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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (548449)	2/10/2010 2:14:07 PM
From: TimF	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1586458

Not exactly true. What's not exactly true? " Its really more like "if everything is exactly as we thing it is, than the age of the universe is 13.73 billion years old +/- 0.8%", but the confidence that the assumptions behind the estimate are totally accurate is not reasonably 99.2%, even if it may be fairly high." - ? You really think all those assumptions are over 99.2% certain of being accurate? "And we have more direct observation on this question than we do on climate. For one thing the controversial climate questions are mainly about the future, which is less certain than the past. For another we can observe radiation from many billions of years ago, we can't directly measure the temperature from the past, only proxies." - ? I don't see how you can reasonably say that isn't true. I guess its - "Also there are less questions about data manipulation, missing data, biases, and politics in the question "how old is the universe", than there is in terms of working out likely climate change scenarios." It seems pretty obvious that climate change science is more politicized than the age of the universe calculations. ---- Global warming just happens to have a lot of impact on the daily lives of humans and finances, and as such, is a political hot potato. Therefore, the public, layman scrutiny the science gets is far greater than other issues. It works both ways, not only do you get more layman scrutiny, you get more political influence (both from outside political figures, ideas, and funding, and from the scientists own political ideas) on the statements the scientists make.