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: Bruce L who wrote (108095)	8/29/2008 10:24:23 AM
From: Ottrose	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 206272

1. <<In effect you are saying, decide IT on the basis of "science" and empirical observation. Yes?>> No. I'm saying--in this arena--there should a focus not on some existential search for truth but on what it means for energy production, use, taxation, etc. There are plenty of places to espouse one's beliefs and opinions on this and other issues of contention, I'm suggesting this not be one of those fora. 2. <<What, after all, shall we say of all the CONFLICTING empirical observations cited by the advocates.>> Shit happens? Lies, damned lies and statistics? In this forum, the most direct answer to that question is "we should nothing, unless it adds value to the discussion of energy." 3. <<Why shouldn't the MOTIVATIONS of the global warmers likewise be questioned?>> The question is Why shouldn't; the question is why HERE, and what does it mean to the market. 4. <<Many Global Warmeers have advocated that CEOs of corporations who question "global warming" be criminally tried by an international tribunals for 'crimes against humanity.'>> So that's good for a chuckle and to underscore rabidity on the both extremes, I guess. All in all, if the discussion doesn't directly address the issue of energy markets, I'd rather it be about beer. But that's just me. [And apologies for continuing a discussion about the discussion of an issue. No mas.]

To: Bruce L who wrote (108095)	8/29/2008 10:48:17 AM
From: Stan J. Czernel	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 206272

Go back and re-read Frances Fukuyama's "The End of History and the Last Man. "Man" is not just a product of "reason" and "desire." As Plato argued 2300 years ago in "The Republic" (and elsewhere), Man has a third "thymotic" side that relates to subjects such as politics, nationality & patriotism, ideological and RELIGION. Ah. So let us read the Gospels and forget Fukuyama. Forgive me, but this is a bunch of pseudo-erudite gibberish. As for Socialism being discredited: Says who?

To: Bruce L who wrote (108095)	8/29/2008 2:13:47 PM
From: Archie Meeties	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 206272

"If even slight global cooling remains evidence of global warming, what isn't evidence of global warming? What we have here is a nonfalsifiable hypothesis, logically indistinguishable from claims for the existence of God. This doesn't mean God doesn't exist, or that global warming isn't happening. It does mean it isn't science." The arguement - "we had some below average temperatures, therefore global warming should be questioned" - demonstrates a lack of basic understanding of math and statistics. If the statement was "we had some persistently below average temperatures, which are significantly below trend" then we could gain some traction. But having a few months of mild weather means nothing and is just normal climate variations within a larger trend. Anybody who has worked in manufacturing or done research can see right through the bullshit of taking a small sample and concluding some type of global trend change. In any case any reader with a basic college education should recognize that the author is operating at a junior high level of science and math, should just move on to something less amateurish.