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: koan who wrote (983912)	11/25/2016 9:09:54 PM
From: i-node	3 Recommendations Recommended By d[-_-]b locogringo longz Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1584891

I'm not. It is you, not me, who is consistently unable to credibly support your arguments. Every post to you is wasted covering ground that should be intuitively obvious, even if your IQ is limited. There is little "settled science" on climate change, let alone AGW. And many, if not most, of the people who do believe AGW, have doubts about the significance of it. And those who understand essential math and statistics can plainly see that the veracity of the claims is highly questionable. Yet, you have to have it repeated to you over and over. It was not long ago that people legitimately thought Relativity had been disproved. Only when other, independent physicists reviewed the data closely was it determined that it had not been. Real scientist never stop looking. As someone who knows something about computer modeling and regressions, I can tell you that the ultimate test is whether the model is right. And the models endorsed by IPCC have been nowhere NEAR right. Only an idiot or someone with skin in the game would conclude that it is "settled science."