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 (1763)	9/12/2011 11:49:30 PM
From: Bread Upon The Water	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

I am a non-scientist and have repeatedly refused to evaluate the science per se because of that fact--unlike the AGW supporters (non-scientists also) who say their science is superior to the GW science. The heart of my argument is that if this issue wasn't so politicized we would normally go with the majority, the more than 9 out of 10 who view the modeling data as suggestive of a link to human activity and warming. I'm contending too, because the majority of science/research is against their findings, that the AGW crowd is trying to smear the validity of GW science through the use of climagate which applies to only a few of GW scientists. They're saying back, essentially, these climategate guys have way way more influence than just there numbers and can taint the validity of the reseatch of the non-clamategate scientists and so most of the GW science is corrupted.