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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (115658)	7/17/2009 10:57:21 AM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541853

When it comes to theory the "little guys" do stand in the face of conventional science which makes such people seem heroic to non-scientifically trained people like the man who faced down the tanks in Tienanmen Square . Non-scientists look at Einstein who stood science on its head and say he was JUST a patent clerk - no he was WORKING as a patent clerk. He had the training. What separates the cranks from the savant is that the savant is ultimately proved right, but also answers questions that have plagued the main stream scientific community. Einstein answered questions like what is the speed of gravity and why does apparently massless light get bent. The deniers all seem to have one reactionary voice - "Nothing bad is really happening and we can ignore our impact as inconsequential..." - that is clearly not the case. Even if CO2 wasn't bad, all the mercury and other pollutants are. We are doing unprecedented destruction of our ecosystems and the truly "novel and unique" vantage point is not to say that "it doesn't matter". A novel viewpoint would be to show that despite deforestation and mining carbon that the biodiversity is actually increasing (which it isn't) and that while CO2 goes up temperatures go down through a new and novel mechanism not previously understood (which they aren't). I feel that the deniers have an agenda that true greats like Newton and Einstein didn't have. Yes, what they (Einstein/Newton) said was not necessarily well accepted initially, but they had experiment on their side and a really sound theoretical basis for showing why their ideas were better.