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 : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Land Shark who wrote (32514)	6/21/2012 5:04:47 PM
From: Brumar89	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

It is pretty funny that a bunch of amateurs can humiliate self-appointed great minds of science. That's why the self-appointed saviors hide their data and programs, refuse to debate, and engage in diverting ad hominem attacks. Somethings wrong with this.

To: Land Shark who wrote (32514)	6/21/2012 10:42:21 PM
From: Hawkmoon	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 86356

“We have a responsibility to the scientific community to not allow those looking to discredit us to be successful,” Mann says. “What they’re going to see is that they’ve awakened a sleeping bear. We will counterpunch.” Geezus Weeps!! They actually end that article with an AGW proponent who DISCREDITED HIMSELF by his attempts to censor any dissent, and prevent scrutiny of his models? Guess I can't read Popular Science anymore.. They've discredited themselves with this puff piece.. And can I rightfully take on that position? Yes, I can.. Because there are any number of scientists and professors who, because they disagree with, or cast a dissenting voice against, AGW, are black-balled and/or fired from their jobs.. But this piece didn't address that, now did they? Maybe such treatment of dissenting voices is what Mann is referring to when he mentions his "counterpunch". Hawk