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 (751754)	11/7/2013 8:19:15 PM
From: longnshort	2 Recommendations Recommended By Brumar89 FJB Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575175

I said I believed in natural selection, that is just a part of eveolution scientists believed in the piltdown man did you buy that ? the consensus of scientists believed in many wrong things. Like the earth being the center of the university. and hardly an computer engineer believes in GW are they scientists ?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (751754)	11/7/2013 10:50:56 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	3 Recommendations Recommended By FJB jlallen TideGlider Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1575175

So how is it that you believe in evolution, which is supported by the consensus of the scientific community, but you don't believe in climate change, which is also supported by the consensus of the scientific community? you are using very faulty logic to try to promote what you think is a scientific position. The fact that there may be a consensus in the scientific community that believes in evolution, is not an indication of the truth or falsity of the theory. If it is true, it is true no matter how many scientists believe it. The fact that a person believes in a theory (evolution) that a consensus of scientists may also believe in, does not mean that the individual reached his conclusion because of the consensus of scientists. Since a consensus in the scientific community is not considered scientific evidence of the validity of a theory that is supported by scientists, it is certainly not intellectually inconsistent for the individual to reach an independent conclusion that is different than the consensus of scientists. Especially when there is no indication that they have any special insight into what is happening with the climate and even if they did, they certainly haven't provided convincing evidence that it is bad. Is it some giant conspiracy of scientists to fool us for some nefarious reason? It doesn't have to be nefarious to be wrong. The models that the climatologists used to put a large part of the human population into a panic are demonstrably wrong. They have zero predictive value. If they have zero predictive value, then either the data is wrong, the assumptions are wrong or the algorithms are wrong..or maybe all of the above. The fact that laymen can see the flaws in the application of the scientific method that the climatologists have used, is a strong indication of just how blinded they are by there own bias. The simple fact is, in a world that feels threatened by rising oceans, Category 87 hurricanes, worldwide droughts and whatever exaggerated catastrophic weather event they can cook up, climatologists are rock stars. They are heros. They are important. And they get big paychecks. In a world where the climate is constantly changing and the humans of today are expected to adapt, just like their ancestors did, climatologists revert back to being the boring lab geeks that they always were, with no hope of getting laid on a saturday night.