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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (751750)	11/7/2013 9:21:58 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	2 Recommendations Recommended By average joe TideGlider Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575773

Science is about probabilities. Nothing is certain in science. The probabilities favor the hypothesis that climate change is due to human actions. Actually, the probabilities favor the hypothesis that change is the only constant where the climate is concerned. You could break it down a little bit more if you really wanted to though. The probabilities favor the hypothesis that humans have contributed to some amount of climate change. The probabilities also favor the hypothesis that the climate is doing exactly what you would expect it to do at the later stages of an inter-glacial period. The probabilities also favor the hypothesis that the climate is doing exactly what you would expect it to do after a brief, but dramatic cooling period (the little ice age). But the real question that everyone should be asking is: is climate change necessarily a bad thing? First of all, "change" is a bit amorphous of a term. Which makes sense since "climate change" was adopted when the climate stopped doing that global warming thing that the great and brilliant climatologists predicted. Instead of admitting that their work was flawed, they simply adopted terminology that was fuzzy enough that they can always claim to have predicted whatever happens. We saw plenty of this kind of predicting here on SI. Market predictions that are hedged so much that no matter what happens the market guru can claim that he predicted it. I believe that they call that intellectual dishonesty. The one thing that we can say is not true, is your statement. That is a certainty, not a probability.