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 : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (1694)	9/12/2011 5:28:27 PM
From: Bread Upon The Water	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

But still, even if what you say about the UOCS is true, the survey was mailed to Federal Scientists was it not and they mailed back their answers. Let me ask you something along the lines of what I asked Jorj. Do you think it is legitimate of me to find out the percentage of working climate scientists who participated in climategate as a way of measuring the degree of "corruption" if any, in the GW science camp? If not, why not? And, if not, is there some measuring stick we could use to measure this. It seems to me this is the heart of the argument here. You, Nadine, etc. are mainly contending the GW research is in the tank because of the climategate thing, and I'm saying wouldn't it be helpful to see if we could find the degree of participation in that, if we could, as a measurement of a degree of this corruption. Without some common measure we're just reduced to "Is too, Is not" aren't we?