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 : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (10719)	2/13/2017 11:05:34 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 356471

>> To challenge the world's scientists is stupid and Feynman was not stupid. LOL. The point was clearly lost on you. Sorry about that. So, you think Feynman wasn't about "challenging the world's scientists???" Really? Here's the crux of Feynman on The Scientific Method: youtube.com "If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement, is the key to science. It doesn't make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn't make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is, it's wrong. That's all there is to it." Feynman would have been the first onboard to look at the idea of global warming. But if you think he would be influenced IN THE SLIGHTEST by this "consensus" you're nuts. Freeman Dysan, who was a good friend and contemporary of Feynman's, has gotten more to the point: The models suck, they're getting better, but they're wrong as hell. In fact, Dysan commented on this not so long ago: An Obama supporter who describes himself as "100 per cent Democrat," Dyson says he is disappointed that the President "chose the wrong side." Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere does more good than harm, he argues, and humanity doesn't face an existential crisis. Climate change, he tells us, "is not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts?" Are climate models getting better? You wrote how they have the most awful fudges, and they only really impress people who don't know about them. I would say the opposite. What has happened in the past 10 years is that the discrepancies between what's observed and what's predicted have become much stronger. It's clear now the models are wrong, but it wasn't so clear 10 years ago. I can't say if they'll always be wrong, but the observations are improving and so the models are becoming more verifiable. Consider your entire post to be repudiated by two of the top minds in science over the last 100 years or so.