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: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (1706)	9/12/2011 6:09:09 PM
From: Bread Upon The Water	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 85487

I've VERY skeptical by nature. And I go down a lot of the same paths you do--especially when the "expert" jury is of two or several minds. But when it is of a mostly united mind, and it effects me personally, I have to be very convinced, and I mean very, if I am going to disregard their advice I don't understand why you think it is a straw man question. Well, I do, if you are saying that fact that these "key" climate scientists may have participated in " unscientific conduct" doesn't impact the rest of the GW research. But that is not what Brumar and Nadine are saying if I understand them correctly, hence my proposal to them. What is reading the climategate emails going to reveal to me other than "mistakes were made". It is the EXTENT to which others here to seek to use climategate as the all encompassing negater to any GW research that is the significant fact for me. And this is why I'm seeing if we can come up with some common accord about which to measure the significance. I've suggested participation, but I'm open to some other yard stick.