly look at your best choice, could I get you to comment on one example of mine which I questioned another denier here about and got no answer? Steve McIntrye (he who bashes Mann) found some errors in the GISS temp record for N. America for the years 2000-2006. He notified NASA, who looked at his ideas, accepted them, corrected their codes, posted a thank you to him, all within 1-2 days. The event was widely splashed over the blogsphere because it demoted 1998 to just below (although within the margin of error) from the hottest year to 2'nd hottest (after 1934??) leading to much joy in mudville (or should I say cluelessville?) Could you comment on why scientists quickly accepted that work of McIntrye, while rejecting most of his other work? Please note that claims of conspiracy against an outsider don't hold water in this case, since in one example they did quickly accept his work. Could it just possibly have to do with the scientific content of his work in each case? Would that not lead you to suspect that any climate sceptic, if he does some convincing work, will in fact be well received?