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.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Crabbe who wrote (4167)	2/10/2006 3:37:43 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 218131

<Could it be that all of the worlds weather scientists are too stupid to understand them???> It's impolite and inaccurate to say stupid. We are all "stupid" until we have heard of something, or think of it for ourselves. It's just ignorance, which is the most common thing there is. I doubt that weather people have give much thought to plate tectonics and limestone deposition. It's not immediately obvious why they should. Eons-long crystallisation processes in the crust wouldn't be seen to have anything to do with weather. Mqurice

To: Crabbe who wrote (4167)	2/10/2006 3:56:19 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 218131

<I see, your ideas are biased towards oil use. It certainly would help being paid a lot of money by BP to espouse ideas that would encourage oil use. Probably really helped if you could convince yourself they are right.> I haven't been in the employ of BP since a couple of decades ago and even then, my ideas weren't determined by any need to falsify my beliefs to fit my job. If my job doesn't fit my beliefs, I change my job, not my beliefs. In fact, the manufacturing manager thought I was off my rocker when I was promoting methanol, which he said could ruin $billions in refining capacity. Too bad said I. "If BP doesn't do it, DuPont will and then we'll have no gasoline sales OR methanol sales = a lose-lose situation." I no doubt got into the issue because of being in the oil business and the environmental side of it. But that doesn't mean my conclusions come out at "we must use more oil". Just as, when I was given lead in petrol as an issue, I didn't come out with "lead is okay". I came out with "Holy hell! This is insane. Stop the lead!!!" The oil industry had been using lead for decades. It was crazy and I consider it quite possible that a class action suit against Associated Octel and other merchants of brain poison, possibly including BP, Exxon, Shell etc, would succeed and involve umpty$billions. They should have known that lead was harming people and they should have demanded that governments ban the stuff. That was the argument I was pushing. Associated Octel was like the tobacco sellers - denying there was harm. My reading of the IQ tests didn't match theirs. I would like to see them sued for their back teeth. I'm not a lawyer. "Why Lawyers Are Liars" slate.com Some of us are seekers of truth. Some of us can be bought off to lie about lead in petrol. Some can be bought off to lie and claim the greenhouse effect is a catastrophe in the making [they are getting a LOT of money if they join the frenzy, not much if they oppose]. Some of us like to know how things really work. We can assume, using your argument, that you must be paid to espouse your ideas about the greenhouse effect [which seem to be just regurgitated from popular literature - which are your own ideas, not copied?] Mqurice

To: Crabbe who wrote (4167)	2/10/2006 4:46:42 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 218131

Considering I invented my theory before the ice cores were dug, it's not bad going and accurate enough. <You are partially correct, Ice ages start in less than decade (Greenland Ice Cores). > I think the cores aren't very accurate. It's obvious that the ice age starts in one winter, as seen in reverse, in the same way that Uncle Al KBE says it's only looking backwards that we can see that there was a bubble. We can't say that an ice age is going to start in any particular year. We can only say, in hindsight, that it started in autumn such and such a year. We could reasonably say it started with the first snowfall of that autumn. For general purposes, we can say the ice age starts in two or three years. The first is "Gosh, that was a long and cold one". The second is "Oh no, not again and this one is even worse than last, which was bad enough!" The third is "What the?!! Hey, this is serious. We've never had snow in the middle of summer and the snow hadn't even fully melted from last winter". By then, it's pretty obvious what's happening. By the fourth year, people will be heading south [or north]. Maybe some scientists who don't believe it will wait 10 years, and take some cores to prove that an ice age has started. They'll curse more global warming and move south, to where global warming hasn't made it so cold. Mqurice

To: Crabbe who wrote (4167)	2/10/2006 4:58:11 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 218131

<the West Greenland Ice Shelf, Once an annual event that froze the sea from Greenland to Newfoundland, It partially formed in 1998 and is essentially nonexistent now. > I have enjoyed seeing the vast ice over the sea while flying from Europe to Ottawa/USA. As well as the amazing ice sheet over Greenland. There is a LOT of fresh water sitting there. Yet it's a small amount compared with Antarctica. <Frozen Mastodons in Alaska, some with meat fresh enough it has been eaten. The Ice man discovered frozen in a Glacier in Switzerland. These all indicate near overnight switches in the climate. Not years, not months, not even weeks, but overnight.> Not overnight, except that the snowfall happens overnight. But the place would have been summery, as "normal", but then autumn would come and the fauna would be at the maximum extent of its range. A never-before snowfall would render the food all covered, the animal would die and the snow would continue to fall. Not melting the following year. Maybe some of the animals might just get through the first heavy winter, but the next, heavier, winter would put paid to them, leaving them fresh to be found in the next big melt. It's not a matter of what happens in 10,000 years. It's a matter of what might happen in a few years. Or next year. We have only just avoided an ice age. If it means cold weather for Europe, because the gulf stream conks out, too bad. That's a small price to pay to avoid a big freeze for everywhere. I'd be surprised if the gulf stream conks out. Vast melting happened after the last ice age and it didn't stop the flow, so a piffling bit of flow from Greenland etc isn't going to do it either. Mqurice