Debt Rattle October 13 2014
- This topic has 5 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
John Vachon Gas station in Minneapolis Dec 1937 • Emerging Markets Enter Era Of Slow Growth (FT) • Global Signs of Slowdown Ripple Across Markets, Vex
[See the full post at: Debt Rattle October 13 2014]“Antarctic Sea Ice Growth Baffles Scientists” https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/antarctic-sea-ice-growth-baffles-scientists-n223796
Highest since 1979. This is what happens when you start from your conclusion instead of from the facts. Okay, to be fair, science actually starts from a “Hypothesis” against which are run experiments which prove or disprove that hypothesis. That is more or less the definition of “science.” However, one is not “baffled” when evidence does not support a hypothesis; when that occurs, such a hypothesis is said to be “disproven” or “unsupported”, and science goes back to asking another question that can be empirically tested.
However, in that virtually every climate model has failed to predict the evidence which, after 10-20 years we have collected to compare it to, it’s fairly clear that at the very least the climatological models are total crap–which is no surprise, since they fail to properly account for the largest component of warming, cooling, and weather–water vapor and cloud formation–because that process remains too complex to capture properly.
But this isn’t even a climate model. This is straightforward, measurable, empirical evidence. Which remains wrong. How discredited does a theory have to be before we can begin to ask unpopular questions about it again? And if we can’t ask questions about it, is what we’re doing even “science”? Or is what we’re measuring merely “popular opinion”?
“While the planet warms, an increase to Antarctic sea ice leaves scientists scratching their heads.”
Do you dispute that “the planet warms”? Your concluding paragraph is straw-manish.
“The precautionary principle is always trumped by the dollar.”
Why single out the PP? Just about everything is trumped by money-seeking. To end the trumping, end the game by ending money and the concept of exchange.
Yeah, let’s counter #4 on your list up there with this https://finance.yahoo.com/news/feds-fischer-foresees-smooth-u-211120063.html#
Hope ya didn’t sell your bonds into a Fed manipulation using simple jawboning as lever. Rest assured, friends of the Fed were advised well in time to profit handsomely by this maneuver.
There are three reasons cited for not sealing borders in Africa:
1. People from affected countries will still find a way to get out.
2. You can’t get supplies and help into the country.
3. It would devastate the economies of the affected countries.https://www.vox.com/2014/10/13/6964633/travel-ban-airport-screening-ebola-outbreak-virus
I’m pretty sure that No. 1 could be handled by not allowing travellers who have passports from affected countries to board planes. We could allow doctors and medical supplies to enter the country, but with a required quarantine period when they exit.
But No. 3 is I believe the kicker, the reason the borders are not being sealed: economic and political interests. The article says that the affected countries would lose billions and that the people would suffer. Hey, they were already suffering with all of this economic activity. The money has not been trickling down. Since when does that happen?
No, there is a lot of money at stake, a lot of multinational corporate money. Like everything else, the underlying reason for policies depends on whether it hurts or benefits corporations, and nothing else is considered.
I noticed that Tom Frieden’s (head of the Center for Disease Control) brother is Jeffry Frieden:
“One brother, Jeffry Frieden, is a noted international political economist and the Stanfield Professor of International Peace at Harvard University.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Frieden
A big proponent of globalization.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.