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: maceng2 who wrote (1109713)	1/11/2019 6:57:49 PM
From: ryanaka	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571595

I can add things up if that's what you mean. unfortunately that is not enough. Even folks with a highest degree in science and engineering, they can not be the judge of climate science results. A physics PhD can not judge most research results, say, in Chemistry or Biology, not even the results from the various other physics field unless it is his or her own field. What these researchers are prepared for though is their ability to discern what is a sound science and what is not, a fake. For example they practice the #1, #2, #3 items under the "science" heading here in their work, consistently. Objectivity and reproducibility are crucial in data generation although their informed expert and sound interpretation is necessary to guide their work. So, the ability to discern whom among the so-called experts, the climate scientists, to listen to is a big deal. Usually the consensus among the researchers practicing in the field is the correct course.