zaphod42
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Hard to read, not because of the writing, but because of the content.
I see dark, very black, times ahead as ever more countries build fences, walls, moats and whatever they believe can stop the inevitable migration from nations depleted by seemingly endless years of western capitalism. Here, in the US, we have “the Donald” leading the way, totally misunderstanding the nature of the influx of “illegals.” He believes that we can keep them out with a fence, and yet with nothing left to return to, all of their resources and capital having been stolen by banksters and assorted capitalists’ imposition of “shock” to their homelands, these refugees will go over, under, around, and eventually through the fences and walls. In the meantime, there will be carnage and death as people who only care about the life of unborn fetuses demonstrate that it is, indeed, only the corporation that is important.
How apt that the party of capital should find itself headed by Trump.
“It was said the Greek population was gung ho to join the EU, precisely I think because they hoped it would end this prejudice against them. Sorry folks, old prejudices die hard.”
Robert, you hit the nail on the head. It looks more and more like pre-WWI in the Adriatic.
Sadly, CO2 continues to increase, and the speed of increase continues to rise. This takes place without any ‘black swan’ events – just our own increasing use of fossil fuels, releasing more and more into the atmosphere.
The problem with corporate financed opposition, devoted to finding ways to spin evidence to try to make it look like there is no problem (also known as “confirmation bias”), is that when the predictable happens, the corporations can file bankruptcy, and their owners will take the money and run. Or they think they can, at least. For them the ONLY thing that matters is next quarter’s 10-Q, and their next bonus.
There is once excellent website, known by most of us I am sure, skepticalscience.com, that will debunk all of the bogus statements (one example, Diogenes’ assertion: “No global warming for over 17 years.” Facts: warmest year ever was 2010; only 1998 was warmer than any year since 1999. 9 of the 10 warmest years were since 2000. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/13.) by trolls like Diogenes Shrugged (trying to intimate he/she is a Libertarian?) and Devil Doctor. If anyone thinks these folks should be taken seriously, I would suggest they go to that site and they can find all of these arguments have been made and refuted.
Bottom line: real scientists use something called the “scientific method.” Most are employed, not by government, but by private universities and colleges throughout the world. If one of them could come up with a way to disprove AGW, they would get richer than you could imagine. Most – again, not all – take their work seriously. There are a few who seriously debate the premise of climate change, and that is part of science. If a theory is not challenged, how can it be proved? Science never says, “always” or “never.” It’s statements are hedged with levels of probability. And, that makes it easy for deniers to say, “Well, they (climate scientists) are not even sure.” Propaganda, though, comes at you in black and white – no shades of gray. With sufficient funding, you can repeat a lie often enough that people may believe it. Especially when the truth is difficult to accept.
Wizzard’s First Rule is, “People believe lies due to desire or fear.” Terry Goodkind.
Craig
Yes… the book, “Overshoot” was published (by Univ. of Illinois) in 1982. 1982, FOR GOD’S SAKE!!!
It could have been written yesterday. And yet… and yet… it is as if nothing was said.
Very discouraging, if you ask me.
Craig
You bring in many thoughts. Freeform, let me consider:
If the government ‘prints’ the money and lends it, does it follow that government payroll, purchases and the like are then done by direct payment of ‘new’ money? Don’t get me wrong, I think that’s a good thing. If payments exceed receipts (of the interest earned on ‘loans’ made to businesses and individuals), there would be an inflationary ‘tax’ that would be quite rational and equitible. The pressure from this might result in lowered government expense as folks figure it out. Hopefully.
Furthermore, from an inflationary standpoint, what difference does it make whether the government prints the money into existence or borrows it into existence, other than eliminating interest expense?
Overall, I say good on the Bank of England… God save the Queen and all that rot!
Craig
My nomination for most telling quote in this string is:
“The market continues to underestimate the degree of the ongoing slowdown and further negative surprises are in stock as the year progresses.”
Though I am not sure that it is mere underestimate as opposed to refusal to deal with the situation.
Thank you for gathering in one place so much information / data. It does help to know what is going on, and our media are AWOL on almost everything.
Craig
