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 (1768)	9/14/2011 10:26:04 AM
From: Bread Upon The Water	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 85487

They are challenging the 9 out of 10, if not more, scientists who disagree with "their" scientists for a non-scientific reason : That is, these 9 out of 10 are "biased" because climategate shows that. And that's not about science but about politics. And I've attempted to make arguments about how substantial such an argument is and about how politics is involved in the science. Why do you not think that a valid approach to counter their assertion of "tainted" science? Wharf Rat, if he choose could post, literally, a 1000 links or more to scientific evidence that is contrary to what their scientists say. Could you read that, understand it , and evaluate it independently? Would it make you change your mind? I can't as a non-scientist say that one body of science is better than another. All I can say is that all these other scientists say "horse hockey" about their anti-global warming position, or the position of their anti-global warming scientists. And why do you choose to go, apparently, with the small minority of scientists on this issue? You think their science is better? And you feel qualified to evaluate it?