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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Big Dog's Boom Boom Room -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Broken_Clock who wrote (118912)	3/12/2009 12:51:44 AM
From: axial	5 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 206336

BC, this statement (which I assume is yours) is somewhat troubling: '"Consensus" has been manufactured for political, not scientific purposes.' --- I'm the first to agree that the debate on warming is far from settled. The hypothesis will be proven true, not true, or somewhere in between. There are many definitions of "true"; for instance, criminal law requires "beyond a reasonable doubt", while civil law is satisfied by the "balance of probabilities". It was a long time before science accepted the truth of Einsteinian physics, as opposed to Newtonian. Science was slow to accept the idea of plate tectonics; the idea was ridiculed by many, scientists and academics alike. Truth is just as much a matter of acceptance, as objective reality. It may be that some truths are unknowable. If truth were static, we'd still believe the earth was flat, and that the universe revolved around it. The problem lies in the extent of possible damage: if the warming hypothesis is true, there is an unquantified probability of global changes that will prejudice life as we know it. The consequences of prevention will cause no damage to the planet; the consequences of inaction may result in irreversible change and catastrophic destruction. --- There is apprehension of a danger. It's a probability, not a certainty. By which standard will we judge it? Scientific truth? That changes. "Beyond a reasonable doubt"? By the time we know that, it may be too late. "Balance of probabilities"? Opponents of the hypothesis won't even accept that. They want absolute, incontrovertible "scientific" proof. 100%. Nothing less. --- Now we come to your statement: *'"Consensus" has been manufactured for political, not scientific purposes.'* Whether or not the hypothesis is true, the apprehension is real. If mankind is to take preventive action it cannot be done without political action. Of course advocates are attempting to create consensus. Without political action, no change can be effected. In view of the potential danger it would be irresponsible not to inform, to persuade, to seek action by democratic majority. --- Nobody is questioning your right to equal time, an opposing view, and the right to motivate others in opposition. To claim that advocates of the warming hypothesis are working toward "political" ends is to state the obvious. It's use of pejorative terminology, in an attempt to discredit the opposition with an illogical argument. Would you have the matter ignored? Not debated? Or is "your side" the only side, while everyone else is playing "dirty pool"? In the end, this matter will be decided by consensus, and that means politics and democracy - which, by your tortured logic, is wrong. I disagree. Jim

To: Broken_Clock who wrote (118912)	3/12/2009 4:27:49 PM
From: kollmhn	Respond to of 206336

That's a great article and just what is needed to counter ones like this: news.bbc.co.uk

To: Broken_Clock who wrote (118912)	3/13/2009 1:28:52 AM
From: Archie Meeties	9 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 206336

If you do a bit a research, you'll find that Senator Inofe's (AKA US Senate Minority Report) collection of scientists includes economists, biologists, political scientists, anthropologists, other such experts on climate change. But hey, when you're desperate, you'll turn over any rock, scour any publication for even an iota of doubt. I wonder how many staffers Inofe has searching internet blogs to find somebody with some sort of degree who disagrees with global warming. Great use of tax dollars there. Also, you get great stuff like the below, which I believe has been repeated multiple times. global-warming.accuweather.com Love the defense offered by the PR guy from Inofe. It's like "I swear I read something that sounds skeptical somewhere, here let me cherry pick some quotes", and goes on to say that 'since you actually say you believe in GW, we'll keep you in the report but put an asterisk by your name.' Just amateur stuff. It would be funny, except some people actually believe it.