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: Wharf Rat who wrote (893243)	10/12/2015 2:20:07 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574685

Earlier, you denied the manipulation by IPCC which has been proved beyond any doubt since IPCC 2. You denied the total failure of the peer review process with major "scientific" journals, yet there are well documented refusals to publish legitimate comments and make available data which were not even properly archived under the standards required for peer review. And, in fact, it was shown that "peer review" of these articles generally amounted to no more than cursory review with no real replication of any aspect of the science. The kind of review that requires minutes. That is NOT a peer review; that is a rubber stamp of approval. The reality is that you people give lip service to science but you really have no idea what is required to use that term. And the first things have to be "objectivity" and "independence", without which there is no science. And the unfortunate truth is that so-called climate science generally is absent both of these essential features.