Climate Change

Fabian Wolanski said:
Guys, we like it or not, meat is the worst when it comes to climate change.
Agriculture - together with forestry - accounts for about a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions. Livestock rearing contributes to global warming through the methane gas the animals produce, but also via deforestation to expand pastures, for example.
Reducing meet consumption is literally the most powerful impact you can make.
Now back to trading: https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/no-laughing-matter-how-climate-change-is-scaring-central-banks-1.1320712
Click to expand...

We should follow Bender's advice and KILL ALL HUMANS.

1576226397119.png
 
cantagril said:
Sooo.... the Marshall Islands and Venice are going to be OK after all (or at least for a few thousand years) as the sea-levels continue to drop, as they have been...right?
Click to expand...

The former populations of these low lying areas would be better following the Chinese march into the Sahel, it's where the new growth will emerge to feed us all in the dark days ahead.
 
Signalcalc said:
The former populations of these low lying areas would be better following the Chinese march into the Sahel, it's where the new growth will emerge to feed us all in the dark days ahead.
Click to expand...
....but I thought that yr premise was that these low-lying areas (the Chinese are just lying) were soon to be not so much?

...and anyway, now that New_Trader has openly voiced the obvious final solution with the Bender Initiative, surely the combination of the two approaches will see the human race's ability to fuck up things reduced in line with our numbers...ergo, the planet will be saved.

Inspired by all this I shall rush out and superglue myself to the bar at the Savoy - no point in slumming it now I know our days are numbered. Their snacks are delicious.
 
cantagril said:
....but I thought that yr premise was that these low-lying areas (the Chinese are just lying) were soon to be not so much?

...and anyway, now that New_Trader has openly voiced the obvious final solution with the Bender Initiative, surely the combination of the two approaches will see the human race's ability to fuck up things reduced in line with our numbers...ergo, the planet will be saved.

Inspired by all this I shall rush out and superglue myself to the bar at the Savoy - no point in slumming it now I know our days are numbered. Their snacks are delicious.
Click to expand...

We are in the beginning of a mass extinction. And all you can talk about is snacks and fairytales of robotic destruction of mankind. How dare you.
 
Signalcalc said:
I'm not so sure 3,000 years is a large enough sample? People trade on less.
Click to expand...

As always, am grateful to sit at the feet of a master. You've already taught me so much!

I think I'm beginning to see where I've ben going wrong all these years. One of the comments on Valentina's article holds the secret to it all: "OUR STAR IS ROTATING AROUND THE GALACTIC CORE ON A HELICAL ORBIT WHILE SPIRALING UP AND DOWN (SPIRAL OSCILLATION)"....not my caps, incidentally. I shall abandon numerology, lunar cycles and the rest of the deeply meaningful stuff that has underpinned my approach. I admit to being just a smigette* unsure as to quite how this applies to my Swig trading methodology but as you say, it's all in the sample. I shall drink some water and provide one shortly.

*like a "smidge" but smaller...and French:)
 
cantagril said:
As always, am grateful to sit at the feet of a master. You've already taught me so much!

I think I'm beginning to see where I've ben going wrong all these years. One of the comments on Valentina's article holds the secret to it all: "OUR STAR IS ROTATING AROUND THE GALACTIC CORE ON A HELICAL ORBIT WHILE SPIRALING UP AND DOWN (SPIRAL OSCILLATION)"....not my caps, incidentally. I shall abandon numerology, lunar cycles and the rest of the deeply meaningful stuff that has underpinned my approach. I admit to being just a smigette* unsure as to quite how this applies to my Swig trading methodology but as you say, it's all in the sample. I shall drink some water and provide one shortly.

*like a "smidge" but smaller...and French:)
Click to expand...

What? You mean your core trading philosophy is not based on spiral oscillation? Now you have disappointed me Cant, I thought you were mieux 🤣

Billions of opportunities wasted.
 
Last edited:
Signalcalc said:
If you ain't talking interstellar plasma, then you aint part of the climate emergency.

watchers.news

Rolf Witzsche: Grand Solar Minimum becomes the Ice Age

The concept of "The Grand Solar Minimum" is a deception because the next Grand Solar Minimum will be the full Ice Age, scientist and author Rolf Witzsche argues in this presentation.
watchers.news watchers.news
Click to expand...
For goodness sakes sig. Don't let this kind of info out. How many burst bubbles can they handle at any One time !
 
Greta & the UN, they are as one
Concerned they are not, about the Sun.
CO2 is their mantra, to us all
Tax is needed to make us poor.

A climate emergency, is declared
Globalisation, follow the herd.
When the cosmos decides it right
The earth will suffer, reduced light.

Crops will fail, starvation prevails
Not enough grain to make our ale.
Until the Sahel, once dry and barren
Becomes the breadbasket, mannor from heaven

But do not fear, fellow human
Help is at hand, follow the right movement.
Grow-your-own, the call goes out
Self sustaining, becomes the shout

So save the tax money, that they demand
Don’t make the rich, richer to a man.
Protest the rebellion that will make us extinct
Invest in yourself and your family, it’s instinct.
 
1960's - Oil gone in 10 years, 1970's - another ice age in 10 years, 1980's - acid rain will destroy all crops in 10 years, 1990's - The ozone layer will be destroyed in 10 years, 2000's - The icecaps will be gone in 10 years. None happened, but all resulted in more taxes.
 
timsk said:
Click to expand...

There's a pattern forming here.

All those that are in the Brexit camp seem to be the same ones who are rubbishing global warming and climate change.

We need to be careful, we can't be right about everything, surely ! 🤣
 

counter_violent said:
. . . All those that are in the Brexit camp seem to be the same ones who are rubbishing global warming and climate change. . .
Click to expand...
Hi c_v,
Yes, there does appear to be a pattern of sorts. In my case, I was 'red pilled' by Brexit and, as a consequence, started to question other issues and beliefs that, hitherto, I'd taken for granted. In my mind, prior to brexit, climate change was real because Sir David Attenborough said it was - what more could anyone want or need to know. Ditto for the BBC. Now, I question them both.

That said, I remain open minded about climate change, by which I mean that I accept fully that the climate's changing and, in the short term at least (i.e. decades) it's getting warmer. What I'm less sure about is the extent to which the causes of this are man made and, specifically, as a result of increased levels of Co2. And I don't understand why 'the establishment' insist on presenting climate change as a done deal - as if there's no debate to be had - and that there's consensus among scientists. Well, William Happer and Freeman Dyson (the latter in the video attached to this post) are two very eminent scientists who could not be more clear that Co2 is very good for the planet and that we need more of it - not less of it. Why won't the alarmists who claim the science is 'settled' address the points made by Happer and Dyson et al? That they won't just doesn't make sense to me at all and it's why I smell a rat. Moreover, why does Attenborough - brilliant film maker though he is - have to lie about climate change in his documentaries in order to get viewers to sign up to it. Specifically, I'm thinking of the walrus' falling to their deaths off an Alaskan cliff top - which was distressing viewing. However, the cause had sweet FA to do with climate change and everything to do with polar bears hunting for food and, possibly, being spooked by the film crew's drones used to get close up shots of the animals.
Tim.
 
The whole climate change thing remains a scientific theory. A scientific theory is an offered explanation for observed facts. It is inevitable that as observation and scientific knowledge increase and improve, the details of the theory and the weight it should be given will evolve (to use a term that still actually triggers some people!). A scientific theory is a journey, not the destination.

At any point along the developmental arc of a scientific theory from wild guess to certain fact there will be scientists in a distribution on each side of the most recently reached point. Recognising that there are differences of scientific opinion does not negate the theory. So at any point along the theory's trajectory, what to believe?

The only rational conclusion is to believe what the majority of scientists say at any specific point in the time-line of any scientific theory. What could be the rational basis for giving the minority a greater vote simply because the majority is not absolute?
 
Many years ago the majority scientific view emerged that lung cancer was caused by smoking. The minority view (mainly beholden to Big Tobacco) countered by parading thousands of people who smoked like chimneys throughout their lives who were free of lung cancer. “There you are“, their argument ran, “if smoking causes lung cancer then these people would have it. “

As time marched on the majority view hardened, government took notice and used the weapons of advertising (scaremongering), public place banning (dictatorship) and price via taxation (Signal’s favourite) to dissuade people from smoking. The battle is still not won but the nation is a far healthier place now.

So, as Tomo says, if the majority view is pointing to a high risk scenario (albeit that extinction is just a tad ott) then it’s probably better to go with it. After all, if the brakes on my car felt a bit iffy and most of the mechanics I spoke to told me they were dangerous I’d get them seen to, if only just to be on the safe side. Similarly, I feel a damn side healthier for having stopped smoking regardless of whether or not lung cancer may have resulted in continuing!
 
Last edited:
tomorton said:
. . . The only rational conclusion is to believe what the majority of scientists say at any specific point in the time-line of any scientific theory. What could be the rational basis for giving the minority a greater vote simply because the majority is not absolute?
Click to expand...
Hi Tom,
Déjà vu - we've been here before, I think! ;-)
Your premise makes perfect sense and I'd happily sign up to 100% - but for one fatal flaw in its logic. Namely, that some aspects of the science relating to climate change is - as far as a layman like me is able to ascertain - empirical fact that no scientists anywhere disagree with. Namely, as the two learned gentlemen in the respective videos point out, Co2 and temperature have a logarithmic relationship so that an increase of X number parts per million of Co2 does not cause a corresponding increase in temperature. That assumes of course that Co2 causes temperature to rise in the first place (which some scientists dispute). The analogy of painting the barn red illustrates this point very vividly. So, what I want to know is this: where are the climate change scientists that say this isn't true and that the correlation between Co2 and temperature is in fact linear and not logarithmic? As far as I can tell there are none, and the only reason for that that I can see is that this is indeed 'settled' science and no one with a shred of credibility would question it any more than they would that night follows day or that the earth is round and not flat. Just ignoring this 'inconvenient truth' because it negates the whole climate change narrative is as ridiculous as it is bizarre. For this reason, in this specific context, I'm afraid I can't subscribe to your premise.
Tim.
 
barjon said:
Many years ago the majority scientific view emerged that lung cancer was caused by smoking. The minority view (mainly beholden to Big Tobacco) countered by parading thousands of people who smoked like chimneys throughout their lives who were free of lung cancer. “There you are“, their argument ran, “if smoking causes lung cancer then these people would have it. “

As time marched on the majority view hardened, government took notice and used the weapons of advertising (scaremongering), public place banning (dictatorship) and price via taxation (Signal’s favourite) to dissuade people from smoking. The battle is still not won but the nation is a far healthier place now.

So, as Tomo says, if the majority view is pointing to a high risk scenario (albeit that extinction is just a tad ott) then it’s probably better to go with it. After all, if the brakes on my car felt a bit iffy and most of the mechanics I spoke to told me they were dangerous I’d get them seen to, if only just to be on the safe side. Similarly, I feel a damn side healthier for having stopped smoking regardless of whether or not lung cancer may have resulted in continuing!
Click to expand...

Back to straw men again! Major important differences between lung cancer and climate change exist:

  • the link between smoking and lung cancer was irrifutable vs a man-made climate change theory
  • smokers only are/were punished with taxation vs everyone regardless of their perceived 'eco-crime' (notwithstanding the NHS burden, but that would bring a whole range of other arguments into where our taxes are best spent)
  • mostly only smokers died with a few passive smokers thrown in vs no-one for man-made climate alarmism yet (see mental health note below)
  • billions were lost by tobacco companies and their investors vs billions to be made by investors as a result of climate change alarmism
  • tax revenues for govt went up as smokers paid more to the treasury vs no-accountability regarding climate taxes, where is the money going?
  • no celebrity virtue signalling hypocrites for stopping smoking, it has been a real and difficult challenge for many tobacco addicts vs plenty of celebrity hypocritical virtue signalling for climate alarmism
  • paid actors FOR smoking vs paid actors FOR climate alarmism (oops no, that's actually a similarity :D)
  • no children used for anti-smoking vs children used as pawns for climate alarmism
  • no ideological change implemented in the education system for anti-smoking vs ideological corruption of the education system based on climate alarmism (and here we could lead onto the NHS burden of increased mental health issues based on nepotism associated with climate alarmism. Young, corrupted, mentally affected minds, involved in adult arguments over taxation)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Westward Group Alternative Energy Tokyo: No excuse for inaction on emissions
Replies
1
Views
1K
ABTrading
ABTrading
Stewenson133
12 Economic Bubbles That May Burst
Replies
18
Views
7K
SAINT
S
P
Providio's Futures Market Comentary for March 14, 2012
Replies
0
Views
2K
providiotrading
P
NVP
Property - the pitfalls and problems
Replies
1
Views
2K
Aforce1
A
Top