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 : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (24596)	5/20/2009 9:24:18 AM
From: Hawkmoon	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

Hawkman let me explain again. The statisticians say it is a statisitical ceertainty if we keep nuclear weapons we wil use them. You're such a moron if you think you can sum up human decision making solely by the use of statistics. I suggest you rely upon game theory instead. What we have to worry about are non-governmental entities (eg: Al Qaida) getting ahold of them because they CERTAINLY would use them if given the opportunity. A nuke is nothing more than a Weapon of Mass Destruction. One could accomplish the same desired effect by setting up mass drivers in orbit and launching asteroids at various cities. In fact, the fire bombing of Tokyo in 1945 killed more people than both Fat Man and Little Boy combined. But no one remembers that fire bombing, and everyone remembers the 2 nukes we dropped. YOu really need to gain some respect for science! And you need to gain some respect for the human instinct for self-preservation. You don't start a gunfight with someone who's just as quick as you. Hawk

To: koan who wrote (24596)	5/20/2009 5:43:56 PM
From: Maurice Winn	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

Koan, you need to gain some understanding of science. <YOu really need to gain some respect for science! > Science isn't a matter of respect. Plenty of so-called science is dopey people doing dopey things. Especially in "social science". Statistics, statistics ... < The statisticians say it is a statisitical ceertainty if we keep nuclear weapons we wil use them. > As with science, you need to read numbers for meaning and causal relationships. It is NOT a statistical certainty that nuclear weapons will be used again to kill cities of people. You might recall "statisticians" saying that there is a one in 10,000 year chance of a nuclear reactor going bung. Let's assume that they meant for their good designs rather than Chernobyl efforts, but that was before Chernobyl which was also no doubt considered safe. You don't need to be much of a statistician to know that such a number as 1:10,000 years is silly. Human history took place in half that time and that included a LOT of wars, bombings, fires and destruction of an active, enthusiastic and wanton nature. "The Science" which the Greenhouse Effect doomsters refer to is not science, it's computer models designed to produce the results they want. They collect a bunch of data, poke it into a computer which they have told to process in a particular way, and, not really any surprise at all, the computer does exactly what it was told to do and produces the answer they told it to produce. They then compare the output with what really happens in the real world [which includes clouds, sun spots, chlorophyll which absorbs a LOT more light than snow or desert does]. When reality [as usual] fails to match their computer programme's prognostications, they say they need to just tweak their models a bit more. They might as well just put squiggles and arrows on a piece of A4 paper with the data written down at the top and the words "Global Warming" coming out the bottom. So far, my 1987 climate model is giving better results than their's and mine was a LOT cheaper. Mine has worked for 22 years. Mine included clouds, chlorophyll, desert cover way back then. They are just figuring out that they need to include clouds in their models. Mqurice