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: maceng2 who wrote (22197)	7/15/2008 10:04:17 AM
From: neolib	Respond to of 36917

Countless thousands of professional scientists don't agree with what Watson asserts is the true understanding of science. Unfortunately, many engineers who should know better, exhibit credulity when it comes to biology & ecology, and this extends to climate science as well for some reason. Historically the life sciences were populated with people who often lacked the more extensive math background of engineering & the physical sciences, so I think people from those disciplines looked down their noses at the "soft" sciences. I know I did. But as it turns out, biology, ecology, climate science, etc are far more complex than most of what engineers do, and the emerging fields like Systems Biology are making this clear. I wish I had taken more classes in some of those areas, as they are very fascinating. Unfortunately, most the denier crowd (does not matter what stripe of denial, evolution, climate science, etc) has no interest in learning or understanding.

To: maceng2 who wrote (22197)	7/15/2008 11:11:15 AM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

Pearly, your posts show that in fact you cannot comprehend the Falsification or bogus explanations of the CO2 anthropogenic global warming blather. That would mean the adjective "science ignoramus" is quite accurate in describing your intellect. Only if your are lying about you lack of comprehension or true beliefs would the adjective be somewhat misapplied. And I have no problem repeating. ."Anyone who does have a true comprehension of physics can only come to the conclusions I have posted" There are obvious conclusions and not so obvious conclusions. But a true comprehension of the meaning and history of the search for current truth all make obvious that there has been a Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics. There is a true, referenced explantion of the term and concept of radiative forcing given in Falsification.... 1.2 The greenhouse effect hypothesis tsch.de If you think about it, and comprehend it, you will know, it is obvious that no grid of measurements of the past can be used to formulate a model that will predict the future based upon past measurements. And that is what all climate models are.