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: Maple MAGA who wrote (1175631)	11/4/2019 9:24:28 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575337

Sorry, but it's the denial that is bogus. In fact, it is total nonscience (sic). "I don’t care how many Nobel Prizes they give to Greta" Neither does she. That's why she's the tiny dancer in your head. I have received the Nordic Council’s environmental award 2019. I have decided to decline this prize. Jag har vunnit Nordiska Rådets miljöpris 2019. Jag har valt att inte ta emot priset. Full statement here: https://t.co/aFWY46EAR3 — Greta Thunberg (@GretaThunberg) October 29, 2019

To: Maple MAGA who wrote (1175631)	11/4/2019 12:29:35 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	1 Recommendation Recommended By Maple MAGA Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575337

Joachim, Who cares about consensus I do, because it's exactly what Michael Crichton warned about: ***** I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What are relevant are reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period. ***** Tenchusatsu