Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 218. (Read 2032248 times)

You'll be culled precisely because you follow this nonsense.

I plan to fork away from your nonsense, so I won't be dragged into the abyss with you. Make your choice.

+1, it's why we'll probably be extinct in about 150 years, we still have people denying the inevitable. 

This is one of the dumbest 'arguments' of the anthropocentric truthers and bible throwers.

The natural process is a carbon circulation. Combustion of fossil fuels takes carbon out of the ground and transfers it into the ocean and the atmosphere.

Increasing any of those trace quantities by 5% has what effect?  

tvbcof you see most people don't do logic. Stay hinged to them at the hip via Bitcoin Core or XT and suffer their fate. Buy an anonymous pegged BTC side chain and speculate on some of its coins and prosper. It is your choice. You must make it.

- He wasn't driving drunk, he just had a trace of blood alcohol; 800 ppm (0.08%) is the limit in all 50 US states, and limits are lower in most other countries).

- Don't worry about your iron deficiency, iron is only 4.4 ppm of your body's atoms (Sterner and Eiser, 2002).

- Ireland isn't important; it's only 660 ppm (0.066%) of the world population.

- That ibuprofen pill can't do you any good; it's only 3 ppm of your body weight (200 mg in 60 kg person).

- The Earth is insignificant, it's only 3 ppm of the mass of the solar system.

- Your children can drink that water, it only contains a trace of arsenic (0.01 ppm is the WHO and US EPA limit).

- Ozone is only a trace gas: 0.1 ppm

is it because of Greece or is it some whale who feels bitcoin may have a future now that Blockstream are not so strong.

I'm behind you 100% but who is "We" in the statement above. We is not you and me it's the central controllers, who arguably are corrupted by TPTB. its not that we need to convince the central controllers to manage how we pollution by electing a centralized authority. that idea is now broken. But that we need the correct incentives to pollute sustainably.

the problem is real when you look at the science I was a skeptic well over a decade ago until a simple experiment proved it empirically and changed my viewpoint, basically that Co2 absorbs infrared energy and then radiates the stored energy over time.

the problem is not that the managers are doing a bad job managing Co2 or any pollutants for that matter the real problem is economic. We need 3% exponential economic growth every year to stay flush, this  results in an acceleration of the consumption of raw materials, and benefits those who consume the most resources before inflation so they can profit off consumer spending post inflation. We can thank Milton Friedman for the idea.

The thing the managers fear the most is deflation, in a deflation scenario deferred consumption is rewarded. this mode of being would drastically reduce pollution and the exploration of natural resources.
the solution is very different from what we have now, and the change is something we ether embrace or gets forced on us, our managers (the controllers who should be defining a sustainable system) are just shuffling deck chars on the titanic. TPTB_need_war, types are just messing up the water for the rest of us so the actual PTB can maintain control.

our environmental problems are not so much a byproduct of progress, but a byproduct of a sick economic system. if we the collective who need the environment all made sacrifices without correcting the economic problem, the cancer would just grow to consume what we don't.  the idea of cap and trade is also a faker it's worse than the money problem because financial institutions can manipulate carbon credits into existence.  

The People's Cap-And-Trade by James D'Angelo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCtf9eumuhU is the first proposal I think has merit in reducing unsustainable ecological impact - Bitcoin being the first.

This is what is so absurd about the whole thing, the original theory has been proven objectively incorrect, yet the theory continues as a mass delusion.

The global warming theory was predicated on a "if A, then B, then C" hypothesis, where B never happened. The original (and still current) theory is increases in CO2, increase water vapor, which in turn warms the atmosphere. But water vapor did not change in any manner predicted or needed for the theory to work. Thus the theory is wrong, QED. But I'm called the anti-science denier (often in racist terms).

As with everything, it is a scam for a narrow set of politically connected people (i.e. climate "scientists" and the green industry) to extract money from the public through the government. That is all it is.

Take away the free government money (enabled by the dollar) and the scams stop, or at least decrease significantly.

Even a child can understand that Santa came down the chimney, ate the cookies, drank the milk, and dropped off a load of presents.

CO2 is a trace gas in our atmosphere.  Currently around 400 ppmv or 0.04%.

Combustion of fossil fuels accounts for about 5% or so of the total release of CO2 into the atmosphere per year.  Natural processes release and absorb many times that per year.

Here's a concept that 'even a child can understand.'  If one is protecting oneself from a bullet by hiding behind an armor plate, adding another armor plate does not materially effect the outcome.  This principle applies to CO2 as a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere in that the impacts of increasing concentrations of CO2 approach nill.  Graphic:

 -> http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/clip_image002_thumb7.jpg?w=619&h=376 <-

In terms of 'greenhouse gasses' water vapor is the most crucial.  The dispute is actually about whether there is a positive or negative feedback loop.  Evidence is piling up that those who panic about a positive feedback loop are wrong.  Unfortunately, politics has damaged science to the extent that it will be difficult to understand if there is a threat here which is worth the (devastating) sacrifices needed to address it.  I lay the blame for this almost completely on the 'warmunista' side of the battle.

Bringing it home:

Coupled with the unavoidable bleak numbers coming out of even the most chicken-little science circles and realities about sizes of economies and such, the best most people can do in terms of justifying specific actions is the claim that such action will make them 'recognized as global leaders in the fight against climate change.'  This is what my state of Oregon is claiming as the benefits of charging everyone a few more bucks every time they go to the gas station.

It's pretty nebulous where the money will end up which is most likely be design.  Certainly some of it will end up in various green boondoggles as has already been the case.  Ultimately what our 'actions' here in the state of Oregon will achieve is to may us 'recognized as world-class chumps.'  Oh well.  I can afford an extra $0.20/gal for gasoline but I feel for those who are more on-the-edge and cannot.  My historically progressive concepts of 'social justice' and long held feelings about progressive/regressive taxation have not changed much so I am opposed to such scammery on multiple levels.

Thanks!  It was a very succinct way of offering support to Justus without dropping the trivial +1 moniker.  In fact, about 50% shorter than your showing of support of my support.  If you practice a bit, I'm sure you'll discover how to get to the brevity, the essence, no no can I even claim  --- the Zen mastery --- of encouragement postings.  

Well the vested interest is very clear. You don't really give a hoot about what happens to the world (even though you convince yourself otherwise). You want Bitcoin to the moon because you feel it is the easiest way for you to make ROI. Volatile altcoins or other investments would be so much more difficult than the...

The sure thing.

Until it is not...

Yeah buy this deadcat ramp to $315. (which I told you in May was coming as predicted by Armstrong's model of public vs. private assets)

After that, it will get much more interesting.  

(and buying an IRA that will be confiscated by ObamaHillary Clinton, lol)

Just had some limit buy orders for GBTC hit in my IRA. God help me I now own* my first Bitcoin through a 3rd party intermediary I have to trust (* own as in have a legal claim to, but lack possession and thus lack true ownership).

The premium has come down a lot, my purchase was only ~$35 over coinbase's spot price. What's strange is my buy is below the day's low being reported...

Please don't f me Barry.

Very well said. Thanks

Well said!

talk about bullish posturing:

Hopefully at least some of them won't be so unable or unwilling to understand this isn't a either-or situation.

The relevant question is: who is going to produce the software which the Bitcoin economic majority will choose to use?

The answer could be the existing Bitcoin Core developers.
The answer could be Mike and Gavin.

The answer could just as easily be none of the above.

Anybody involved who does not act with that understanding in mind is very likely to lose any ability they would otherwise have to do good things for Bitcoin.

I would not and did not offer that advice to supporters of Core. I instead advised they try to use their remaining clout to get consensus around an increase where they still have commit access.

Core supporters should immediately release a fork with 8Mb blocks or some automated schedule of block size increases.

This is the only way they can diffuse the power grab which they are most likely going to lose otherwise (MPEX's Gavinshort as one potential wildcard).

But they painted themselves into a corner by saying that no changes should come without entire consensus before hand. They really lost the chess match. I could see precisely what Hearn et al was baiting Adam to write. And damn if he fell right into the trap.

I am sending a link of this post to both Adam and Greg. Then I won't bother them again.

Your advice is teaching them how to lose. Clever. But I am calling you out.

http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34220013/

And you never hear about the mass birth of animals, birds, and fish ongoing as we speak (in fact the population of animals on this planet is increasing...you just might not like that many are farm raised...so change your food buying habits!!). Nor do you study the history of repeating mass deaths of everything throughout recorded history.

FUD, FUD, FUD.

Indeed global warming is positive (instead we are actually facing global cooling due to the Sun spot activity declining and the magnetic pole moving from Siberia towards North America). They were growing grapes in the UK instead of skating on ice in the Thames river.

Anyone who has survived a winter in the Arctic and a summer in the tropics understands warmer is more prosperous and easier for mankind. Airconditioning is such a miniscule cost compared to the entropy of the earth.

And indeed the earth is a self-regulating system, except for the external heat transferred from the Sun. So there is nothing we humans can do that the Earth can't incorporate into what is 'natural'. Even Chernobyl has shown the animals come back and flourish if we nuke the planet.

The Malthusians (and their fear mongering FUD) have ALWAYS been wrong and ALWAYS will be. Their FUD is always about foisting some collectivism on us, so they can implement their other politically correct ideological crap such as feminism, gay-rights, etc.. (hey gays and heterosexuals don't need any rights, if they want to fornicate then go right ahead, and who gives a flea's arse about a marriage certificate that is for slaves...haven't you read even in the Bible it says once they are bonded in the flesh, let no man undo what God aka nature hath done).