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: i-node who wrote (983877)	11/25/2016 2:51:43 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1583507

His premise is wonderful, even if it is not as widespread as he would like it to be.

To: i-node who wrote (983877)

11/25/2016 5:26:15 PM

From: koan

Respond to of 1583507

Email gate? Heat island effect? Really? You think all those great atmospheric scientists around the world failed to take that stuff into account? And what does email gate have to do with a AGW? You just mix stuff together.

You did what you always do, threw a bunch of stuff at the wall hoping something would stick.

If you knew anything about anything, you would know that when the vast majority of all the universities in the world and all the atmospheric scientists in the world believe that there is anthropogenic global warming, that is what you go with. Because of the very high probability they are right.

Why are you always trying to fight it? The only reason you could have to fight it is a because you're trying to obfuscate the issue so the oil and coal companies can keep selling high polluting carbon fuel and don't have to pay attention to environmental concerns which cost money. What a horrible way to live ones life! Always being either dishonest or pretty clueless.

You sound like a paid lackey of the oil companies is what you sound like to me.

<<

>> People can make a conscious decision to reject money that is not honorably earned. Many people can do it, it is not uncommon. Scientists are generally pretty ethical as they understand its importance and are more interested in their science than they are in making extra money and are very moral.

Then how do you explain email-gate? How do you explain Michael Mann's refusal to make his data for the "Hockey Stick" available to other scientists who challenged his methodology?

How do you explain cherry-picking of data and the overt attempt to make the GWP seem smaller or non-existent? How do you explain the refusal to consider the heat-island effect? How do you explain major scientific journals, like Nature and Science, corrupting their peer review processes to avoid true peer review processes? How do you explain the absolute frauds of IPCC, year after year?

How do you explain the transition to politics in order to get past the requirement that SCIENCE carry its burden of proof? The wholesale distribution of propaganda to get political forces on board?

At some point persons of reasonable intellect start questioning the scientific substance of these tactics and recognize that it isn't about science.