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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Bob Brinker: Market Savant & Radio Host -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elmer Phud who wrote (37602)	8/3/2008 2:28:16 PM
From: Math Junkie	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 42834

"Neither you(I assume) or I are qualified to argue the science." Apparently that petition Web site thinks I am, since almost one-third of their signatories have the same qualifications as I do, i.e., engineering degrees. Personally, I don't think "arguing" the science requires any particular qualifications. On the other hand, having one's arguments accepted by others raises the requirements quite a bit! BTW, these folks appear to me to be highly qualified to argue the science: realclimate.org ipcc.ch "For anyone to say that there is consensus, or that no responsible scientist disputes the conclusions simply ignores the facts." Anyone making such a statement has the burden of proof. "Whether it's 31,000 or some other number doesn't matter. The only ones claiming there is consensus are the ones agreeing with each other." It's very difficult for the average person to know what is true and what isn't when it comes to scientific issues, especially ones with implications for public policy. That's why the issue of whether there is or isn't a consensus, how much of a consensus, etc. is important. People throw that 31,000+ number around as if it should be accepted as deciding the issue. It would be much more useful to know the percentage.