Debt Rattle July 21 2016
- This topic has 12 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
DPC City Hall and Market Street and west from 11th, Philadelphia 1912 • S&P Issues ‘Crexit’ Warning as Corporate Debt to Swell to $75 Trillion (CNBC)
[See the full post at: Debt Rattle July 21 2016]“The tip of the Antarctic peninsula has cooled over the past 15 years, scientists have found, but the discovery does not mean global warming has stopped.”
For a look at what the less-publicised version, check out this:
“CO2 hits record high: Antarctic temperatures do nothing”
https://joannenova.com.au/2016/06/co2-hits-record-high-antarctic-temperatures-do-nothing/
It amazes me how they manage to scare people.
For a more complete set of temperature records at the Antarctic over the past 36 years, take a look at this.
“Antarctic Trends”
How any of that should worry anyone is beyond me.
Since Antarctic ice is net expanding (which could mean higher precipitation and not necessarily cold) but only this one shelf is melting, does that substantiate that it was warming from underground volcanic activity, as was recently reported? And is that because of the changing weights of ice north and south are flexing the tectonic plates? Or is it related to the massive planet-wide increase in earthquakes? And if we have a massive increase in earthquakes, doesn’t that suggest we may have a greater increase in volcanoes than we are aware of, as most volcanism is undersea and therefore largely unmeasured? This in turn would lead to massive relates in CO2 and other gasses, keeping in mind that a single eruption can release more questionable gasses in one even than entire nations do in a year? And if so, is that the cause (because the earth has had warming/cooling ages as far back as we can see and CO2 in Ice Cores rise AFTER the warming) or the effect (because AGW would melt icepacks and therefore flex the planet)? Gentlemen, start your predetermined answers.
That’s enough stirring the pot for one day.
Obviously, this blog has been captured by the climate change deniers.
Kind of pointless responding to a total lack of understanding of obvious realities.
Bye, bye, oh ignorant boys…And what are you climate deniers saying anyway? Are you saying carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can increase at 3 ppm per year forever or not quite as long? Will you be satisfied with an ice free Arctic as long as Antarctic ice is sufficient? Is 15 of the 16 hottest years on record in the 21st century not enough because the other year was cooler than 1998?
Question the mainstream data if you like but your cherry picking data without a theory behind it. And it’s not that you question the climate consensus, it’s that you call it absurd. Are you believers in infinite growth?
Barrows,
Labelling people who disagree with you as “deniers” of whatever is evidence that you are not a scientist.
Cherry-picking data is not my exclusive preserve. Bringing up the North Pole while ignoring the South Pole is also cherry-picking.
Anyway, we may well be entering a la Niña and solar activity is heading in the other direction. It will be interesting to see how much cooling transpires and whether that will change in any way the desire of our bankers to make a mint out of this story.
“Climate change initiatives a $7-trillion funding opportunity for capital markets: Carney”
Climate change initiatives a $7-trillion funding opportunity for capital markets: Carney
“Grammar error: you’re.”
Actually, “your cherry picking” was grammatically correct – “your” is the possessive pronoun in this instance.
https://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-possessive-pronouns.html
It is quite remarkable that readers of this blog are so in denial with reality. I’ve even detected signs that there are Trump supporters here. I’m quite amazed but also saddened as it shows just how out of touch many people are. Environmental degradation will likely continue apace until not even Cruz can deny it. It’ll be too late by then, but it’s probably too late now so, ah, what the heck.
“I’ve even detected signs that there are Trump supporters here”
Do you have any idea what the Clintons are capable of? Any idea what happened in the Middle East on her watch? Do you really want to start a war with Russia and China? If you answer to all 3 questions is yes, then go ahead and vote for her.
“THE CLINTON BODY-COUNT”
https://www.freewebs.com/jeffhead/liberty/liberty/bdycount.txt
I am, happily, not American so I cannot vote in your “election”
Highly entertaining. I put forward a series of questions any scientist would ask, viz. “Is this true? If so, what then? How can I prove or disprove it?” and **the very act of asking questions** is “denial.” Denial because I didn’t begin the scientific inquiry from the conclusion? I’m sorry, but what kind of scientific inquiry is that? You promote science by examining what doesn’t fit, what’s odd, where knowledge can be expanded, not by repeating theorems of 2+2=4 which have long since been established.
Besides, as the last few times did I say CO2 had no effect on the climate? Or the straw man, “has no effect at any level”? Did I suggest that humans were or were not responsible? Nope. As a scientist, you’d have to ask the question, “which came first, the heating and flexing from ice load, THEN the volcanism, or the volcanism first?” “If the former, there is every reason to believe that AGW exists and could therefore be the CAUSE of the secondary effects.”
This is where — whether AGW is true or false — it has become a cult. The very suggestion that someone might ask questions — and secondary questions, mind you — is verboten and will have you expelled and persecuted. Does this not show that, whatever the truth, the act of refusing to ask questions, refusing to prove or disprove them, is therefore, by every known definition, not science? Or will we only have science where there are no more questions, but predetermined responses, and no need for further experiments as we already know everything?
I’m just agape as to what is considered “science” and “anti-science” anymore. Asking falsifiable questions and testing them is science. Shouting down people who have questions and testable theories is using social censure and political engineering to answer a scientific question. Doesn’t that seem like using a hammer to bake a cake, i.e., a technological non-sequitor? We answer scientific questions with experiments, data, and debate, not social censure and ostracism.
Speaking of, TAE is not “overrun with climate change deniers” (sic), we’re pretty measurably about 50-50, with our host Raul setting the tone and firmly in the AGW camp. Yet the very existence of opposing views may be threat enough for some to avoid reading the blog. And what part of science is that, where we refuse to read, hear about, or refute those with opinions differing from our own? Where people different from ourselves must be silenced, imprisoned, fined, destroyed — a sentiment often seen in the broader Global Warming discussion? Do you see skeptics calling for the imprisonment of scientists who support AGW? No, you see calls for raw data sets, less politiciced funding, and more objective measurement stations. What an odd discussion where one side calls for data and the other calls for prison? Which side would you suppose is scientific?
In my world, science asks the tough questions and plays the Devil’s Advocate. As do I. Please join me. “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy” Let’s not steal the wonder and newness out of life; let’s dream them.
Hey Nassim, I’m not American, can’t vote in the US elections and don’t support either Trump or Clinton. But, at least superficially, Trump is probably the least equipped candidate of all time to deal with our predicament. Having said that, I don’t expect Clinton will do anything either but Trump? He would be the last candidate I’d expect to see defended here.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.