SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Eric who wrote (14384)11/30/2009 12:05:37 PM
From: Brumar891 Recommendation  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 86356
 
No, one doesn't have to build another model in order to say the alarmists models are crap. The burden of proof is on the alarmist side as they're demanding the world make vast changes on the basis of their models.

BTW the emails reveal alarmists know their models are crap.



To: Eric who wrote (14384)11/30/2009 12:37:19 PM
From: RetiredNow  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 86356
 
Exactly. If they don't believe in GW, then fight science theory with competing theory and back it up with the same empirical data, but with a new spin on the analysis. That is the scientific way.

But instead, we get a lot of conspiracy theories. When it comes to GW, I fell like the US has become the Middle East. Conspiracy theories get more traction than hard science. It's disappointing to say the least.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News