I was just reminded of how much I miss seeing Eric Bolling on CNBC's 'Fast Money' show. On today's Wallstrip chat he gives some good advice on how to trade this volatile market, his thoughts on a few commodities, talks about what makes a good trader and even mentions the foolish bet that Cramer made with him last year:
I can't respect anyone who rejects all the evidence supporting global warming. At this point it's overwhelming. I put them in the same boat as those who think the grand canyon was created in the great flood 6,000 years ago.
When was this filmed? If he's calling the Mets a short after the Santana trade and sign he has lost his mind.
Not really, Joe. There's a valid debate in cause and effect, i.e. man made vs solar. Then there's a valid debate in the cost v benefit of Gore like solutions. Increasingly scientist tracking solar activity are predicting global cooling. And Bolling's point re temperatures fluctuating is the only thing irrefutable in the debate. Three years ago ethanol was part of the solution, not it is obviously part of the problem, increasing pollution and spike food costs around the globe.
Oh, come on Joe. The "evidence" is far from conclusive with respect to anything having to do with the environment. Not to mention that *everyone* seems to have an agenda when it comes to "global warming."
Follow the money. Most of the hype is opinion and has nothing to do with science. It's all about money and power.
Consensus? Give me a break!
Good going Cramer!! I guess you cannot afford giving 50K to some Charity as promised on national TV.
What a sick bastard!
I agree with Joe.... Has he ever taken a science class???
Bolling's treatment at the hands of the interviewer is a common technique of the Global Warming (GW) crowd, swapping between the symptoms and the cause. She knew he was discussing the cause of the melting and tried to belittle his position by infering that he was crazy in not acknowledging that some warming has occurred. Whether warming has occurred or not, everyone is not crazy for refusing to accept the quasi religion of GW theory, especially because they seem to want to cram it down people's throats and not debate the facts:
1. It has predicted the end of the world was coming in ten years, and has done so for four decades
2. They keep adjusting their facts because their theories and predictions haven't matched observations for four decades, which amounts to "My hypothesis is right, even though the experiments don't seem to support it." This fact that this flies in the face of scientific method is apparently irrelevant to everyone. Try backtesting your trading system like this, I dare you.
3. Their theory boils down to: The Earth is alive, and slowly releasing carbon into the atmosphere will set off a chain reaction and kill it." Err, excuse me. How come releasing HUGE amounts of carbon all at once can't even do this? Asteroid hits and volcanoes dwarf our carbon output. Where's the run away greenhouse effect that is irreversible? Can you name a single living thing that can be slowly poisoned to death but is unharmed by a MASSIVE influx of the same "poison"? It's not that I think a theory that is based on the basic component in life causing death is unsound, it's just that there is no logical or historical basis for asserting that the earth can't deal with these imbalances when there is plenty of evidence otherwise? How come the egg heads can believe in an efficient market place mirroring the behavior of extremely inefficient beings, but cannot trust in what has historically been an efficient ecosphere?
4. Lots of carbon was good for the enviroment in the past, just ask the dinosaurs who lived in a green paradise, until a rock fell on them.
5. The polar ice caps on Mars are melting despite all the hybrids being driven by little green men.
6. Scott is right, follow the money. This movement is being driven by privledged leftists and money grabbing third worldists who think industrialization is bad, despite the fact that the only societies that protect their environments are industrialized societies. If you don't agree, take a look at the environment in Africa. We actually listen to these people, despite the fact that they have been wrong about everything they ever were involved with in the past. They were wrong about communism, free love, colonialism, social engineering, the penal system, drugs, the unimportance of the family, that men and women were equal and therefore they were somehow the same, and national defense
5. This is a religion to people who believe in nothing. They have no core beliefs, and they are therefore easily led by the beautiful people who tell them what to think. The beautiful people think the real world revolves about them and what they think. They preach about how our foreign policy has to be geared toward making other nations "like" and "respect" us, like national interests operate according to the same rules that govern grade school cliques. Frankly, the markets have a word for people who conduct their trading according to what they think rather than what they see, they are called losers.
The only 100% predictable results I see here is that allowing this theory to be politicized puts political power in the hands of the people least likely to wield it effectively to meet any challenge, an international governing body like the United Nations. If you really care about the global warming "threat," you have to ask yourself if meeting that threat is best served by underming the soverignity of the developed nations and putting their power, money and trust in the hands of the United Nations or its equivalent, something that has been shown by history to be a proven loser.
Sheesh! Imagine if he'd have said that HIV doesn't cause AIDS!
Good one Bill. LOL
Somebody once said the best humor is the truth – with the volume turned UP.
Pollution and global warming are very much worth addressing. Unfortunately, "progressives" are manipulating the debate for the sake of their own power grab and to benefit their own totalitarian impulses. Check out "Apocaholics Anonymous" for examples of similar end-of-the-world claims in the past: http://www.godward.org/commentary/Out%20of%20the%20Box/Apocaholics%20Anonymous.htm
How about "Intelligent Design" anyone?
;)
DJF
Nah... not worth it
My hat's off to Ticker. I just happened upon this website today and it's great. A special treat was Ticker posting this link which says it all about doomsday prophesies:
http://www.godward.org/commentary/Out%20of%20the%20Box/Apocaholics%20Anonymous.htm
I really can't top his act. But, my observations are this:
History repeats itself because humans never change. There is a basic human need to ignore reality and over (or under) emphasize risk. All of the doomsday authors failed to recognize that no matter how grim the reality, even if the doomsday rock was descending from the heavens, there would be some enterprising person trying to short the outcome. This is why the reality is never as dramatic as the prediction.
Anyone know what Eric is doing these days and where to find him?