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 : Manmade Global Warming, A hoax? A Scam? or a Doomsday Cult? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bilow who wrote (4131)	8/28/2014 5:09:43 PM
From: sense	Respond to of 4326

Rife with error... "logic challenged" throughout... I'll pick one or two. "The average government employee is rather liberal and liberals tend to believe in global warming. So which study are they going to fund, one that shows there's a problem or one that shows there's not? To fund the experiments with which they agree does not require fraud." What you have described is the DEFINITION of fraud... which you wrongly re-label as "not fraud"... "which study are they going to fund, one that shows there's a problem or one that shows there's not?" The question answers itself... as it merely assumes that it is natural that what gets funded is only research the RESULT of which is KNOWN before the work is done, because it must be known before it is FUNDED... in order to be funded... Of course, it is true that what gets funded is work that can be expected to report the DESIRED result... but, that's only true because of the operation of corruption, not because "that is how it works" when what you are doing is science, instead of corruption... That has you not only revealing that it is fraud... but revealing how the fraud operates... neither of which is useful in claiming "it isn't fraud"... ? Maybe... it isn't fraud purposefully conducted by scientists... because... it is politicians who are providing the funding... and selecting who gets the money and who doesn't ? Of course, that's wrong, too... How do they know ? When they "fund the experiments with which they agree...[which you say] does not require fraud"... how is it possible to "fund experiments with which they agree"... when REAL experiments (and the results of real experiments) don't have an opinion value that can be predicted and thus selected ahead of time by people who "aren't engaged in fraud" ? Essentially, what you are doing is saying "this is how they do it"... therefore it isn't fraud... However, that's completely irrational... or "logic challenged"... The utility adopted in seeking to divorce words from their meanings... and the result of analysis from the operation of logic... is revealing...