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: Lane3 who wrote (26588)	7/26/2017 10:38:46 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 355828

>> Deniers believe that the Holocene period of climatic stability for the last 10,000 years will persist indefinitely, and there’s not one scientific, peer-reviewed paper to support that belief, because it’s not true. We shouldn’t use the word “believe.” It’s a lack of awareness. I feel like when you know the science, you know where you stand, and that’s a good thing. You might want to get rid of the term "Deniers" also because it means everything and hence it means nothing. Most "deniers" accept that the client is changing. Many question whether humans actually have anything, or much, to do with it. Many accept that humans have some impact (the most rational point of view) but question the extent to which it matters. Or are unconvinced as to whether it matters at all. Some question the science in addition to all those things. And some realize the "Warmists" are out of touch with reality when it comes to the overall effect of increased carbon. The point is, Deniers aren't a monolith. Unlike Warmists, we have a lot of unanswered questions, questioning everything from the quality of the science to the theoretical underpinnings. That is not a bad thing at this stage of the investigation, given that the scientific models on which the Warmist theory is based have all been consistently wrong for an extended period of time. And none has been right. So, "Deniers"? I don't think so. A better term would be "independent thinkers" whose livelihoods aren't dependent on the findings of a "peer-reviewed" (LMAO) paper.