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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: NAG1 who wrote (55604)	3/23/2008 12:26:22 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 544256

In my methods of analysis, finding other information(that is referenced in scientific, peer reviewed journals) is basically meaningless. To find a hint of truth, especially in an area defined by supposition of how nature works, it takes hundreds if not thousands of hours or research. One will find lots and lots of bull crap science on both sides of the issue. And "peer reviewed will be thrown around all over the place. for example, mann's hockey stick graph was peer reviewed of the gazu. And it was constructed us faulty methods of statistics using some data that most later now consider not representing the connection of temperature. If you wish to see the rubble of what hundreds to thousands of hours of deliberate research on a science issue looks like, well this is such place. toms.homeip.net Over time I have found individuals who present their best honest common sense supposition and conclusion of their perception of truth. First criterion is truth, next is wisdom. Rush I find wise and true. Findings of honesty and wisdoms also takes hundreds if not thousands of hours of research.