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.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (170192)	6/4/2002 5:21:20 PM
From: yard_man	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 436258

I have serious reservations about the science ... scientists are not pure. They all have agendas. I've seen it in more esoteric fields that have nothing to do with social policy. I don't believe there is incontrovertible evidence that the recent rises are of man-made origin -- I even question their ability to get the historical record of temperatures correct ... I've been in rate cases where folks argued hotly over what the right 20 year normals were. Beyond this -- suppose they are correct -- what can be done? Should we impose limits without calculating the costs? Not just talking from my profession here -- seriously -- taking this cr^p straight from the media and accepting it as fact is about as good as accepting that "stocks always come back" or LTBH works ... discussion of the problems with the science is simply not done in public. I would encourage you to get a hold of last year's or the year's before article in Spectrum as a starting place -- then look up the references and the references within those and read them. Without real study of the science you're prey for the politicos, IMO.