SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Lane3 who wrote (22184)6/20/2017 8:52:46 PM
From: i-node  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 354804
 
>> That was not my point. My point was science vs paranormal. AGW is science.

I thought your point was that we should allow science to do what it is supposed to do. And not make it a religion.

I agree it is science, but when the science failed to solidify, it took on a promotional aspect. That didn't do away with science as a basis, but it remains an unproved theory. Although some call it proved.

But the 97% argument shows that the promotional aspect is alive and well.

Sheesh.



To: Lane3 who wrote (22184)6/20/2017 9:02:07 PM
From: Wharf Rat  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 354804
 
Rat's OK with "97% believe that AGW is real", but I don't think we'll be changing the language anytime soon. That's a job for Frank Luntz.

The Luntz Memo and the Framing of Climate Change



To: Lane3 who wrote (22184)6/21/2017 12:08:31 PM
From: bentway  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 354804
 
I consider AGW to be much more settled science than say, sociology.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News