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

To: RetiredNow who wrote (14409)	11/30/2009 9:22:54 PM
From: The Vet	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

Speaking as a statistician, I think the probability of GW being true are much higher than the probability that any group of people could pull off such a stunningly large conspiracy to lie to the public in the age of the Internet. This statement completely ignores the manner that scientific knowledge is accumulated and refined. Knowledge is built on the previously published and peer reviewed material, and each paper quotes the previous references. The assumption made by all who follow is that the prior material has been produced in good faith and subject to the scrutiny of peer review. When that process has been perverted, bad science can creep into works produced and published by honest men. The problem is of course that climate science is not a science. It is simply correlation and analysis of a wide range of data, most of which was never produced for the purpose it is now being used for. If you change the history then you change the result, and so a few charlatans with control of the historical data can create a false foundation for all that follows...