By the way Paul,
Just how are you opposing limitations on speech? What are you doing other than saying you oppose them?
That you equate the egregious actions of a Bill O'Reilly with the careful speech of knowledgeable researchers on climate shows a complete failure of judgement and why no serious and thoughtful person should listen to you on the subject of science.

• send a green star

Paul,
If you read carefully you will note I was not asking for financial advice but thanks for confirming that your belief in objectivism has not lent any special insight into the market.
As for speech, you are welcome to try to show that thousands of dedicated researchers across the globe and over the course of over one hundred years are wrong but, like all your other points, you will find you are wrong if you honestly look at the research rather than what business interests are feeding you.
Terry,
As to the bet that you are confused about, you wanted to know how people who predict weather, often wrong beyond a few days out, could ever successfully make long term predictions. You have not bothered to understand the difference between weather and climate so until you do you are, at best, uninformed. Why not go to a local university,look up the public lecture schedule and find out when a climate researcher is giving a talk. Then you can promulgate your opinions and see if they stand up to public scrutiny.
By the way, Terry, one of your hallmarks is to take some tidbit and blow that into complete speculation. You don't know me, my age, background, or much else about me yet seem to think I am not living in the real world. Please refrain from useless and wrong speculation and stick to careful facts while listing your sources. That you don't do this or quote from them without attribution shows a lack of character and is a good reason for people to be suspicious of you.

• send a green star

Like you, I think I too have had enough of this parrot. As you can see, he is not interested in finding common ground; it is only his way or the highway. At first I thought it was his intention to provoke intelligent discussion in drawing out each party’s position. This practice is done by many instructors in order to get their students to think on their own. Instead his only intention is to parrot methane and then pound his chest that he is great, while everyone else is stupid. Been there done that. Currently I am too old to deal with that again. Eventually, he will have to live in the real world, all I can say is I hope he can handle it.

• send a green star

Thus objectivity is blinded in favor of acceptance, like it can be blinded for money. While I agree his scientists are dedicated, the problem that it is not to science, but to money.

As well I strongly agree with your comments about free speech. Saying we all are going to die if we do not shut off the power plants is no different the yelling fire in a crowded room. However, if we shut off the power plants many will still die, immediately. The problem is they can not see that since they have no ability to see the consequences of their actions. Plus it appears that some collateral damage is to be expected. So long as they are not a victim of the collateral damage, then the damage is acceptable. The only issue I have with what you wrote is the term “Economic Upheaval”. This is the least of my concern since food shortages are bound to show long before true economic damage occurs. I am sure that this is what you intended, I just wanted to make sure that it is fully stated. If I am wrong, then I stand corrected, and await your explanation.

Part 3 of 3

• send a green star

Paul

No I have not read Sway, truth is, I had never heard of it. But now that you have mentioned it, I will look for it. While I am guessing from your comments, that I already know the contents, it will be good to have the names that go with the conditions. Most of what I know about human nature stems from observation of the animal. Except for a few differences here or there, almost all animals follow the same patterns, and humans are no different. But we can discuss more about that after I read the book.

As for the bet, what bet are you talking about? As expected, money is the only thing mentioned nothing about terms. This shows that there is a greater love of money then knowledge. You see the same thing with the facts. His whole principle is to shout down anyone that disagrees with him. If that does not work, then resort to name calling and belittling. This happens due to insecurities. He is insecure in himself and his abilities and position. Of course, this is everyone else’s fault, and never his. He hides in a pack where it is safe. As you notice, he is no longer attempting to draw us to his pack. Soon he should call others in the pack to help since he is unable to win. If in some way we are talking about blinded objectivity in order to remain part of the pack, then I would have to say, we will see it here. That is why I used the term assimilated in my previous post. Like the Borg Collective, free thinking is not allowed.

Part 2 of 3

• send a green star

Knew I forgot something,

"If you want to argue that government has no role in limiting speech than how do you handle threats to officials or the idiocy of a Bill O'Reilly advocating violence against an abortion doctor that directly leads to murder? Are you really OK with such uncivilized behavior?"

Exactly the issue, thanks. In my opinion, the discussion of global warming is dangerous speech that may cause major economic upheaval in order to fix a non-problem. If I were in power, and shared your belief in limiting speech, then talking about global warming would be banned. Since I do not believe that speech is something that falls under the gov'ts control, I would not actually do that.

There are those who would enjoy controlling the speech of others. That is the reason I oppose any restriction of speech by the Gov't. Now if an employer, association, or non-governmental entity wants to control speech on their property, cool. Shouldn't surprise you, I also believe in private property rights. Weird, here in America too.

• send a green star

Financial Advisor is a title, that should not be allowed under the regulations, but that FINRA authorized a decade or so ago. According to FINRA, Financial Advisors, AKA brokers or registered representatives, are investment salespeople who work for a broker dealer and sell investment products for a commission.

I'm an investment advisor, registered in Virginia, and work only with clients who are residents of Virginia. Investment Advisors cannot be compensated by commission and are fee-only. There is a substantial difference between the liability and the services of Financial Advisors vs Investment Advisors. Both are very valid professions and there are clients who are more appropriate for each.

Sorry I confused your meaning about free speech. Your sentence, "It is how the constitution says it works." seemed to imply that so-called dangerous speech is addressed specifically in the Constitution, which after checking, you discovered is not specifically addressed. I am well aware of the branches of Gov't and the roles of each.

Terry, I recently finished reading Sway. Excellent book that you probably already read. The authors address the difficulty that the human race has with objectivity. If you haven't read it, great book. Happy to witness the bet if you decide to take this guy up on it. Personally, I wouldn't take the bet. I don't think he'd pay, instead, probably spend a lot of time explaining how the bet he lost wasn't understood properly.

• send a green star

Marc S,

First I read too fast then I'm slow, perhaps the issue is not me, or you need to make up your mind. Friends and enemies and all in between, all would agree that slow is not a word they would use to describe me.

What makes you think I'm going to take you up on an investment conversation? In my practice, one of the advantages of being completely independent is that I choose who I wish to work with and, also, who I absolutely do not wish to work with. Figure out the market on your own.

Since others read the blogs, I will say this. I did not see the market crash coming, nor did I make any investment changes. That is also true since then. I use a boring asset allocation approach that has done well for me and my clients over the long-term. Short term fluctuations and trying to time them is a recipe for fear, frustration, and disappointment, in my opinion.

Since I got into the investment side of the business, I have always told clients that the equity portion of any portfolio could lose 50% or more in any given year and that they should not have money in equites that they might need within a ten year period. None of my clients were shocked by the market's drop and none of them, including me, liked it. But sometimes when you fly you must accept turbulence, sometimes heavy turbulence. To sell anticipating a drop is a recipe for underperformance.

And, as I am picky about terminology and meaning, I am not a financial advisor.

1 of 2

• send a green star

Terry S.,
I am going to make a prediction based on climate for next year . I am willing to bet $1000, with Paul as witness, with you regarding climate and I am 100% certain it would be like taking candy from a baby. Are you willing to put up a thousand dollars? I will even give you a day to ponder the difference between weather and climate before you lose this bet.
Your opinion as to the character of the dedicated hard working scientists being corrupted by money is not worth the writing it took to come up with. Especially as you have done nothing but speculate without any facts regarding such. You obviously have not spent any time trying to apprehend even the basic idea of the difference between weather and climate so please, before you lose a thousand dollars of money you most likely do not have, try to understand at least this basic fact.

• send a green star

Paul,
I know you are slow but re-read what I wrote and surely you can tell I was referring to the judiciary as a branch of our government under the constitution and that it is how citizens are supposed to argue for rights. The supreme court has ruled that under the constitution not all speech is permitted so your difference is with how our system works and you have already lost that argument. If you want to argue that government has no role in limiting speech than how do you handle threats to officials or the idiocy of a Bill O'Reilly advocating violence against an abortion doctor that directly leads to murder? Are you really OK with such uncivilized behavior?
Oh and to be clear I didn't ask what you believed as frankly I don't care what delusions you hold. I did ask how you deal with speech leading to violence and have reiterated my question above.
Finally, as a financial advisor did you see the market crash coming? Did you have any doubts regarding your outlook when Greenspan came out and admitted his belief that government regulation was counterproductive to the market was wrong? Especially given that he was a follower of Rand. Did you have any special wisdom that has consistently allowed you to beat the returns of an index fund? And if so, why are you not one of those Wall Street wiz kids? What has this belief in Ayn Rand's objectivism gained for you except ego without knowledge. Perhaps you should have stuck with tenor roles...

• send a green star