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 (1866)	9/14/2011 10:07:12 AM
From: Brumar89	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

I think you've stated your positions and mine. I guess we'll have to disagree. I'm not going to agree that climategate was just a handful of people who don't matter. The climategate conspirators were big names, heads of major institutions (and they're all still where they were before climategate with their press lackey assuring us nothing was wrong), untrustworhy custodians of our official temperature record databases. They're still pursuing slanderous press campaigns against skeptical scientists - see Trenberth's attack on Spencer of the past week. I intend to continue to point out things that I think are wrong in the climate science house. Don't know what else I can do.

To: Bread Upon The Water who wrote (1866)	9/14/2011 5:25:09 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	3 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 85487

That's pretty fair, BUTW. But I have a few caveats: 1. The vast majority of climate scientists feel/conclude/suggest that the warming data is accurate as far as it goes and the probabilities are that it will establish a link between human activity and warming. Be careful of setting up a false dichotomy here. The argument is not between "a link between human activity and warming" and NO link between human activity and warming. Both sides of the debate accept the possibility of SOME link between human-generated CO2 and warming via the greenhouse effect. The question is how much of a link, and if we know enough to tell how much of a link there is. The skeptics think the AGW crowd are making extraordinary claims for the strength of the link and its consequences, without having furnished any extraordinary evidence. Science is all about independent research. The vast majority of scientists came to the field to do just that. Therefore, the actions of a few prominent scientists would not sway, deter, influence them to come off what their research reveals. Independent research takes money. So if the actions of a few prominent scientists can control who publishes, and who therefore is in a position to get grants.... you get the picture. Where, if any where, do we go from here in a way that would further clarify things? Why don't you do some of that reading you were talking about? That seems like the logical next step. I recommend Dr. Roy Spencer.