Debt Rattle November 12 2015
- This topic has 14 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
DPC North approach, Pedro Miguel Lock, Panama Canal 1915 • Interest Rate Swaps Indicate Big Banks Safer Than US Government (Bloomberg) • World’s Bigge
[See the full post at: Debt Rattle November 12 2015]At some point, this all gets boring. Same old, same old thing…
Having withdrawn all support from the whole system a decade ago; let it do what it will…In other news, thanks to Russia, 1M Syrians begin to return home. Europe must be PO’d about this. All this money and planning to create this crisis and get a safe zone and Russia’s trying to cut it short before critical mass? No wonder they’re enemy No. 1. How is Europe supposed to re-descend into ethnic wars with them solving stuff all the time?
How do I know? “EU Pledged to Relocate 160,000 Refugees in One Year – Results So Far, 147 in Three Months” https://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/#YrqSggI7vPr2texO.99
All 3 levels of Europe’s government are trying with all their might to help and they managed to house 1 person a day among 28 nations? Or 1 person/month/nation? Call me skeptical. But if no one can prioritize this, then why? Who does it serve to have this not work? Aaaand back to paragraph 1.The arctic? But arctic sea ice is exactly in the average midrange for this time of year.
Oh, facts. Nevermind.Dr. Diablo,
Just for the record, I assuming this is what you’re referring to:
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/The only politician who is in power and telling us the truth about Syria – and the Americans’ support of ISIS – is Putin. I suspect that his word carries a lot more weight worldwide than that of Obama
“Putin, Russia calls man-made climate change a “fraud””
https://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/putin-russia-calls-man-made-climate-change-a-fraud/
“Obama on ISIS: ‘We do not yet have a complete strategy'”
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/obama-on-isis-we-do-not-yet-have-a-complete-strategy-2015-6
Well, it seems that they did have a strategy – to destroy the secular state of Syria – and Putin called their bluff.
“Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Extent – 1979-2015”
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/sh-seaice/201508.gif
“Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Extent – 1979-2015”
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/nh-seaice/201508.gif
I guess the northern hemisphere is more important when it comes to deciding these matters. 🙂
There isn’t as much sea ice in the South because the South Pole is land, while the north pole is sea. So your right the North is far more important but what “these matters” means seems to be a loaded phrase whose meaning isn’t clear.
I think the opposing sides in the climate change debate need to agree on what data is important or otherwise retreat to their separate corners.
As always, carbon emissions reduction is needed to stop ocean acidification, if nothing else. Dr. D and Nassim, you need to show that the oceans aren’t acidifying.
rapier,
If you include Antarctica’s land ice, you get a different picture. Its sea ice largely melts in the summers:
“MELTDOWN MYTH: Antarctic ice growing is just the first EVIDENCE global warming is NOT REAL”
https://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/617144/Antarctica-not-shrinking-growing-ice-caps-melting
I just wonder how many years does this have to go on for before the “deniers” are proven to be correct? Just like for 9/11, 7/7, MH-17, ISIS and all the rest of it.
And here is the NASA original – based on satellite data:
Their scientist – Dr Zwally – is energetically trying to refute the conclusions of his own study.
“But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica’s growth to reverse, according to Zwally. “If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years — I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses.””
The level of servility in the scientific community is staggering – because they have all become civil servants and work for their governments. People like Newton, Einstein, Boyle, Darwin and so on were far more independent.
Just in case you have only been reading the MSM about Syria, it seems that the Syrian/Russian/Lebanese/Iranian coalition has liberated 2 besieged airbases in two days – Tal Al-Eis (near Damascus) and Kuweires (near Aleppo)
It would seem likely that the Russians will be moving their air-defence systems and aircraft to Kuweires so as to more easily cut off the links between the terrorists and NATO/Turkey. As soon as that is achieved, they will be eliminated. They don’t want them to escape so as to pop up in Ukraine, Yemen or Chechnya after collecting their wages.
https://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13940821000449
Barrows,
Doubtless, the CO2 in the oceans is increasing – if it is doing so in the atmosphere. Equally doubtless, it has been very much higher in the past. Nothing is static. The idea that we can manipulate our planet into some sort of steady-state is a myth.
All these international agreements are window-dressing and carbon-trading is simply another way for governments and bankers to tax people or line their own pockets.
A lot going on there. Unfortunately, all data and science have become politicized, so it IS hard to have a reasonable debate. However, debate is what science is, so we’re stuck with it until we can root out the fraud, discredit and remove them. That’s difficult when money and power decides who wins and loses, but generally the truth wins in the end because lies take a lot of energy to perpetuate. That’s why to shut down the debate: to stop having to waste resources trying to defend the lies.
Anyway, I was thinking of a sea ice chart that was much more normalized, no doubt not from NOAA. –The latest scandal at NOAA (how many do we need) had the U.S. Congress asking for their data sets and models. As a Federally-funded organization, any standard Freedom of Information act should get the records without question. They refused. Congress asked, which has the force of subpoena or contempt of court, and they still refused. Of course, Congress then rolls over and surrenders, not arresting, investigating, or defunding. But whatever. Another day, another debate without science in it; as science by definition requires providing your data and methodology to your peers up front and without question.
To ocean acidification, I don’t know much about it except the principle. However, I also know I don’t need to prove anything because we would need to know where the CO2 is coming from. Ice cores show that CO2 rises AFTER the warming, (which is counter-intuitive). But the very words “ice core” mean that CO2 has often risen with no material human action–yet it rose. Why? Ice cores also show that, like all geological action, CO2 is cyclical. Why? CO2 also later cyclically falls without human interaction. Why? If Ice-age CO2 raised ocean acidification, the oceans survived it, and it later fell and normalized. Why? Possibly we have some solar and/or earth-volcanic activity going on over those previous 100,000 years? And since we’re more or less on-schedule in 2015, can we distinguish how much human vs pre-human activity is causing a regular, predicted geological event? And that’s why I don’t have to prove acidification. What good would it do? What are humans going to do about it? Exactly nothing. China just built 140 new coal plants, but at the same time, fossil fuel use is collapsing with the economy worldwide. Arguably, the oil and coal ran out starting 2005. So, problem solved! No need for now world-wide taxation and control by people TAE have described as violent sociopaths out for their own gain. So we would give them more power and more of our money for why? Because they promise to use it right this time? Please. Look at Europe and Syria to see the results of their last promises. Ignore them. Keep your money and help matters yourself. If that involves helping research and reverse acidification, then go forth and we can prosper together.
If you observe the oceans acidifying, why wouldn’t you advocate cutting carbon emissions. I think you fellows are just cherry picking and aren’t really interested in environmental issues, which is your right.
Two reasons: one, we’re not as convinced that humans were the cause, so we’re not as certain that cutting even 100% of human emissions would help.
But more importantly, two, nobody’s going to cut their emissions a bit even if we tell them to. Even if the earth would flood or turn into Venus, nobody would cut. They’ll talk about it, they’ll have meetings with private jets and 5-star catering and discuss, they’ll create master plans that get them more money and power, they’ll lie on the carbon reporting, they’ll demand other nations act, and transfer funds, they’ll move to more deadly power sources like uranium-nuclear, but nobody’s going to cut their emissions.
Why? What does Nicole Foss say about oil? That it’s “liquid hegemonic power”? That is, it is raw economic, physical, and military force in a bottle. And to a large extent coal is the same. Telling nations to give up coal and oil, i.e. carbon, is tantamount to telling them to stop their economies, roll up their millitaries, and prepare to be conquered. Because you can be sure the next nation won’t. And every nation that doesn’t–see Russia, China, and to some extent India–will build an operational economy and military on the back of your carbon goodwill, and bury you. Foss also describes expansively how alternative energy solutions remain a pipe dream, so you’re not going to compete economically or militarily with an energy base costing 5-10x more, if indeed it can compete at all.
So sure, I could advise cutting carbon. In fact, I do, although for far different reasons, and advise cutting it far harder and in more real ways than many Global Warming believers. However, nobody is going to care what you or I think. The only people at the table are billionaires and generals. And while they’ll be overjoyed to increase your energy taxes and siphon it off to support the banks with a carbon-trading complex, further reducing your freedom and controlling our lives, they’re not going to cut their own carbon emissions.
They’re going to cut yours. Then burn it for themselves, in their wars and economies, and leave you in the cold. Not everyone is as well-meaning as you and I are. Prepare accordingly.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.