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 (72110)	5/18/2018 2:35:15 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 356869

"That would be a stupid question,"' That's a more stupid response. Just ask him whether he thinks surface or satellite temperature measurements are more accurate

To: koan who wrote (72110)	5/18/2018 2:45:17 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 356869

That is too often how right wingers deny AGW and it is why they are so wrong about it. Measuring AGW requires the scientist to use all the information available to them. I do not and have not "denied" AGW. I have questioned the extent of it on the basis of poor and incomplete science. Just rationally thinking about it suggests that humans on the planet probably cause SOME global warming. The question is how much it matters, and based on available evidence, not much. So, I can't speak for others, but you aren't speaking for me. >> Measuring AGW requires the scientist to use all the information available to them. Bad data is often worse than no data. Michael Mann proved that, when he misled the public and the scientific community with bad data. He would have been better off to simply leave out incomplete data sets than to make up numbers -- in some cases for 50 years running. GIGO.