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: TimF who wrote (947580)	7/17/2016 10:49:35 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575544

" If claims by them (or from groups funded by them, or from groups not funded by them) are wrong the proper response is to refute the claims." That's been done on numerous occasions. The disagreement occurs in political science, not in real science. "A think tank or writer accusing someone of falsifying data doesn't quite rise to the level of a political witch hunt " Carbon companies paying think tanks and writers to falsely make those claims is a conspiracy. Conspiracy theorists like Lamar Smith who are trying to get e-mails from scientists are the witch hunters. We need to see the e-mails between the funders and the hunters. Smith is the one who needs to show e-mails. Last week, Congressman Lamar Smith (R-TX) continued his witch hunt against climate scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) by convening yet another congressional Science Committee hearing on the topic of climate change, where he continued accusing NOAA of altering data " to get politically correct results.” ecowatch.com