SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Strategies & Market Trends : The Epic American Credit and Bond Bubble Laboratory -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: GST who wrote (105421)9/25/2009 5:33:25 PM
From: arun gera2 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 110194
 
GST,

Sometimes top scientists could be wrong when it comes to predicting complex systems. Look how the top economists missed the financial blow up of the last few years...And some chimps on these threads got it right.

I don't know the particulars about the science of global warming, but twenty+ years ago when I applied to a top California school for graduate work in Environmental Sciences showing interest in Global Warming, the professor actually sent me a letter advising me against pursuing that particular topic, which I thought was unusual as that was his expertise. Which of course does not prove anything. Of course, in those days acid rain was the big news of those days..I guess that problem just migrated to China.

-Arun



To: GST who wrote (105421)9/25/2009 8:18:28 PM
From: Skeeter Bug6 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 110194
 
GST, it is clear you can't explain what you believe - or you would.

when this is the case, the likelihood of being wrong goes up dramatically.

again, i'm not saying GW is wrong. i'm saying we don't know and the models don't work well at all - which is why they've been wrong over the last decade and left GW, uh, CC fans scratching their collective heads and looking for reasons to explain away... *reality*.