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 : The Epic American Credit and Bond Bubble Laboratory -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (106463)	11/30/2009 10:21:03 PM
From: GST	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 110194

<If scientists fudged data to fit a hypothesis> The data on the pace and direction of climate change is overwhelming -- nothing that has been publisized concerning the looting of the personal files of a handful of scientists suggests that climate change is not taking place, or that it is taking place at a slower pace than previously thought. Indeed, mounting evidence suggests that the rate of climate change is taking place faster than the IPCC models have suggested. But you can cling to your preconceived notions if you like.

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (106463)	11/30/2009 11:13:59 PM
From: Gib Bogle	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 110194

"I posted this to Gib. He knows it's true." Please don't talk crap with my name attached. I have no idea why you posted this to me. I have no idea how much significance should be given to this evidence of dishonesty. I am not a climate scientist. I am not competent to make an informed assessment of the predictions that are being published. My general attitude can be summed up in two statements: (1) When an overwhelming majority of scientists in a particular field all accept some hypothesis as valid, it probably is - although of course this is not always the case. (2) As a long-time developer of numerical models (with no connection to climate models) I tend to be skeptical about predictions coming out of complex models, and climate is exceedingly complex. In a nutshell, I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm leaning in the direction of the scientific consensus, but I am not convinced. Perhaps if I had more knowledge of the facts I would be. Scientists are human (well, on the whole), and subject to the usual human failings. There undoubtedly are incentives for scientists looking for funding to hype the importance of their research - these incentives exist in all fields - and fraud does occur. But the scientific process for separating the wheat from the chaff (e.g. the peer review process) normally works pretty well, and I have to say that in my personal experience most scientists strike me as pretty honest.