Guest views are now limited to 12 pages. If you get an "Error" message, just sign in! If you need to create an account, click here.

Jump to content

EverCurious452

Lopster
  • Content Count

    244
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

45 Neutral

About EverCurious452

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 10/20/1953

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    : under the dome of silence
  • Interests
    The thread that lead to my permanent mod review status (effectively being silenced since few posts get approved): http://dinarvets.com/forums/index.php?/topic/208123-the-sterling-currency-group-indictment/#comment-1569946

Recent Profile Visitors

984 profile views
  1. In the Off Topic Forum Bigwave posts a nice chart showing how global CO2 emissions break down by country (which matches up with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions) Since China has the biggest share (29%) and the US is a little less than half that at 16%, (the wiki says that is in fact a little high) the authors of the article Bigwave links to (and presumably Bigwave) conclude that "... the main effort in CO2 reduction should be in China not the US". I think this is wrong on three counts. First, even if China were to succeed in cutting their emissions in half that only reduces global emissions by 14.5% and that is not enough. All countries, even those emitting just a few percentage points, will have to cut back to have a big impact on the total. Plus small producers now will be ramping up so much better to get them to convert to sustainable sources now when its easier rather than later when its harder. Second, you do not lead from the rear. The stance that "you do this, then we will follow later" will never convince anyone of anything. Third, if we are to take advantage of the profit potential of shifting the world's energy production to sustainable sources, we need to develop that industry at home if it will be able to succeed abroad or China (and India and pretty much everyone) will just say "well you are using your own technology why should we be the guinea pigs?". All these are synergistic, they all work together. The link Bigwave provided does not propose a better way of achieving CO2 reductions, it proposes a way of doing nothing.
  2. Note the headline is that the UN (as an organization) predicted... but even the quote used to supposedly support this shows it was just one person who "says" this. People say a lot of silly stuff. Has the official UN Climate report every stated this? I don't think so. By the way the Solomon Islands are losing a lot of land due to sea level rise.
  3. The interesting thing here (to me) is that while you say You can't just leave it at that. Instead you try and poke holes in evolution or the big bang etc from a worldly perspective. As if you see contradictions and problems in the scientific domain that the scientists working in those areas do not see. Of course your critiques have been answered and debunked a vast number of times Such discussions are available from many credible sources online so I won't go into them. My point is that you seem to want it both ways. Its not enough to believe science has it wrong in some fashion because it contractions some aspect of your faith, you have to have some sort of logical worldly hook to hang your contradiction on. Thank you for that. While I do not believe in any god, I do agree that the prescriptions for living offered in many religions make sense and treating others as you would like to be treated is one of them. How can I expect others to be respectful of me if I do offer the same to them? I find that eminently logical. So while I might (and often do) argue with the views someone holds (and that is in fact what brought me to this site to see why people believe in the "RV" when to me it is obviously impossible), I try to not let that spill over to disrespect for the person. Be well Flamtap.
  4. No I'm an engineer. You do not have to be a scientist to have read enough to know how science works. Science is how we find out what is so in the world. You are trusting it everyone you flip on a light or get in your car or fly in a plane or any of the other innumerable things we use every day that science has created. Seeing that there is a long standing consensus on an issue is how we tell how well it is accepted as settled science. Many things are hypothesized but turn out to be false (global warming is not one of them). So your mind is made up and your position has nothing to do with science and nothing will change it. Ok. You have stated you will never change your mind even on issues of science so obviously you are not open to what science might have to say about religion.
  5. With all the right wing ranting in that piece why would you take it as objective? Are you looking for truth or just for reinforcement of your preconceptions? (there is a tremendous amount of the latter on this site in my view and little of the former). If you want to make a claim of science (such as it was) getting it wrong about geocentrism in the 16th century you also have to include that it was science that corrected its error. And that is the real issue. What leads a theory to become accepted is that it lasts and the evidence gets stronger and stronger for it. Geocentrism had major flaws from the outset but of course it had the church behind it. Man made global warming was proposed in the 70s and has yet to be refuted. No one has shown another mechanism that can explain the warming (and yes solar variation and volcanos HAVE been examined and they are not enough even combined). If this huge so called leftist money is causing so many papers to be written claiming man made global warming then how can the count of such papers be so low? Both of these claims can not be true, they could however both be false. This shows how little he knows about science. Things in the real world can not be proven. Often they can be disproven or refuted by showing a flaw in the theory. An hypothesis in science gains or loses support through Bayesian Reasoning in which a hypothesis gains support if an actual observation (like the ocean is warming and becoming more acidic) is more likely if that hypothesis were true and it loses support if the observation would be less likely if the hypothesis is true. But you can never get to 100% certainty. We could all be brains in jars after all (-Shawn Carol). We must always allow for the possibility, no matter how small, that we could be wrong. It seems obvious to me that the man made global warming hypothesis is sufficiently likely to be true and the consequences sufficiently costly to our civilization to take steps to mitigate that risk to the extent that we can especially since even if it's false those steps will be most profitable. For most of earths existence it has been far hotter or far colder than during the tiny span of human existence. But that temperate climate during our time has made living far easier than it otherwise would be (we likely wouldn't even be here otherwise). We may have to adapt to a radically different climate someday, but it seems utter folly to hasten that outcome.
  6. Oops, a phrase got lost, that should have been So you really want to claim that the two statements "there is at least a 5% chance that sea level will rise by 5-10ft over the next 100 years" and "Maybe there is a 5% chance of the Sun never shinning again" are equally valid? really? The "are equally valid?" part got dropped.
  7. So you really want to claim that the two statements "there is at least a 5% chance that sea level will rise by 5-10ft over the next 100 years" and "Maybe there is a 5% chance of the Sun never shinning again" really? No its not the same. Please site a reference that anyone has said by 2020 "half the countries would be underwater". You focus on various doom statements, usually by the far right not any consensus of scientists when you should focus on the fact that since the man made global warming hypothesis was first proposed in the 70s it has never been refuted and only gets stronger. It's not the "worst ever" that is important. That is only one data point. It's the average of the height of the floods and their frequency that is important, and both of those are clearly going up (not all from sea level rise since the city is sinking and has been for years). I have no idea what this means. Sustainable energy is cheaper than fossil fuels so continuing to subsidize fossil fuels is the real tax. and globalization is here, get used to it. No one is forcing you to read what I post. Is the mere possibility of coming across information contrary to your views so terrifying? It is the consumers of fossil fuels that is the problem. They only pump the oil due to having a ready source of buyers. We'll see. it is a major mistake to confuse the bible with a scientific text.
  8. Yet another thread upstairs about climate change being a fraud (specially that the 97% of climate scientists agree ... is bad science). There is certainly some truth to the idea that the 97% claim has gotten out of hand. Science is often badly translated to politics. But I think this misses the point. I'm beeting most everyone, if not in fact literally everyone on this site has fire insurance on their home. But the likelihood that your home will burn down is incredibly small. So why take out the insurance? Because risk is not just about the probability of the event, but also about the costs if the event occurs and the costs to mitigate the event. Fire insurance is inexpensive (due to fire not being very common) but the cost of replacing your entire home is huge, so the sensible thing is to take out a fire insurance policy. Likewise with climate change. I think there is very wide agreement that if sea level were to rise 10 ft, let alone 50 ft that would be so expensive as to deviate the world economy. Suppose that event in the next 100 years is only 5% likely. Given that generating power from wind and solar (plus energy storage) is LESS expensive than coal or natural gas, doesn't it make sense to deal with that risk by rapidly moving to non fossil fuel energy sources? Given that the world has an appetite for sustainable energy doesn't it make sense for the US to be the suppler of such technology and hence make money from it (rather than trying to support the already rapidly declining coal industry)? Getting hung up on just where the 97% figure comes from I think is a huge diversion from the real issues that we need to take action to protect ourselves from the RISKS (not the certainty) of climate change, and to make money from what is likely to be the largest industrial shift in history.
  9. If that was meant to be taken seriously (maybe you were joking?) I have no idea what it means. IQD in banks (commercial or otherwise) is very different than IQD in the CBI. And why does that arithmetic imply a new rate? M0 and M1 have not changed. A rate of 10 IQD per 1 USD would drain the CBIs foreign reserves with only 1% of the usual IQD coming in for exchange (i.e. to buy imported stuff).
  10. There is much yadda yadda about the currency issued by the CBI going from ~50T down to ~5T as seen by 2nd graph (from https://cbiraq.org/SeriesChart.aspx?TseriesID=157) But M0 (from https://cbiraq.org/SeriesChart.aspx?TseriesID=152) has not gone down (the first graph). What "currency issued by the CBI" even means as opposed to M0, I don' know. But the interesting thing is that currency with commercial banks (the 3rd graph) from (https://cbiraq.org/SeriesChart.aspx?TseriesID=158) has gone in the opposite direction. So I think the obvious conclusion is that there has been a data entry error and these two numbers have been swapped.
  11. I could not find a way to PM a member so I'll resort to starting a thread (please let me know if there is such a way). On the one hand, thank you for posting my response to the climate change thread (to bad that the lopster designation doesn't just put some forums off limits rather than allowing posting in only one). On the other hand, merging the threads means that I can not make any follow on responses. On the other other hand, I post that real science takes place in peer reviewed journals not on talk shows and your response is to post a video of a gentleman with valid sounding credentials claiming global warming is all wildly overstated on a FOX talk show. HIs arguments SOUND scientific but are they? I don't have the expertise to know and neither does the FOX commentator. But, if he is so certain and his refutation is so simple why is he on FOX instead of publishing his work in reputable journals where the reviewers and readers DO have the needed expertise? It indeed IS hard to convince people that they have been and are being fooled (there is no better example of that than the RV myth).
  12. There is a thread upstarts called "Scientist Address Climate - by John Stossel..". Stossel claims the "climate alarmists" won't come to debate and that there is a long list of scary things reported over the years that turned out not to be as bad as claimed so why shouldn't we lump climate change into that list as well? This all reveals either gross ignorance about how science works or just ignoring the facts in favor of drama for the media. Scientific debate does not happen on talk shows but in peer reviewed journals. The issues in question are very complex and there is no way adequate coverage can be given in a few minutes even to a scientific audience let alone to layman (like us and John Stossel and his audience). If the climate deniers/skeptics are so sure they can refute the findings of the rest of the scientific community then why don't they publish? Because they can only make their case to an uninformed audience that's why. Certainly there have been announcements of scary findings over they years that turned out to be not so bad. But likewise those same findings were NOT reinforced and supported from different sources and using different methodologies over several decades like has been the case with climate change. When the first papers about global warming from carbon emissions came out in the the 70's being skeptical would be the proper response. We needed more data from more sources by more people and better models and faster computes etc. But over the next decades that is exactly what has been provided and the case only grows stronger. Many would like to think that finding some sound bite of someone (even with scientific credentials) claiming to refute climate change is good evidence for such a refutation. But its total BS. It's just propaganda bouncing around in the echo chamber. Again if such a person has such a powerful argument LET THEM PUBLISH. But they can't. All they can do is provide chum for those that want to accept their false claims. If you want to get to the truth on this (as best as we can figure it out) you have to look for a meta analysis of climate papers submitted to well respected peer reviewed journals and conferences and see what the stats are on the conclusions of such papers (this is the sort of thing that the UN climate reports are based on). Those results are clear that the overwhelming majority of climate papers agree the earth is warming, that such warming is going to make life far more difficult (and expensive if we continue on the path we are on now) and that humans are the cause. Also that this system has a very long lead time making urgent action imperative.
  13. But there are not 2 rates for the USD vs other currencies. The USD floats so its value against other floating currencies (the Euro) is based on supply and demand. Its value against pegged currents is set by the respective central bank and is limited by their ability to pay.But if its value to those other currencies were to change broadly and significantly that would cause price in the US to adjust. This is the one price law in action. The rate for a pegged currency in international markets can not vary significantly from the same rate offered by the central bank as if it did you could simply buy in one and sell in the other and in no time at all own the entire planet.
  14. True enough. But my quibble is that you make it sound like the rate the CBI sets and the rate they pay are different things. When the CBI sets a rate all they are announcing is the rate that THEY will pay. So if the rate were to go up the one willing to buy at that price is by definition the CBI, which means everyone that buys from them (downstream banks and the dealers they sell to etc) will support that rate as well. Which of course is why the rate can not move significantly higher than its present value. It is limited by what the CBI is able to pay, i.e. roughly the CBIs foreign reserves divided by Iraq's M1 which is about where the rate is today.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.