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: axial who wrote (118913)	3/12/2009 7:05:41 AM
From: Aggie	26 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 206337

Hi TRIP, In the late 70's, when I was pursuing a degree in geology, one of my professors was deeply involved with the growing study of the effects of acid rain. At the time, only a few grants had been underwritten, and it was clear that the body of work required to understand the problem was much bigger and would require much more. Over the course of a few years, the Acid Rain Issue turned into a bonnanza of grant writing for ambitious professors and their armies of graduate students. It made for a whole new supply of ecologists out on the market. The point is, the evidence once collected was irrefutible. The genesis of the problem was traceable and could be demonstrated as clear cause & effect. This led to sweeping regulatory changes which in the end have benefited society and protected the environment. It happened because the science was treated as science, and the proof of the data was self-evident. A similar grant-writing bonanza, on a vastly grander scale, has been a hallmark of the GW industry. Parts of this body of work represent a boondoggle on an unprecedented scale, but a lot of it is good solid work. But unlike acid rain, the data is a combination of direct measurement and computer simulation, both of which are disciplines that have had tremendous technical advances in recent time. The newness of the science, the advancement of technique - all of these are things that complicate the confinement of critical thinking to the simple issue, and this provides fertile ground for rascals. Bottom line: Any time intimidation is used in any form in the context of a scientific discussion, then the pure argument has been put at risk. When the main spokesmen of the GW cause present their cases with an air of condescension, as if this has "already been decided" and accuse all non-believers of scientific apostasy, then the game has been revealed. Such incredible arrogance has no place in a scientific proof. There is no conclusive data, or the conclusion would be obvious and the scientific community would be in near unanimous consensus. They are not. There is good reason to challenge the conclusions when any challenge is treated in such a bizarre and politically charged way. And any time a politician starts to spout science, when he is clearly under-equipped to do so, then two things are a dead certain bet: He has figured out how to gain power and influence using this new tool, and he will do it to get hold of your money. The hook to this particular play is not to prove global warming. Over its 4.5 billion year history, the earth has always been in flux in this regard because of radioactive and infrared decay. It always will be, as long as the sun shines. No, the hook is to make you believe it's your fault. That's where the science becomes politics. At least for now, with our ability to measure and model as it presently stands. Regards to all, Aggie