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 (22339)	7/19/2008 6:47:08 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 36917

It is interesting that there are those who even though they do not have a technical background, clearly have a far deeper factual and intuitive comprehension of science and technology. I have always known a degree is a piece of paper that proves little.

To: Brumar89 who wrote (22339)	7/19/2008 8:19:09 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

I know very little about climate science compared to someone who works in the field. I also know very little about biology compared to someone who works in the field. I read widely on both topics, and have enough of a technical background that I can generally understand peer reviewed papers in both fields. From long observation of political/religious intrusion into science, I can detect BS fairly well. The problem is not my being "superior" to others it is that ALL of those bashing AGW here, unfortunately lack even what I have. Even without a technical background, you can learn a lot if you are willing to put in the time and effort. Why not try? Even with zero technical background, someone should be able to read up on the charlatans involved with the Oregon Petition, and draw the relevant conclusions. Why is this difficult?