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: Rambi who wrote (70093)	6/1/2008 6:10:02 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541141

just decided to stick with the parts of K that I DID understand and approve. I'm with you. I know I can't understand the science. I probably couldn't if I devoted the rest of my life to learning it. So, instead, I'm sticking to my areas of competence. How to approach a problem like this is independent on the science and is something best not left to scientists and believers.

To: Rambi who wrote (70093)	6/2/2008 6:10:56 PM
From: Cogito	Respond to of 541141

>>I hadn't noticed the conditional aspect of that section. That makes more sense. It seemed odd that K would be so far off since I think he is the kind of educated that would check himself, but obviously many think not. << Rambi - The way I read that sentence, the conditional, it seemed to me, indicated that GW climatology, which had fewer years of empirical observation and experimentation to back it up, could easily be wrong in a world where Newton's laws, with their 200 years of experimentation had been found to be wrong. I'm not sure that's any clearer than what Krauthammer wrote. But I don't see what he could have meant by bringing up Newton otherwise. What is the relevance of Newton's Laws here? They've stood the test of time. If the point is that climate science doesn't have enough of a track record to be relied upon, then wouldn't you want to compare it to something that was once widely accepted but has since been disproved? - Allen