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: Bread Upon The Water who wrote (1698)	9/12/2011 5:31:08 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

But that is assuming you, or the rest of us mortals, are smart enough to understand the research ourselves and are able to sort out whose science is the best. Otherwise, in everyday life anyway, we probably always go with the majority. Have you ever gone to a doctor and not felt comfortable with the diagnosis and/or treatment? Have you ever questioned or challenged your doctor even though they are the scientist in the room? I have. I have been to doctors who do a cursory examination and then they start writing the prescription for the non-generic drug without thoroughly evaluating the symptoms in front of him. They looked for the problem that happened to align with the solution that was easiest for them to provide. I consult with experts, but experts have differing opinions. Therefore it is up to me to look at the conclusions that the experts have reached and determine which one is right for me. Majority means nothing. You are here on an investment website. What do you do if you see the majority of investors thinking the same way? I know what I do. With regard to that, for you personally, what percentage of working climate scientists would have to be shown to have participated in climategate in order to say the entire GW science research is in the tank because of this? This is a strawmen and a meaningless question. I don't care how many scientist tell me that the sky is red if I can see for myself that it is blue. Nor have I ever asserted that the entire GW science research is in the tank. But when the heads of the departments for every major institution involved in climate research are represented in the climategate leaks, it suggests that their credibility should be questioned. Seriously, I think it would be beneficial for you to read at least some of the leaked climategate emails and documents.