Jeff Matthews Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 wait until government gets to decide who lives and who dies and who gets to consume more than the next guy. They already do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ski Bum Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 (edited) Git 'em while they're young! Edited February 9, 2015 by Ski Bum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 (edited) My name is Dave, and I am ignorant. "Ignorance" is not a value judgment. It is a condition remedied by education. It's a GOOD thing to recognize one's ignorance as that recognition is necessary to finding a remedy. Unfortunately, one may find that the answers are available. Truth is the perfect defense. Problem is that when no clear truth is available those who are true believers on either side simply start insulting the intelligence of the other side. That ridicule is a sure sign that we are discussing matters of faith rather than science. As I mentioned earlier I am a avocational history freak. I have been studying the rise and fall of empires and cultures for decades before this debate. It shouldn't surprise an objectivist than my reaction to the hysteria on both sides is "meh." A primary cause for the barbarian incursions into the Roman empire was climate change in the steppes of Asia. The same changes caused the north African coast to be increasingly hostile to the raising of food crops that the entire Empire ran on. You still won't see any fields of waving grain there. The planet is a living thing and change is the rule, not the exception. I am not a skeptic. I consider skepticism non-scientific as it states a position up front. One can, and should, exercise skepticism for anything presented as fact or evidence, but the true skeptic remains skeptical even when all the data is available. I have, and continue to review records going back to the Ordovician and Phanerozoic and the explanations of both sides for why the earth didn't go into a Venusian holocaust with CO2 levels 10 to 20 times higher than today. Neither side can show anything like solid evidence for their position. Our science simply isn't remotely good enough to do that yet. A few years ago, 350ppm was set as the "disaster" point. Reached that, and now it's been moved to 400ppm. If the 350ppm folks were correct, then we are already doomed and if we shut down the entire grid and motor vehicles as well it would already be too little too late. Dave PS - Looked at some fascinating analysis this morning of global temperature shifts over the past few hundred millions years and the past 5000. Absolutely fascinating, with the most fascinating being how totally clueless are the attempts by either side of this battle to provide a measureable scientific analysis. All really boils down to both sides shouting at the top of their lungs: "Any idiot can see what's happening!" On that, I agree. Edited February 9, 2015 by Mallette 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Steven1963 Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 I am beginning to see more and more 'scientific' evidence to rebut the global warming data. I think this can be a healthy debate. Yes, I know there are those that will try to discredit those data by either pointing to foul sources or claiming the writer has an agenda. And perhaps they would have a point. But I wonder if they would realize that what they are complaining about is exactly what the skeptics have been complaining about, only to be met with personal attacks on both our character and our intellect? It's our Earth. Not just mine and not just yours. I don't want draconian regulation thrust upon me simply because three decades of research points in a direction that, for all intents and purposes, isn't 100% solid. The stakes are high on both sides. I'd just like a chance at some rebuttal without being shut down and given a political label like some sort of pariah and told 'it's our way or the highway.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Steven1963 Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 I would go one step further however, and postulate that the response, when one is finally formulated, would be that governments would determine how to move forward. And, that is my greatest fear. I don't think it's much to worry about. Here's why. Governments the world over are worried about the collapse of the global debt economy they created. The major economies, China, Japan, Europe and the USA, are all operating on the direction of their central bankers! Sure, there are wars and ISIS and a few thousand people getting killed here and there, but that is small potatoes, and insignificant compared to the fight to save capitalism from itself. The real news is all central bankers, all day. The world is teetering on the brink of deflation and full stop collapse. The concept of hampering consumption in any way, by anyone, with any kind of real force, is so far off the tables it can not even be seen. Yes, lots of religious people will keep up the chatter about climate change, but there is nothing - absolutely nothing - on the horizon save a few tax proposals - that will be implemented to control consumption. Every purchase, by every person on the globe is essential to keeping the debt system from full collapse. There's just no reason to think the government is going to interfere with consumption. There are two news streams here in the USA. The first is pop news on the networks and cable and whatever is left of newspapers. These shows focus on ISIS, terrorism, small ball wars, beheadings, and crime as a backdrop for the political circus. It's 100% diversionary rubbish and useless chatter to keep people occupied. Then, there is the global financial news, mostly on CNBC, the WSJ, and the general financial press. This is where the real news can be heard by regular people. This is the stage where the central bankers hang out, and the global financiers. If the world is coming to an end, this is where it will be announced. The bankers are scared out of their wits, and holding the world together with baling wire and glue. Listen to the fretting over global GDP growth numbers each month, each quarter, each year. The only temperature that matters is the economic one. And right now, it's BAD. I sense a new lounge topic should be made. I get what you are saying and believe me when I tell you I want to shout from the rooftops to everyone I know and on this site "LOOK OUT BELOW!" But I also do not want to be labeled. So I hedge and try to keep a low profile. I sense you have a lot more you would like to say on the subject and so, yes, let's start a new thread. I'll begin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ski Bum Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Hey Dave, have you read Cippola's somewhat sarcastic yet prescient piece The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity? Given your knowledge of history, I think you would really appreciate Cippola's take, which is a game theory economic analysis with tons of snark. I think you would really enjoy it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Probably would enjoy it, Ski Bum and will keep it on my radar. History is a rather large subject that, if one really considers all the information required to have anything like a chance at being accurate, you'd throw up your hands and forget about it. If you ask about the cause of say, WWI, how many people do you think would say "All the fault of Louis the Pious?" Not a lot. Yet the majority of wars between France and Germany all the way to WWII can be traced precisely to his division of the Carolingian Empire into three for his three sons, and the confirmation of this in the Treaty of Verdun (familiar place from WWI???) in 843. My world view is often reshaped from one primary source to another. "Truth," whether scientific or historic, is often illusory and subject to new evidence. Dave 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eth2 Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 (edited) Well I was driving and couldn't get any nonrepugnant radio so I was forced to listen to Rush. He confirms global warming is a myth and all those climate scientists are on the take. Case closed. Edited February 9, 2015 by eth2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimjimbo Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Last time I looked out this morning the sun was rising on a beautiful day with no sign that human extinction is any more likely today than yesterday. Wow, sorry, but that makes no sense whatsoever in the context of this discussion. I had hoped to stay out of this completely, but, to no avail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ski Bum Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Mark, you sound like one of those short sellers on zerohedge. I do agree with your elucidation of The Golden Rule (He who has the gold makes the rules) and that capitalism must be saved from it's own excesses, but not your doom and gloom conclusion. Do you think folks like Warren Buffet share your concerns? No, they're on the lookout to add devalued companies to their holdings in a long term DGI strategy. Whatever falls out of the global warming stuff on the political side, there will be tremendous opportunities. It would take exceedingly severe and unlikely events to upset the whole economic applecart. Dave, here you go. It's short. Enjoy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Wow, sorry, but that makes no sense whatsoever in the context of this discussion. I had hoped to stay out of this completely, but, to no avail. Agree. Not germane to the subject...mainly just an attempt to bring a bit of calm to the passions here. Dave 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Ski Bum, this guy is either dangerous or it is satire. Given the apparent British spellings I'd lean toward the latter as it would be in the tradition of "A Modest Proposal" and the British hard satire school. "Stupid" is not a value judgment but a condition either temporary or permanent. Certainly the primary definition is of that temporary state ALL of us experience all too often. Stupidity, from the Oxford Dictionary noun 1Behavior that shows a lack of good sense or judgment: I can’t believe my own stupidity; one of the stupidities of our age More example sentences To not reduce the retail price in the face of the facts is sheer stupidity. The planet, which was laid waste some millennia previously thanks to the stupidity of mankind, is now littered with ruins. I'm tired of the games, the stupidities, the frustrations, the dynamics, the everything. Synonyms lack of intelligence, foolishness, denseness, brainlessness, ignorance, dull-wittedness, slow-wittedness, doltishness, slowness informal thickness, dimness, dopiness View synonyms foolishness, folly, silliness, idiocy, brainlessness, senselessness, injudiciousness, ineptitude, inaneness, inanity, absurdity, ludicrousness, ridiculousness, fatuousness, madness, insanity, lunacy informal craziness View synonyms 1.1The quality of being stupid or unintelligent: a comedy of infantile stupidity The secondary definition is one of condition, something no one has control over and cannot be held accountable for. This was the first statement that suggested satire, based on the difference between the above and his piece: "Cultural trends now fashionable in the West favour an egalitarian approach to life. People like to think of human beings as the output of a perfectly engineered mass production machine. Geneticists and sociologists especially go out of their way to prove, with an impressive apparatus of scientific data and formulations that all men are naturally equal and if some are more equal than others, this is attributable to nurture and not to nature. I take an exception to this general view. It is my firm conviction, supported by years of observation and experimentation, that men are not equal, that some are stupid and others are not, and that the difference is determined by nature and not by cultural forces or factors." Ah...Uberman rears his head to save us! "Equality" isn't about intelligence or strength. It's about fundamental civilization. I'd really like to hear Mark, Jeff Mathews, Gilbert, and a few others whose take on things differs at times quite widely from mine on this pieces as a reality check. Dave 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ski Bum Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 (edited) He's Italian, although he had a stint at UC Berkeley and other US schools as a professor of economics. I think he wrote it in the late 70's, early 80's, so not only is there are cultural but time context to consider. And yes, it's completely satirical. Let it soak in a bit. It seems to me that in the context of Cippola's analysis, the Oxford definition reflects a more rationalist view that underestimates the true power of the stupid, as he described in the fourth law. Edited February 9, 2015 by Ski Bum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 And yes, it's completely satirical. That's a relief... Soaking. I don't know much about the Italian satirical tradition, but as I mentioned this is very much in the British style. Dave 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Money makers are usually dull and not very interesting to talk to. "If you're so smart why ain't you rich?" is probably one of the dumbest statements of all time. Dave 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ski Bum Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Getting that rich requires a defect in the brain. Once you reach certain tipping points on the compounding curve, getting that rich is automatic. What requires a defect in the brain is failing to realize this basic reality and acting appropriately! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billybob Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 (edited) Sortof interesting how the shale drilling is not doing so swell lately due to price of product. Saudi's benefit by the price then while Russia and Iran are left holding the bag, which is dwindling being oil producing countries. If I believed in conspiracy theories, I would say that no better way to put the pressure on Iran while at the nuclear bargaining table, and Russia being invited to leave the Ukraine. Maybe it is true that dictators will get what they deserve, in the end. ? Edited February 9, 2015 by billybob 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 (edited) Many believe it's the US and Saudi trying to sink what's left of the Russian economy. I don't know. It doesn't hurt the Saudis as their oil is in huge pools and easy to get at. They get less money, but in the long run get more as when US producers drop out (and they are...I work for the largest US drilling company) they'll be able to raise the prices again as they see fit. Dave Edited February 9, 2015 by Mallette 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billybob Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Many believe it's the US and Saudi trying to sink what's left of the Russian economy. I don't know. It doesn't hurt the Saudis as their oil is in huge pools and easy to get at. They get less money, but in the long run get more as when US producers drop out (and they are...I work for the largest US drilling company) they'll be able to raise the prices again as they see fit. Dave Yes, sure is coincidental the both US and Saudi's get what they want, maybe...from such a scenario. And yes, US oil benefits as well. In my limited opinion. Mighty curious the coincidences. Some say there is no such thing as coincidence. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 And yes, US oil benefits as well. Sure as heck doesn't benefit my company. We've stacked 50 rigs and laid of well over a thousand people in the past 2 months...and it isn't over yet. Those wells in the Eagle Ford, Marcellus, and similar shales have short producing spans and the US supply will start drying up. Weatherford, Schlumberger, Baker-Hughes, all are hemorrhaging jobs and those "boom" towns in west Texas are returning to ghost towns. Whatever is the strategy, cheap gasoline for the US isn't part of it. Dave 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts