Gravity
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
You’re kidding? Gold has indestructible esthetic and market uses, and unlike legal tender, gold has permanent novelty value and universal trade utility by virtue of being recognised as an intransient product of labor throughout urban civilization.
The value of gold is irreducible because it takes effort to mine and refine, unlike the price of paper money, which may be devalued or hyperinflated away because it takes no effort to produce.
Gold has been successfully used as stable medium of exchange, store of value and unit of account for 6,500 years of urban civilization, and can never suffer hyperinflation by oversupply or collapse of confidence. Legal tender has often been reduced to waste by monetary policy, not so for precious metals.All modern legal tender has only percieved value, because it is not a product of labor. If a zero dollar bill as legal tender is in circulation at positive velocity, would it be inflationary to circulate it? The Fed seems to think so.
Gatto has excellent insights on the corporate education-ignorance complex in the book ‘The Underground History of American Education’.
Climate science is multidisciplined and multivariate, maybe too much to be exactly predictive, although all component disciplines are exact sciences, their interface in predictive models becomes inexact and ideologically malleable because of having to assign arbitrary weight to non-isolated variables.
There is a separate difficulty of science informing policy. The cost/benefit analysis of mitigation policies, even if informed by exact science, must involve a coherent framework of statistical ethics to delineate the common optimal good, but few politicians or technocrats have skills in statistical ethics, especially regarding policy effects spanning deep time.For the sake of argument, let’s assume the whole co2 rise, currently 2ppm annually, is anthropogenic and caused by some industrial output that is instantly reducible via policy.
Then at 400ppm currently, reducing emissions by 70% from current levels, disregarding gigadeath economic damage, would cumulatively yield 470ppm atmospheric co2 by the year 2113AD instead of 600ppm, which should make some difference in temperature and agricultural stability by then.
That’s likely the idea VK was quoting that institute on, the cumulative co2 buildup expected after a set period.In climate models, a relatively sudden rise in atmospheric co2 from 280 to 600ppm within a few centuries is likely to cause [or be caused by] a >2° temp rise, whereas co2 rising only to 470 ppm might still keep temp rise below 2°. Yet a 2° rise is not necessarily abnormal or destructive relative to global thermal equilibrium, this depends on whether a moderately warmer world would be a drier or a wetter world, more cloudy or less cloudy, and which positive/negative feedback normally apply in what sequence to trigger the next glaciation on schedule, and which of those feedbacks are currently misalligned.
https://www.nature.com/news/global-temperatures-are-close-to-11-000-year-peak-1.12564
Paleoatmospheric extrapolations modelling the distant past are altogether more trustworthy than predictive models projecting the near future.https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/global_temperature_co21.jpg
This graph illustrates the regular interglacial co2 respiration and global temperature correlation, the extrapolated co2 flux is highly correlated with extrapolated temperature flux. Presumably their relation was stable for 500,000 years until recently, but only within a narrow band bounded by precise feedbacks. Negative feedbacks for the co2 component seem to have failed or been overpowered recently, also some carbon sinks have been misplaced by industrial development, but temp rise is still lagging, there are unclear and unpredictable latencies in the co2/temp relation.Under statistical meta-ethics, its best to make an effort to replant a billion trees annually for several centuries to hedge bets against co2 buildup, just in case temp rise is a highly correlated function of co2 rise, whether anthropogenic or not in origin. Innovative ways of limiting co2 emissions or sequestrations that don’t cause [energy] poverty or infringe human rights can be prudent policy, but privatised carbon taxation schemes, industrial sabotage or authoritarian [eco-extremist] agendas need not be applied in any scenario.
@Ken Barrows
I’m saying predictive climatology cannot be exact science yet, too complex to model, but its akin to descriptive social science in inexactness.
I’m not trying to convince people of any specific truth, I don’t know the truth, I’m trying to convince people that the scientific truth of this matter remains open to debate, insights provided by new research must always be allowed to change the status of ‘consensus’. Climatologists have no monopoly on scientific truth, although the institution of organised science does maintain a monopoly on the instrumentality required to measure the truth.Policies with 100% prob of severe damage [to economy, human rights] should never be used to thwart any threat with less than 100% prob of damage of equal magnitude, such policies cannot be justified, much less if the magnitude of prevented damage is unquantifiable or less quantifiable than the magnitude of policywise damage.
Global population reduced to 100,000 people because of climate change? You’re overestimating the magnitude and speed of this particular existential threat. Realistically, severe climate change or biospheric collapse due to runaway warming has 0% probability of directly causing human extinction within 1000 years, even in worstcase scenario of >10° temp rise within 200 years, but it does have some high prob [close to 100%] of collapsing urban civilization in the same worstcase scenario, and this would likely reduce human population to less than a billion.
A >10° temp rise within 200 years has <0,5% prob of materialising by anthropogenic lukewarming trends, but despite humans being exceedingly adaptive, such an extreme temp rise could cause human extinction after a period of 10,000-50,000 years of intractable and unmitigated biospheric collapse, but likely not sooner or with less severe warming.
Other existential threats such as global thermonuclear war do have >0% prob of causing human extinction this century.Also, from the article;
“Rogoff & Reinhart have been discredited, so the government can now simply pile on the debt without a care.”This was the paper on thresholds for debt to gdp ratio, at some point public debt becomes unsustainable and mathematically certain default ensues. As I recall the paper calculated this to be at 80% debt to gdp ratio for an average country according to historical examples.
But its results, the identified thresholds for certain default, were only discredited because of a calculation error, some threshold below 200% debt to gdp would still cause mathematically probable default in most countries.
@Ken Barrows
We’ve had this discussion before,
you mentioned previously you wanted to commit to preemptive industrial sabotage to prevent warming, causing certain damage in order to prevent possible damage. My reply contained counter arguments to dissuade climate fanaticism. You should re-read it.
https://theautomaticearth.com/index.php?option=com_kunena&func=view&catid=15&id=7200&Itemid=96#7234Ken Barrows post=7600 wrote: Gravity,
So, 97% of climatologists are unscientific?Most scientifically illiterate people approach the subject irrationally and unmethodically, not knowing the process of testing hypothesis and falsification, while climatologists are often ideologically biased towards a preset conclusion, mentally formatted by years of climate indoctrination, or financially pressured into falsifying research. Remember climategate?
As mentioned, a non-scientist family member felt that reducing co2 output was important, without knowing what co2 is. Mass media induction inculcated this belief.
Only an irrational and mystical belief system can produce this conformity, making people believe things they cannot understand.
This kind of unquestioning belief is dangerous when exploited.Ken Barrows post=7600 wrote:
Anyway, we’ll know how the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis stands up soon enoughNot without the possibility of falsification, we won’t.
If unusual warming is happening, the fact of this warming may be established beyond reasonable doubt, but the cause of warming cannot be inferred from non-falsifiable assumptions.
If instead of greenhouse effects, the earths crust was warming
and this was creating all observed effects, including the bulk of co2 increase and warming oceans, climatologists would not soon observe this, since they remain biased towards a singular conclusion and are not measuring elsewhere.Ken Barrows post=7600 wrote: You do realize that you’re just looking at surface temperatures and not mentioning that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are rapidly warming the oceans and rapidly melting the ice, right?
If the oceans are indeed warming or ice is melting more than usual
at this point in an interglacial flux,then something abnormal is causing this effect, but not necessarily greenhouse gasses.
Other plausible causes for warming and co2 increase may be abnormal solar and geothermal effects. We haven’t been directly observing this planet and the external influences on it long enough to know whats abnormal in this regard.TonyPrep post=7601 wrote: Gravity, check the data.
Surface warming has continued since 1998, though much more slowly.The fact that observed warming has not met expectations for uncertain reasons at least reveals that the modelling of temperature sensitivity is flawed or incomplete. The paper I linked to mentioned as much.
TonyPrep post=7601 wrote:
However, total warming has accelerated
as the oceans have taken up an increasing proportion of the heat.The heat-sink effect and oceanic thermocouplings are complex, the surface area of oceans is probably warming a bit, and acidifying, yet the deep oceans may be cooling, but any surface warming of oceans is not provably anthropogenic yet.
TonyPrep post=7601 wrote:
This lack of warming meme has been repeated so many times than the repeaters are actually beginning to believe it. Check out the facts, not the wishes.Repeat an assertion often enough and people may be pressured into believing it, especially when repeated by public authorities as internalised value system, but the same goes for the anthropogenic arguments, only more strongly.
Checking the measured facts directly is impossible for non-climate professionals, one relies on interpretation of datasets and modelling of correlated variables by specialised people. Climatologists’ livelihood depends on continuous funding based on politically sustaining the threat of climate change regardless of veracity, so they are likely unconsciously biased. But I’m not looking at big oil or big coal for unbiased sceptic arguments either.@Ilargi
The UN is probably the most biased and corrupt authority on climate change out there, they are intent on ideological climate indoctrination for exploiting collectivised guilt and not interested in scientific truth seeking, do you know about agenda 21?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzEEgtOFFlM
Look at this map from agenda 21 ‘mandated’ land-use protocols;
https://www.wrsc.org/attach_image/simulated-reserve-and-corridor-system-protect-biodiversity
Not to use such ecofascist ideas as strawman, its says nothing about the truth or untruth of climate change/biosphere collapse by itself, it does indicate how far some people are willing to go to protect biodiversity, using supranational mandates beyond democratic debate to infringe on human rights.
Agenda 21 comprises an international ecofascist agenda
to collectivise all biospheric resources, for private exploitation, and lock up the entire global population in megacity prisons under the guise of sustainable development, to ‘save the planet’. I’ll never trust the UN on any climatewise topic again.Here are the usual graphs to put the term ‘highest ever recorded’ into perspective. This is an interglacial period, increasing temperature, retreating glaciation and melting permafrost at this point in the cycle may be entirely natural, since the last ice age ended only 15,000 years ago, or is still ending. The only thing that is clearly abnormal in this cycle is the abrupt increase of atmospheric co2, far beyond its usual flux.
https://rogerfromnewzealand.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/global-temp-co2-over-geological-time1.jpg
https://www.biocab.org/Geological_Timescale.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Evidence_CO2.jpg
VK’s assertion, as informed by institutional climatology, is that co2 emissions must reduce by 70% within a decade to prevent a full 2° rise from pre-industrial levels, an increase which would likely be disruptive to ecosystems and agriculture.
But if all previous emissions in the past 150 years of the industrial age, presumably amounting to 120ppm increase atmospheric co2 from industrial origin, from 280 to 400 ppm, have by now caused less than a single degree warming, how can the next decade of maybe 20ppm expected rise cause an additional 1° temp increase? And when is this increase supposed to happen? Runaway feedbacks are by definition non-linear and their absolute threshold parameters are not modellable from the randomly chaotic stochastic observables in a planetary atmosphere.
Thermal inertia of the biosphere might delay observable effects of emissions to warming by 50 years or more, but then how can we be certain of direct causality if we cannot gauge the period of this inertia?Anthropogenic global warming is technically falsifiable, it just takes centuries of direct controlled observations to properly isolate the variables. If we were to shut down all industry and reduce direct co2 emissions by 100%, then if co2 rise and warming stops after 50 years or so, we would be more than 50% certain of incident causality. If we then restart all industry and begin emitting co2 at previous levels, and co2 rise and warming reappears, we would be 99% certain of direct anthropogenic casuality. Yet any method of ceasing all emissions to causally isolate the co2 variable from the temperature variable would be impractical on a global scale. Its still possible that temperature rise precedes co2 rise, also triggering feedback loops, and that this initial temp rise is non-anthropogenic in origin.
On a related topic;
https://www.tuberose.com/ChemTrails.html
https://chemtrailalert.nl/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/chem.nasa_.gifWhat in the world are they spraying?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf0khstYDLAWhy in the world are they spraying?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEfJO0-cTisUnder clandestine weather modification/geoengineering,
all predictive climate models are rendered obsolete!If a zero dollar bill as legal tender, of nominal value zero, attains positive velocity in circulation, is this inflationary? If at positive velocity, would the fractional value assigned to this bill naturally approach the real interest rate?
If global gdp is 65 trillion, why is the money supply not also 65 trillion, wouldn’t that be precisely enough to pay for all traded goods and services? Why would an excess of credit above the global gdp value be necessary?
“Fossil fuel use needs to decline by 70pc in 7 years to prevent a 2C rise per the Tyndall climate centre at Manchester University as carbon accumulates in the atmosphere for a century!!”
https://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100095506/there-has-been-no-global-warming-since-1998/
This warming hypothesis involving absolute predictions has been partially invalidated, there’s been no discernible atmospheric warming for over a decade despite co2 going up another 10 ppm. The far simpler science of meteorology is unable to provide accurate weather forecasts even three days out, because atmospheric interactions are too complex for modelling certainties.https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/pnas-201102467.pdf
The above paper mentions that a recent lowering of stratospheric water vapor and increased sulfur emissions may account for the lack of warming, according to arbitrary sensitivities assigned to model these components. Instead the entire hypothetical mechanism of co2 induced warming may be unsound, but climate researchers could never attest to such ideas lest they lose their livelihoods.Water vapor has a higher infrared absorption, potentially a greater greenhouse gas, but no concern over fluctuating levels of water vapor in the atmosphere, since its not effectively taxable by being coupled to all activities in the human economy, and not suitable to fool people into thinking its a waste product with linear functions of catastrophe.
Meanwhile, the sky over here was again filled with artificial cloud covering, aircraft chemtrails, this morning, as usual blocking 10%-15% of sunlight and greatly reducing photosynthesis, likely inducing an eventual temperature-independent rise in co2 that isn’t modelled. In regards to the massive clandestine weather modification programs influencing the measurements of coupled variables in climatology, all climatological models have become obsolete and yield no predictive functions. None of the relevant variables can be properly isolated, calibrating the sensitivity of feedbacks to reveal climate thresholds is merely guesswork under these conditions.
Retreating glaciation and melting permafrost, insofar as these effects are held to be abnormal compared to other interglacial periods, may not be caused by a warming atmosphere at all, but could instead be caused entirely by ice albedo reduction due to soot, and the warming of the earth’s crust due to solar neutrino flux accelerating radiometric decay in the mantle. Warming of the earths crust can probably cause a rise in atmospheric co2 by itself.
Most climate believers approach the anthropogenic warming hypothesis from a framework of mysticism induced by neuroleptic propaganda instead of scientific rationality and analytic discernment.
A family member mentioned how important it is to reduce co2 output. When questioned on co2, said family member did not know what co2 is, they did not know that its an atmospheric trace gas produced as byproduct of combustion with properties of infrared absorption or part of the photosynthesis cycle. They didn’t even know that its gaseous.As normally well-informed people may be unquestioningly convinced of the need of reducing co2 without even knowing what co2 is, due to aforementioned climate propaganda, for most people this belief in anthropogenic warming remains fundamentally irrational and unscientific, only supported by the powerful allure of collectivist morality and constant appeals to scientific authority as moralising priesthood.
The marginal cost of oil extraction is becoming crushingly high, that much is clear. At current efficiencies and automotive intensities, the average western economy stalls at 90-120$ per barrel.
https://gmojeopardy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/gmo-non-gmo-corn-comparison.jpg
This basic comparison of nutrient content in roundup ready corn vs regular corn cannot be methodologically flawed as much. Roundup destroys nutrient content completely wherever its used.
In addition to being devoid of nutrients, the plant samples grown on soil saturated with roundup for a decade show an extraordinary level of deadly formaldehyde, a known carcinogen, maybe a byproduct of metabolising the glyphosate?
Glyphosate, the active ingredient of roundup, is a highly carcinogenic chemical chelator, disrupting metabolic pathways in exposed organisms by binding and draining vital nutrients, destroying weeds and soil microbes most effectively. Roundup-ready corn is genetically unstable and mutagenic even without exposure to roundup herbicide, but only becomes nutritionally depleted [and maximally carcinogenic] when exposed to roundup itself or grown on roundup-ravaged soil.
https://research.sustainablefoodtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Final-Paper.pdf
https://www.businessinsider.com/monsantos-roundup-and-resistant-corn-found-to-be-toxic-2012-9
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19654825
The paper involving mice fed with roundup corn and developing tumors seems solid enough. The propensity to develop mammary tumors may be inherently elevated in the mice variety used, and the sample small, as critics suggest, but the results are too significant to ignore; the control group remains relatively free of abnormalities while the roundup group mostly suffers massive tumors, metabolic damage and terminal organ failure within 120 days. The researchers also note kidney damage occuring with roundup-polluted water at below legal toxicity limits. Besides the tumors, the mice variety used is not known to develop kidney damage from drinking water.
Crops exposed to roundup are insiduous chronic poisons with vastly reduced nutritional value and overall reduced yields. All use of roundup herbicide and roundup-ready crops should be banned.
Additional research is desirable but ultimately unnecessary to determine the acute and chronic hazard of gmo crops in general; its safe to assume that all gmo foodcrops produced thusfar are inherently mutagenic and metabolically disruptive due to unstable transgenetic expressions yielding rogue genes.
Internet monitoring is somehow seen as less intrusive, even having your private emails read [algorithmically] is tolerated by too many people. The software terms and conditions no one ever bothers to read do often trick into relinquishing protected privacy over digital communications, mostly for commercial purposes. As most human behaviour and social interactions are now commercialised, and the private commercial data is trafficked back and forth between agencies and corporate, being spied on for commercial purposes by corporations is no less invasive and destructive than being spied on directly for purposes of political persecution. It all ends up being used against you.
Warrantless wiretapping of telephones, being obviously criminal, is a step too far for most. Its not just that your phone calls are recorded and indefinitely stored for automated voice analysis, keyword searches and political blackmail, but intelligence agencies can use all phones as microphones to listen live to the conversations in your home. I should know, I’ve received confirmed feedback [targeted ads and such] from private conversations I’ve had in peoples homes which cannot be overheard or monitored except by cellphones which aren’t even in use. You wouldn’t have believed me before PRISM broke, but I assure you, this is happening.
https://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/03/petraeus-tv-remote/
The CIA’s professional psychotics now say they’ll install microphones in all household appliances to terrorise you good and proper. Even the new Xbox is an integrated NSA enabled spying platform, will monitor [by mandatory motion sensors] how many people are in your living room to allocate licencing fees, and listen to conversations to target commercial advertisements or a droning of your dissident family.
If you’re not concerned about PRISM, ignore this post and go lick the hand that gropes your privates.
The markets are irrelevant for your profitability, all your financial transactions are monitored and intercepted for insider trading and manipulation, you cannot gain anything openly or anonymously that will not be stolen by the tyranny, you cannot hide your equity.
Absense of financial and commercial privacy destroys all propensity to novelty.If no legal recourse would remain to reestablish a constitutional rule of law to protect citizens private lives, every citizen ought to be willing to die in political protest to ensure general privacy, and to a lesser extent, should be willing to kill the government [intelligence capacity] to ensure their own privacy, if that would help.
Many of you do not realise what has happened to the ideals of liberty, how close we are to the largest instantaneous genocide in history. Most americans who are not willing to suffer tyranny or collaborate are certainly targeted for elimination during the collapse in the US.
An inevitable dollar collapse causing at least half a billion starvation deaths worldwide by cascading logistical collapse is the only remaining reason the federal regime should not be overthrown immediately.
Otherwise, if dollar collapse is guaranteed already, an immediate 2nd civil war against the federal regime is the only reasonable recourse to limit casualties domestically due to this dollar collapse, providing domestic casualties would be initially limited to 20-30 million when DC is overthrown, less than would otherwise be murdered by the tyranny.The PRISM program alone, by directly facilitating preparations for genocide, would move the founding fathers to revolutionary recourse, even if no other transgressions were committed by government tyranny, this alone would be enough to justify their plight.
Join the resistance in their noble pre-violent struggle to kill DC or get out of the way to avoid collateral damage. A hypothetical ultimatum for legitimate self-defense is in order; if DC does not voluntarily dismantle its intelligence capacity by the 21st of june 2014, all DHS assets, FEMA camp sites, threat fusion centres and data aggregates will be hypothetically rendered legitimate military targets for sabotage and destruction. Throw the body patriot onto the machinery to stop the COG from turning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Core
Don’t take this to be overly paranoid, but
I have no [perception of] personal privacy and do not expect to regain it during my lifetime. I’ve personally been under constant surveillance since 2009 or so, not just digital, auditory but visual surveillance, facilitated by intelligence agencies in conjunction with private corporations, who I’ve come to hate passionately. If I thought it would stop the tyranny for others, I’d be willing to personally die or kill to stop this, in lieu of more legitimate self-defense or political protest.On at least one occasion, I’ve been harrassed by local freemasons who know who I am and what I write on this very blog, which is only possible by sustained criminal invasion of my privacy. Esoteric hierarchies are an integral part of this global surveillance tyranny, and I hold a minor world record for self-initiation which annoys some of them.
I’ve come to understand that initiation is corruption. Initiation does not entail corruption, initiation is corruption. Lightwise, it should be purification, but its quite the opposite in political terms.Esoteric hierarchy is principally incompatible with democracy, all who swear secret oaths of fidelity cannot [be trusted to] uphold public oaths unconditionally and cannot be citizens in an open society, expect maybe in a stateless society. All institutional manifestations of the mysteries can be made politically corrupt and corruptive, and must be purged of political extremism if possible. The mysteries themselves, being a multidimensional recursive algorithm embedded in the nature of reality, cannot be destroyed, but their institutional structures can be persecuted into oblivion if need be, if revealed as intractably extremist. The only benefit of the doubt afforded to modern freemasonry as an organisational structure is their historical persecution by authorities, such as by the nazi syndicate, which has two possible reasons, one of which might render them more sympathetic in resistance to tyranny.
I used to believe esoteric societies and occult hierarchies might be unique among institutions by deliberately avoiding the formation of clustered sociopathy and gross abuses of power, but I”m not so sure anymore. All institutional structures are more conductive to evil than to good unless constantly reinformed by a moral memory, but no institutional memory seems safe from corruptive pressures from the state and markets. Maybe a stateless society could produce ideological dynamics that don’t corrupt institutional morality.
As there is no state-enforced separation of power possible within esoteric structures, precisely because of their protected privacy, it remains problematic that intelligence communities actively recruit from esoteric hierarchies, and esoteric hierarchies recruit from all branches of government, producing a democratically erosive convergence of interest between branches, and conflict of interest between public and private oaths without oversight or accountability.
Charity is only possible as a private function, omnipresent oversight by moralising authorities renders true moral volition impossible.Would demonstrative self-immolation help to fight for privacy?
At this point, I’m willing to set myself on fire in the town square if this would motivate people to care about privacy, but the point would likely be lost on them.Give me privacy or give me Gravity!
On the american front, PRISM is revealed as the largest surveillance program in human history, intercepting and storing the contents of all [digital] telecommunications of billions of people worldwide for decades.
Apologists of this diabolical NSA crime against humanity invariably exhibit signs of deep terror psychosis and engage in politically extremist speech utterly destructive of those ends of liberty.
Public advocation of this integral destruction of privacy, inflicting grievous mental harm against all citizens, is an act of criminal collaboration with the federal regime.Besides being used for the usual purposes of wholesale market manipulation and political persecution/blackmail, the PRISM program is also another preparation for genocide on the american people. The shadow government is compiling convenient purge lists for systematic extermination of tens of millions of dissidents/resistors during the civil war/collapse.
Political and personal privacy are requisite for cognitive liberty and moral volition, regardless extenuating circumstances of terror psychosis, those who advocate the destruction of privacy are a threat to democracy and personal liberty and mortal enemies of the republic.
Under soviet relativity,
light bends you!prismplanet.com
Compound interest earned by loaning out credit created from nothing is usury. There is no greater degree of usury possible. This distinction unequivocally renders this debt dominion inequitable.
A monopoly on credit creation also promotes the coercive conditions for inextinguishable debt and mathematically inevitable bankruptcies at all levels of commerce, allowing a credit monopoly to easily consolidate productive collateral in times of contraction, perhaps with malice aforethought.Compound interest earned by loaning out pre-earned money can be equitable, especially to fund productive consumption. The debtor should compensate the creditor for delayed utility of loaned money, its clearly unprofitable to loan out money at zero interest under expectations of inflation.
Compound interest also forces the money supply into perpetual inflation to maintain stability, it seems modern credit systems are ideally stable under a measure of real inflation higher than the targeted interest rate, gradually impoverishing non-savers and many savers alike. Its not just the debtors financing the benefits of such interest accruing to creditors.
In this system, any prolonged deflation will cause cascading defaults and dissolve the credit supply, this instability is not intrinsic to money itself, specie coinage didn’t have this problem.
Not all forms of compound interest are usurous, but the banking systems use of interest-bearing credit loans conjured from nothing [or fractionally derived from grossly overvalued collateral] is outrageously usurous, the financial sectors consolidating leverage over private and public assets by creating inextinguishable debt is a menace to society.
Also, perpetual growth is only awkwardly bounded if defined by metric expansion, the spatial growth of cities, the mass-volume of global trade or waste heat dissipation for instance, but really, growth is the value of life appreciating.
Compound interest has one pertinent failure-function in this predicament;
if aggregate production fails to grow commensurately with the metric expansion of credit/debt, the money supply self-saturates and crashes into debt-deflation with mathematical inevitability.The article on debt dominion presumes the econometric volume of goods and services is sufficiently motivated to grow by interest earning alone, which is false under relativity of equity and capital gravity.
It is true that all economic activity is leveraged on a marketable food surplus, credit is principally leveraged off accountable food storage historically. But creditors’ compounding purchasing power only retains equity if allocated to increase food production proportionately to credit flow, otherwise capital formation would price debtors out of the food market, or something.
Under global hyperbolic marketing,
price functions are composed of two value gradients; equity and novelty.
The principles of equity and novelty govern all value in the universe,
integrating analytic and dialectic utility of all possible ontological mutables in the eternal cycle of revaluation.
All utility functions are bounded by value gradients of equity and novelty. Equity is compiled from fairness/justice, all equity is fair, otherwise its plunder.Relativity of equity predicts price dilation and utility contraction at sufficiently accelerated velocity of money, yet price curvature of a monetary surface allows no ideal free market to exist at sub-infinite monetary velocity.
In an actual market-fluid, a single penny in circulation produces hyper-inflation at infinite velocity, yet infinite money causes no inflation at zero velocity. Price curvature is relative to velocity, delineating supply/demand ratios. Money becomes unmoveable at sufficiently high equity, unmarketable waste at sufficiently low equity, money has zero novelty value inherently, except in pricing power.Due to the relativity of equity, death can only be a marketable product if assigned a constant value of sufficient novelty, thus completing the set of marketable mutables as countably infinite, yielding universal fair value.
Assume a spiral rotating in a circular motion,
with the centre everywhere and the parameter everywhere on average, especially intersecting the centre.You are feeling very recursive.
When you awaken, you’re a mortal living algorithm.I’ve had enough of the avarice of political economy, they can go misallocate themselves.
Representative government has failed to seize monetary policy and take it away from the malicious mismanagement of banking technocrats, therefore guaranteeing financial, commercial and political collapse in swift succesion.
Its no longer profitable to pretend that megabanks and political parties are opposing power parasites, both are now reduced to feeding off the host society by similar mechanisms; inextinguishable debt and structural poverty as means of violent coercion. The average credithead political party is not trying to fix the problem, its more profitable for bloated bureaucracy to perpetuate the dying system to the point of toxic debt-shock. Even if politicians understood the monetary disease, they’re themselves ideologically insolvent, products of multigenerational misallocation.The dutch senate recently gave the central bank here a multi-billion euro bailout, explicitly guaranteeing future losses by maximising moral hazard. The cartels trashy investments in southern europe might expose their precious profits to systemic risk, our representative cowards couldn’t help but collaborate in funding the private exploitation of the money supply with public funds.
Afterwards, the central bank’s analysts managed to argue that the banking sector does not contribute to the rising public debt.
Bless their insolvent souls!Financial oligarchy is everywhere reverting to its natural adaptive state of criminal oligarchy to optimise extraction of the dying host’s vital fluids before coagulation and rigor mortis sets in.
Mediawise psychological warfare brutalises the population into pliant submission, while financial feudalism and corporate fascism works through the legislative to rob them blind. Technotronic tyranny is being compiled to enforce paralytic poverty and murder democracy during the collapse the money malice has accidentally precipitated, so enabling criminal overrule by the most guilty and facilitating any means of orderly killoff of the unpacifiable citzenry lest wrathflation overtake them.Some day, publicly advocating the very idea of central banking will be considered incitement to genocide.
I heard Bernanke is writing his autobiography entitled ‘Obsolete Assumptions’, including a chapter on ‘Monetary Megadeath’.
Ben did teach me the meaning of charity, though. Go figure.I think, therefore I am an algorithm.
To be is to bend light
[to be perceived by the magnitudes of field curvature].
Therefore ‘to weigh thyself’ is only possible
by the relativistic mass of the other.All energy consists of motivated field potential, all separate fields are immaterial and produce only unreal events. Field interactions, intersecting states of similitude, may only produce a sequence of real events within the boundaries of a gravitational continuum. The proximal beginning of time is therefore an unreal event encompassing the set of all possible real events, algorithmic ideation of this unreal event yields an efficient continuous cause of real events.
Algorithms are wholly immaterial or include immaterial elements, but all cognition is algorithmic, consequentially, certain truthlike cognitions do not proceed from the past and have no efficient cause in real events.
All knowledge is causally derived from sensory experience of the empty set. The past is the empty set {}.
Orbits tend to decay, debris fields are easily perturbed, and we wouldn’t want to have this waste rain back down or contaminate other planets/future colonization sites by launching it haphazardly in any direction.
First, I believe that the nuclear industry of this world should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this century is out, of launching 100,000 metric tons of nuclear waste into the sun and returning radiometric safety to the Earth. No single space project/nuclear disposal program in this period will be more redeeming to industrial mankind, or more important for the long-term organic coherence on this planet; and none will be so expensive to accomplish without making matters worse.
We must eliminate any chance this waste could threaten anyone again, inside the solar system or outside. The largest rockets yet designed may carry a waste payload of 50 metric tons and hold enough fuel to reach the sun’s corona, where they would disintegrate, safely diluting and dispersing the waste by solar winds in all directions. Thus we would need thousands of expensive rocket launches to get rid of the bulk of waste, within two centuries this would exceed the budgeted $10 trillion in costs, and this method remains too volatile, odds being at least two or three of the launches would produce contaminant calamity.
Thus the soylent space program has been revised to rely on a fleet of cheaper and less volatile reusable lower orbit space planes capable of conventional liftoff and landing, to carry about 5 tons of nuclear waste per payload [at transportation and liftoff costs of $4,000,000 per metric ton] up to an automated orbital processing station [costing $1 trillion over two centuries in [dis]assembly and maintenance costs]. The nuclear waste is there to be loaded into zero-g assembled rockets [or compacted into neutronium composite shells], to be launched directly into the sun by chemical/ion engines [or magnetic railgun delivery].
At least 200,000 metric tons of the worst waste may be processed this way, utilising contemporary technology, in an international soylent space program spanning a projected two centuries at global costs of about $8 trillion, merely $40 billion per year, to be proportionately financed by the largest producers of this waste. Considering cumulative risk-concentration of eon-wide planetary containment in soylent storage sites, offworld disposal is the least hazardous nuclear waste disposal plan, having a definite termination schedule with definite [high] completion costs.
This plan is the only one that doesn’t make matters worse, and that allows for a finite budget and completion schedule, yet it is doubtful the program can be scaled quickly enough within this century to process waste faster than it is produced.
Radiometric safety will never be returned to the earth by burying 350,000 tons of nuclear waste in the ground.“The IAEA estimated the total amount of discharged spent nuclear fuel to have risen to around 345,000 metric tons (380297 tons) in 2010…”
It seems most convenient and conscionable to dispose of 350,000 tons of radioactive waste by loading it piecemeal onto space-capable rockets to be sent offworld. An international program of rocket space flights capable of transporting said cargo all the way into the sun for instant disposal should only take a century or two to complete, costing about $7-9 trillion, including transportation, security, mission and launch costs at an average of $20,000,000 per metric ton waste. However, given optimal risk-dispersed payload per rocket, hundreds of supersized rocket launches would be required, carrying a few dozen tons of waste per launch, budgetary resource requirements of the program should eventually surpass that of the total space-flight activity of all nations thusfar.
There would also remain a minor chance of catastrophic contamination if one of the rockets accidentally exploded inside the atmosphere, no more than 0,08% probability per launch, yet the cumulative probability over several hundred individual launches is still smaller than the cumulative probability of catastrophic contamination by inevitable disposal site breaches over many eons.
If launch costs become much cheaper its definitely an option to dispose of radioactive waste this way, no more insane or costly as a disposal plan than what is proposed elsewhere, and allowing for a definite termination schedule.
Also, this paper on existential risk mitigation has some insights on quantifying the possible benefits of prudent radioactive waste management and the possible costs of imprudent management.
https://www.existential-risk.org/concept.htmlFor nuclear waste disposal purposes, its cheapest by far to load concentrated radioactive waste onto space-capable rockets and launch into the sun, even at average launch costs of 20,000$ per kilogram waste. The only drawback is the significant probability that such rockets may malfunction and explode inside the atmosphere, being exceedingly bad contamination-wise.
For the projected costs of safeguarding all nuclear waste in perpetuity, physical laws allowing, it would likely become cheaper and require less effort to develop space-bending wormhole technology and dump said waste straight through into the other end of space, or construct an artificial singularity to absorb waste as needed, resultant hawkings radiation may be bonus power source. Or maybe nanobots could be programmed to eat the stuff and poop gold.That’s techno-triumphalism, gives me a tingly feeling despite knowing better, but the rocket idea is feasible and may actually be less risky than leaving such waste in disposal sites to randomly catch fire or crack open by earthquakes in perpetuity. There doesn’t seem to be any truly safe place on this planet to hide such waste for thousands of generations. The nuclear industry has surely produced the largest externalised waste stream of all economic history. The potential for global radioactive pollution remains an existential threat to all multicellular life.
Assuming population levels remain above 7 billion over this period, and given realistic estimates of contaminant vectors, the fukushima furies, if left unmitigated, will cause a projected 100 million deaths globally over the next 100 years, resulting in 300 million total deaths over the next 1,000 years, with many more sickened or maimed. Its the worst industrial catastrophe in history, even conservative long-term casualty projections surpass the combined casualties of all wars of the past 1,000 years. Healthwise, the entire nothern half of japan ought to be evacuated and declared econometrically uninhabitable.
Nassim post=7301 wrote: I do not subscribe to the viewpoint that there is a fixed amount of labour needed in the economy – far from it.
I agree, there’s something called the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy which I sometimes fall prey to, but the natural demand for labour tends to settle itself in a dynamic equilibrium relating to supply and demand factors of credit and capital goods, and there are correct and incorrect ways to change/force this equilibrium.
Nassim post=7301 wrote:
I do believe that if small companies (fewer than 10 employees) were allowed total exemption from these labour laws and companies with fewer than 100 people given something much less onerous, the whole dynamic would change.You might be right, but again, there are incorrect and damaging ways to change the labour equilibrium, which my deflationary inturnship premise pertains to. Monetary aggregates or industrial throughput might be disturbed in unforseen ways by changing labour costs in the wrong way.
The cost of labour is too high for small business, but the general cost of living is also becoming crushingly high for employees.
Overly expensive labour may not be exclusively caused by overprotected labour rights, costly administrative burdens are also imposed by government without directly improving employees or business’ position. There are myriad taxes levied on all stages of production and consumption, sometimes with deeply negative fiscal multipliers, actively shrinking the economy so that government spending the tax money cannot compensate for the initial damage.In holland there’s a minimum wage, enough to afford a decent standard of living. I’m not sure if france currently has one, but imposing a minimum wage obviously has huge influence on the labour dynamic. Lowering minimum wage right now would likely exasperate deflationary wage-price spirals, but some countries have recently increased their minimum wage, maybe to boost consumer spending, although it may also lower business’ profit margins or job availability at first.
Its also a problem that big business consistently outcompetes small business by state-sanctioned monopolisation and structural tax evasion. Monolithic business has altogether drained past decades’ productivity gains away from the public good and treasury towards shareholders, crowding out marketspace for smaller competitors while their methods of globalised outsourcing contribute far less to domestic job availability than viable small business would.
Any method that small business might employ to reduce the cost of labour should be allowed, only without reducing net income or basic economic security for (settled) employees, these ends ought not be contradictory.
Its just important to realise that people in most of the west are financially so close to the edge that ‘take-home’ pay or job security/loan eligibility cannot be further reduced for the masses without completely collapsing consumer spending, home purchases and business startups.
I still contend that this phenomenon of coerced inturnship is reducing net pay and job security for too many people at once, generating another deflationary impulse we don’t need.Nassim post=7298 wrote: Frankly, it has become so expensive and risky for small companies to take on anyone in France that it is quite understandable. The “rights” which employees have are totally out of line.
I get that part of the equation, there’s been much talk of overprotected expensive labour, its resulted in diminished labour protection/rights in recent years. In holland they call it ‘flexibilising of labour’, shortening the duration of unemployment benefit payouts [partially paid for by employers] indexed to one’s previous wage, and making it easier for business to lay people off, allowing for less risky expansion during growth and maintaining profit margins if business contracts. In those ways where labour rights are out of control, such flexible labour should increase job availability.
But it has a huge downside; this arrangement shifts business risk onto the employee away from the employer, banks and other lenders increasingly see flexible job arrangements as an income security risk for the employee, making them risky or ineligible for mortgages or loans. Housing sales here dropped another 20% yoy last month, in part because there are too few mortgage-eligible people with permanent jobs left.
As you said, at least the quasi-monopoly of government should be able to maintain expensive permanent positions, but even they are switching out civil servants for [less skilled?] inturns, for greatly diminished pay and rights.
If I interpret correctly, That french law does prohibit permanently filling vacancies related to normal business activity with temporary positions, but just that is happening here. Not just unforseen business activity or rapid expansion is supplemented with inturns, long-existing permanent positions are suddenly substituted for inturns simply to cut wage costs.
It does confer an advantage to such business, but it seems to damage other parts of the economy.The phenomenon of inturnship seems to be growing explosively here, and it will be deflationary if overscaled inturnship undercuts [minimum] wage, pressing down average wage, causing prices to drop and other business to fail by collapse in aggregate demand and lack of disposable income. In addition, insolvency of pension schemes will accelerate if inturns aren’t forced to pay into that.
One of the results of overly high minimum wage is lagging business expansion and lack of available jobs, but it wouldn’t do to lower minimum wage during a deflationary depression, its exactly the wrong method to boost employment, only deepening a deflationary wage-spiral. The effects of overscaled inturnship could cause the equivalent.
Its all the rage here (not ireland) for cost-cutting businesses and government to sack their employees and swap them for unpaid inturns, sometimes people are laid off and get immediately rehired as poorly-paid inturns doing the same job, without previous labour protection. Inturnship is being marketed as an advantage to avoid long-term unemployment, often promising desirable paid positions after inturnship, positions which seem ever-receding and never materialising.
Im thinking that saturating the labour market with barely paid inturns will tend to undercut minimum wage and collapse wage pressure, keeping some businesses solvent by eliminating wage-expediture and perchance increasing aggregate production, but lowering consumer income and spending, causing deflationary pressure on prices and destroying profit-margins elsewhere. Also, inturns are largely mortgage-ineligible, further collapsing the housing market, the popped housing bubble in turn feeding back into banking, wiping out capacity for business loans.
There is rampant fiscal deflation here and no end in sight beyond the comprehensive reevaluation of the monetary system and political economy.
@ jal
Such notions pertain to the development of a theory of something.
Forgive the severe abstractions, but have you ever wondered
how there is something rather than nothing?So long as [E=mc²] , nothing real can cause a beginning of time.
However, if [E≠mc²] globally, unreal things can do so.In a given zero energy universe, at the beginning of time (T-0) E = 0, m and c² are dimensionless, equalling 0 and 0² relativistically. Voidless momentum of 0 provides coordinates in arbitrary dimensions [0,0,0], yet the future remains unmoveable, time remains without direction. Renormalisation will not avail this lack of purpose at zero net energy.
Otherwise, if every given cosmic action at T-0 creates an equal and opposite reaction, this reaction cannot occur simultaneously without nullifying the initial action, any asymmetry in cosmic reaction entails dimensional divergence of extra-temporal field potentials. This yields a conception of irreducible quantum numbers moving themselves into existence, but the only thing that can move a number is a larger number.It is conceivable for unreal [energetic] events to be integrated into causal chains effecting physical objects, moreover if ideas may attain massful momentum by virtue of imaginary energy.
I wish (for us) to grow into maturity.
On the origin of capital, the idea that [0≠0], the numerical value of zero being (estimated as) unequal to itself, formulates a disequilibriated gravitonomic growth function wherein the value of labour is a constant product of natural law unequal to its cost, insofar as all functions of capital and most forms of labour remain subject to gravity.
Seriously, [E≠mc2].
Still, [E≈mc2], give or take, enough to work with.On a related note,
I’m in need of some positive love, can you help me out?Seriously, [E≠mc²].
Still, [E≈mc²], give or take, enough to work with.The relation holds up precisely under most massful domains, but as newtons equations were superceded before, new observables will inevitably overrule relativity in unexplored mass and energy constellations. Mass-energy equivalency and relativistic field equations help to delineate the boundary between reality and unreality, and therefore must remain stable in a physical sense, despite energy being fundamentally unreal.
On a related note,
I’m in need of some positive love, can you help me out?On the probability that [0≠0]
and something awkward.Under entropic dualism,
nothing unreal exists in a gravitational field,
whereas unreal things may exist in an electrodynamic field
(notwithstanding the gravitational field).Under normative gravimetrics,
Gravity is a recursive algorithm (so that [0≠0])
if (and only if) the cause of time is relativistic mass
(so that [0=0] on average).Under redeterminism, the imaginary identity [0≠0] suffices to formulate
the constant of absolute existence and algebraic proof of free will.
The will alone sets mass in motion.Under quantum monism, God’s constant [0≠0] provides
that the heuristic of [0] over (decimal identities of) mathematical constants and ((the best of) all possible) quantum states yields a gravity-based geometric progression as integral paradox (wherefore the universe propagates an integral sequence of paradoxii).By post-zero arithmetic, [0] is less but not infinitely less of quality than [∞], and more or less than infinitely less in quantity than [∞].
[0] is a time-derivative function of the binary aspect of eternity.Under the 0th law of thermodynamics, that [0≠0]
indicates overuse of zero-point energy should cause
the fine-structure constant to attenuate
and/or the expansion of the universe to accelerate.Under quantum harmonism, the un-first consonant [0≠0] propagates
that tone precedes time, resonance precedes reality,
♪ everything is relative to [0],
♪ nothing is something else
(the geometry of hierarchy is a function of Gravity).form precedes function, life precedes light,
♫ Nothing is absolute to [0],
♫ everything is (becomes) slow symmetry.Aristotle:
“a thing [can come to be], incidentally, out of that which is not,
[and] also all things come to be out of that which is,
but is potentially, and is not actually.”@ Ken Barrows
Look, I don’t want to be that climate sceptic, but using what remains of the sound science of climatology and the logic of scientific hypothesis, we simply don’t know for certain and cannot yet disprove whether humans are causing the unusual rise in co2, whether this rise is causing global temperature to rise, comparable to the antropogenic theory of global warming, whether global temperature is really rising or still rising concurrent to the co2 rise, if this possible temperature rise is going to be a big problem we need to counter, and whether any mitigation policy will actually work to lessen the possible temperature rise at an acceptable cost before the 23rd century.
The alternative theory to antropogenic global gravity remains tenable, albeit even less easily falsified, proposing that the co2 rise is a delayed effect of temperature rise, not the cause, and that the temperature rise is due to solar activity or the earth’s mantle warming up.
All we know for certain is that co2 is rising in a very anomalous way according to paleo-atmospheric extrapolations, and has far overshot its normal flux for this interglacial period, which might indicate this interglacial period is about to end, one way or another.
That >2° temp rise would be a problem for ecosystemic integrity and climate equilibrium does seem a reasonable assumption. We do know ecosystems have only small tolerance for lasting temperature changes, and so a rapid >2° temp rise would likely cause some mass extinction, but its less certain what the threshold for runaway global warming is. Instead of >2°, it might be >1,5° or even >4°. The models for this are deeply flawed.
Given the envisioned catastrophe of >2° temp rise and the misguided zeal for preventing such rise at all costs in ecofanatic circles, desperate climate mitigation policy, such as proposed geoengineering projects, if implemented, could easily backfire catastropically, causing a new ice age or biospheric collapse, triggering a mass extinction with more certainty than moderate temperature rise.Oceanic acidification may be less damaging than expected, but if it becomes as severe as some marine biologists expect, it is indeed possible that the oceanic foodchain will collapse and mass extinctions of some magnitude will be triggered because of the extinction of hard-shelled calcifying creatures, possibly causing global climate change in some centuries when massive algae blooms begin sulfurous respiration. The great permian extinction may have involved this very mechanism.
But atmospheric co2 has been much higher than now in past epochs without such acidification happening, or without causing oceanic foodchain collapse, for unclear reasons. Calcifying hard-shelled sea creatures which would be vulnerable didn’t go extinct in the cretaceaous with atmospheric co2 at somewhere between 500ppm and 2500ppm for many millions of years.Curbing human co2 exhaust in an economically damaging way, by cutting off energy resources or destructive carbon taxation, solely to limit atmospheric co2 rise because of the assumed relation with temperature rise, would be folly without being absolutely certain about the causal relation between co2 and temperature, or the sensitivity of such relation. In this regard, we believe there is scientific consensus that climatology can be upgraded to an exact science instead of dabbling in mysticism and geomancy.
That was an important point in this article, that the expectation of having to cut off fossil fuel supplies by some asinine consensus treaty may already cause a carbon panic with greater economic damage than what could be reasonably expected from possible climate catastrophe in this century, and with more certainty.
Now in the article, Im reading that one might supposedly calculate with confidence a 80% prob that temperature rise will remain below 2° if one leaves a certain amount of fossil fuels unburnt, or only 50% prob of <2° rise if some lesser quantity is left unburnt.
Yet such calculations are only pretense, the margin of error here must be above 50% given the wrong sequence of known unknowns, disregarding the unknown unknowns. Its preposterous to formulate deliberately damaging policy based on the arbitrary coupling of variables in a partially invalidated model informed by partially disproven theories, I fear that these pseudo-scientific prognostications are the product of a politicised and delusional science dealing with unmodelable variables, but clearly being used to forward an ethically unsound utilitarian policy.
I do advocate permaculture, relocalised food production, sensible freshwater usage, ecosystem preservation, lessening overfishing and deforestation and sustainable energy development that can provide prosperity. Most eco-friendly economic agendas are useful and profitable, up until the point of eco-fascism.
And certainly I wish to avoid the danger of mass extinctions or biospheric collapse caused by any of our activities, only instead of focusing on climate, I quantify rogue genes, chemical and radioactive pollution, global thermonuclear war and such industrial byproducts as a greater threat to industrial civilization and life on earth right now.
I’ve always found the oil companies reserve statements to be absurd, with the possible, probable and provable categories, but to cause deliberate scarcity of energy by imposing a new unburnable category seems hasty. Limiting carbon consumption in the proposed way, if no viable substitute for fossil fuels with comparable energy density is forthcoming, will only cause politically accountable energy scarcity and poverty with no accountable improvement in climate to be expected for many lifetimes.
I do agree that much of the possible and probable categories of fossil reserves will be revealed as economically unviable even with no imposed limits to carbon appetite. But some say innovation in extraction technologies will triumph. Some years ago, the saudi oil minister optimistically mentioned that they’d dreg up the last oil molecules from their depleting fields with nanobots in the future.
Ken Barrows post=7201 wrote: Notwithstanding Gravity’s admonition a few days ago that climate science is, well, not science, it seems that feedbacks may already do most of us in.
Some domains of climate science remain valid because these aren’t politicised, not influenced by ideological bias. Paleoatmospheric extrapolations without prescriptive functions are absolutely necessary to understand how co2 is coupled to temperature over geological history.
https://rogerfromnewzealand.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/global-temp-co2-over-geological-time1.jpg
https://www.biocab.org/Geological_Timescale.jpg
Assuming the temperature/co2 extrapolation is not totally off in those graphs, there is a rough correlation between atmospheric co2 and temperature over geological time, but co2 alone doesn’t seem to be the principal component of temperature deviations. Moreover, there is no evident correlation between relatively sudden rises in co2 and known mass extinction events. Maybe the cretaceous extinction event involved vulcanics and rising co2, not evident for the graphs, but that also involved a multi-gigaton asteroid impact. There does seem to be an enormous rise in temperature coinciding with the permian extinction, but no correlation between that temp rise and co2 is evident in the graphs. Of course the ancient atmosphere had different equilibria and sensitivities, and the margin of error in those graphs may be too large.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Extinction_intensity.svg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Evidence_CO2.jpg
There has been a very clear trendshift in atmospheric co2 relative to the usual interglacial flux in the 20th century, which happens to coincide with the industrial era of burning lots of stuff and deforestation, and these are intuitively causally related. But this fact alone provides no falsifiability on the antropogenic theory, the co2 rise could merely be remarkably coincidental with, but unrelated to, human industrial growth, and could have happened anyway even without human activity. There is no scientific way to isolate direct causation unless we could turn back time and deliberately didn’t industrialise in order to isolate co2 trends apart from our activity, or use a test biosphere on another planet.
Ken Barrows post=7201 wrote: …according to NCDC, the Earth is at 337 consecutive months above the 20th century average.
Maybe so, by a fraction of a degree. Some calculate as much as 0,8 degree rise over the 20th century, others calculate only a 0,2 degree increase.
There has been a slight warming trend measured in past decades, but only indicating a fraction of a degree increase, almost within the margin of measurement error and statistical noise. Global temperature has been periodically fluctuating by at least 0,1 degrees since the last ice age ended, due to incidental vulcanics and solar cycles. Some regions are definitely warming much quicker than establised trends would allow, and more quickly than would be optimal for local ecosystemic integrity, but these changes, whether transient or permanent, are more properly called shifting weather patterns instead of global climate change, due to their localised nature.Ken Barrows post=7201 wrote:
If we want to retain some remnant of industrialized, urbanized society, our future carbon budget is so limited that we should start (or accelerate) the depaving of roads.
Could this scenario be completely wrong? Sure. Life is all about probability.Precisely so, this scenario could still be completely wrong. But direct economic damage caused by overzealous mitigation policy to curtail carbon exhaust is a fast-acting certainty, whether correctly applied to existant threats or not, whereas any economic/biospheric damage due to climate change still remains mostly a probability, slowly manifesting and poorly quantified.
One cannot absolve the probability of [greater] damage caused by runaway climate change by the certainty of [lesser] damage caused by deliberate policy to counter such change. This is scientifically unsound and morally objectionable, given the many unknowns in quantifying the possible damage of doing nothing, the certainty of damage if doing too much, and the possibility of grave error in weighing the risks.
Not even utilitarian functions [where ends justify means] allow for policy to be implemented if said probability of runaway climate change is too slight, its potential damage too poorly quantified, and the magnitude of certain damage due to mitigation policy too high.
The ends are too uncertain and the means too costly.
Depaving roads or committing to other industrial sabotage by deliberate policy will most certainly impoverish/kill people more quickly than any possible probably provable climate threat, in this century at least.The deliberateness of any such climate mitigation policy as would possibly solve the problem, but certainly impoverish people, by carbon taxation for instance, would make such policy morally objectionable to counter a mere probability with. Even if runaway climate change were a certainty, there is no certainty that mitigation policy would solve the problem, yet it would begin damaging people to greater magnitude more immediately than the climate change itself.
Thus there seems greater certainty that climate mitigation policy, as economically crippling, would increase the magnitude of human misery more quickly than climate catastrophe [albeit to lesser eventual magnitude if such climate catastrophe is both real and the mitigation policy proves effective], and moreover the negative policy effects are more immediately quantifiable and more politically accountable, whereas any positive policy effects would take centuries to manifest, far beyond the duration of applicable political mandates.Like a starving man eating his own excrement to gain nutrition, no bureaucracy can live in a medium of its own waste.
Conversely, I’ve been trying to cut down on the carbon hysteria, co2 is a non-isolated variable in a stochastic system, with the greatest number of coupled variables being unknown unknowns, hence no predictive qualities may be attached to its atmospheric concentration alone.
Its a greenhouse gas, for sure, inside a greenhouse. The planetary atmosphere is vastly complex, randomly chaotic and not as predictable as a greenhouse. Since atmospheric co2 has risen another 10ppm in the past ten years, now approaching 400ppm, but the global temperature has not risen in this period [or in fact at all since the ending of glaciation], the elementary greenhouse-hypothesis seems questionable.Moreover the anthropogenic element is non-falsifiable and not causally determinable. The rapid rise in atmospheric co2 since the industrial age is anomalous by paleo-atmospheric standards, but not necessarily caused by industry or deforestations, or not provably so under scientific scrutiny of falsifiability. For the convenience of urban civilization and ecosystemic integrity, atmospheric co2 probably shouldn’t rise above 500 ppm during this interglacial period, unless other variables require it to.
Back in the cretaceaus atmospheric co2 was presumably above 3000ppm, yielding a rich tropical biosphere, but solar intensity was 10% lower too, and atmospheric oxygen much higher, and there were mechanisms in place which prevented aquatic ph-forcing by carbonic acid, since there are hard-shelled aquatic fossils aplenty from that period.Climatology is a hopelessly politicised pseudo-science with no reliable predictive functions but is nonetheless used as powerful tool of social control. The political demand for scientific ‘consensus’ in predictive climatology is fallacious and unscientific, consensus is a political term only. The methods of research funding by green-industry profit incentives compromise scientific integrity.
Of more immediate concern than carbon footprints is the artificial cloud coverage [possibly involving chemtrails, welsbach seeding, ionospheric/stratospheric heating via microwave resonance] which now regularly appears overhead and is clearly caused by the intense airtravel around the large airport here.
On trailly days, the dimming-effect of this artifical cloud coverage easily reduces solar radiative intensity by 10%, diminishing the effectiveness of all photosynthesis, and if prolonged and global in scope, inducing an autonomous rise in atmospheric co2, in conjunction with a collapse of terrestrial and aquatic foodchains [aggravated by cumulative metallic contaminant toxicities and soil ph-forcing], more quickly and with greater certainty than temperature-coupled feedback trajectories solely dependent on atmospheric trace gasses [co2, methane, water vapour].Shifting local weather patters or global climate change, as witnessed, are not entirely unrelated to the massive clandestine weather modification/geoengineering programs going on everywhere, invalidating all measurements of coupled variables and rendering all climate models obsolete.
However, there remain perfectly good economic reasons to advocate sustainable energy development, relocalised food production and ecosystem preservation which have nothing to do with atmospheric constituents or climate, insofar as those also maintain or increase economic and cultural wellbeing locally, if not globally.
p01 post=7129 wrote:
Trivium, the problem here is that the beloved economy cannot function without debt.
To me it seems, the monetary problem is not that debt functions as asset in the economy to fuel investments, but that the money supply has become a debt liability, so that debt saturation in all sectors of society prevents new money being created to pay off the interest on the old, or to beget investments, rendering the monetary system intractably insolvent and the economy incapable of expansion.
That this situation of debt saturation may have been deliberately designed with malice aforethought by the exploiters of the money supply is another matter, but even if so configured by accident, its still a conundrum. Much of the embedded debt can never be repaid this way. Loans are mathematically certain to default, annihilating the credit supply, and public assets pledges as collateral are consolidated towards powerful private interests.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2f8nYMCO2I
Thatchers rhetorical style was very strong sometimes, and her position in this debate on the EMU was quite correct in retrospect, the arguments on monetary sovereignty are still relevant.
She did predominantly serve the interests of the british oligarchs, sometimes these were compatible with the interests of the nation, and sometimes not. The british are still much divided about her reign, I’ve heard british people who appreciated her policies, and others who detested her passionately. Undoubtedly this divide was intensified by the two-party dichotomy. Her unpopular neo-liberal program for crushing labor unions and diminishing labor security were of dubious economic functionality.It isn’t useful to try and explain every anomalous occurence or market function in the economy by criminal reasoning alone, but a comprehensive conspiracy narrative conjoining disparate financial and economotive actors has some provable predictive functions from time to time.
I do appreciate Trivium’s enthusiasm for presenting this part of the truth concerning the monetary system, but he does preach to the choir sometimes with the somewhat repetative presentations of the fractional debt system and the assertion that this system was deliberately organised for malicious purposes of extortion, racketeering and economic control by the financial oligarchy. But when faced with the public history of the central banking establishments, this assertion of malice aforethought can hardly be denied.
The debt system, fractional reserve banking and the privatised exploitation of money and credit, especially the occult operation of keeping the systems inherent instability and insolvency hidden and unexposed to public debate, did actually produce synergistic or symbiotic functions with the common good for a while, enhancing trajectories of growth under certain conditions of credit expansion. Now these conditions are absent, the money masters have turned completely parasitic, and to some extent, their intent to save their own assets in opposition to the common good may be felt in all happenings involving banking.
There is such a thing as organised evil,
but who organises the organisers?P.S.
The war in heaven was an inside job.(whispers)
gravity is a recursive algorithm.I have to support Triv here,
he has some difficult work dispensing red pills to the uninformed.
The money supply is a pyramid scheme, whereas central banking has always been a racket and is increasingly becoming a crime against humanity.
It is conceivable this arrangement could have come about by interacting market forces with no conscious intent, yet certain historical accounts of the monetary system, such as the Jekyll island meeting, do clearly reveal an ideological agenda of secrecy with undertones of criminal conspiracy.Conspiracy is a requisite of criminology,
criminology of sociology.It is impossible to account for certain empirical facts, historical events and organisational structures, such as the holocaust or the maffia, without an appeal to criminal conspiracy on a massive scale, involving the collusion and collaboration of goverment apparatus and private parties driven by congruently illegal profit mechanisms.
Such massive compartmentalised conspiracies involving thousands of quasi-coordinated actors are known to happen, maybe as a function of clustered sociopathy.Sorry to interrupt.
Gravity’s Constant:
[ 0 ≠ 0 ]Gravity’s Law:
[ 0 = 0 ] on average.Gravity is a recursive algorithm.
It really is.Stoneleigh,
I came across a piece in a dutch newspaper concerning this year’s bilderberg conference held in Arnhem, bilderberg speakers were apparently hyping a shale-gas bubble to industry leaders and predicting a ‘gas revolution’ and a glut of cheap energy.
.
The article’s in dutch, Ilargi can translate:
https://www.volkskrant.nl/vk/nl/6235/Martin-Sommer/article/detail/3391466/2013/02/10/Sommer-was-bij-Bilderbergconferentie-in-Arnhem-We-zitten-in-een-gasrevolutie.dhtmland a retort:
https://sargasso.nl/weer-onzin-over-schaliegas/I’m familiar with your analysis on shale; bubbly investment dynamics, bad EROEI and environmentally damaging, but I’d like your take on why the bilderbergers are trying to sell this right now?
Most of the energy insiders should be aware of shale’s true value. Perhaps they’re planning to blow this bubble for insider profit again?
