I'm not sure what type of math you are doing, but an increase from 300 parts per million, parts per billion, parts per trillion to 400 parts per million etc is a 33% increase. I'm not really interested in talking with you because you are immediately on the attack about nonsense alarmist or whatever. An 8% increase over a 15 year period when compared against similar periods means that something is putting CO2 into the atmosphere. Its not possible that these rapid increases over short periods of time have happened in the past, otherwise the natural cycles that the earth has gone through would have been far more rapid. We see changes occur over a 20 year span that happened without human action over 300 million years. That tends to point to human action being related. We figured out what happened over those 300 million years as a result, and we conclude the same thing will occur again at a much faster rate.

So what does that mean for humanity? I don't know nor do I care, I just know that you need to factor in the change each year when you are scanning the earth otherwise your images get a little blurry.

*edit* We are actually off track here, so I'll just close with an on topic conclusion. The people who are actually capable of interpreting data and coming to useful conclusions are completely isolated for those that aren't. People who google some info to become experts and find third party information from someone making incorrect assumptions or doing a half ass job are louder than those that are quietly plugging away at problems with their colleagues. As a result, the people who debate topics like these are the ignorant and the ignorant. I don't know enough about the matter of CO2 to be working on it to tell you point by point where you have made errors in your assumptions. As a result, if I try, you can pick apart points that I make due to my own lack of knowledge. We can't trust the teams that have a combined 300 years of research on the matter, because they are the paid off corrupt authorities, so I guess we go back to listening to idiots with blogs. You can call it throwing in the towel if it'd make you feel better, but I'm going to call it preventing perpetuating incorrect information exchange.

please forgive my reading comprehension 

I was talking about concentration in parts per million. Concentration as a % of the atmosphere isn't a very useful metric, there are a million factors not at all related to CO2 that would affect it. For example, you could continuously increase the CO2 in the atmosphere but also, lets say add argon, and the concentration as a % of the atmosphere of CO2 would decrease. It'd take all day to list all of the reasons why concentration of CO2 in parts per million should be the primary metric used when trying to understand the addition or removal of CO2 from the atmosphere.

Perhaps there was a misunderstanding with the language. When you are talking about % CO2, do you mean as a percentage of the entire atmosphere, or increase of CO2 by some % in parts per million?


source: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/

shows an ~ 8% increase in the past 14 years. I haven't looked over the data personally so I'm not going to defend this chart to the death, but the data is available for review.

Fine, let me specify that to, I've never heard the immediate disastrous belief from anyone that I've spoken to. My conversations with people that you dont know and for all you know may not exist aren't supposed to sway your opinion one way or another, my statement was more a cautionary rant about who you listen to. People discard opinions by the guy who has spent 30 years researching a narrow topic because they once got paid from someone with a vested interest that lies somewhere, so instead we listen to a guy on twitter who spreads incorrect information.

As a side note, why do you think that atmospheric concentration of CO2 has gone up by 0.01% since the industrial age? I've worked briefly on aerosol studies with relation to weather mapping and satellite imaging and can probably say that atmospheric CO2 concentration has gone up by over 0.01% over the past month. I say probably, as that wasn't an individual variable that we had accounted for, but there was a factor of atmospheric change which some other department put together which accounted for "greenhouse gases" and other particulate matter as a whole.

*edit* That wasn't a pitch as to why you should believe me, that was my reason for being curious where you were getting that idea from.

I think that there is a problem where its hard to know who to believe, but more so because everyone has a platform to let others know of their revolutionary ideas, even if they are outright wrong. People seem to love the idea of "us" versus authority, when in a lot of cases, authority just means the best at their topic. What you consider common sense doesn't make it right.

Fractional reserve banking is actually brilliant, the stability and flexibility it brings to the table is vast compared to any other monetary system that we've ever had in the past. A reserve system sounds like it'd be monetarily sound, but do you know how many thousands of times they've failed in the past? Fiat and how it works is completely separate from Bitcoin and thats just lovely. Who would possibly be against more choices in their financial systems? I've spoken to research scientists on a daily basis for the past few years and not a single one has ever denied climate change. They are just a bunch of nerds arguing over who's model is 0.0017% more accurate based on data excluded from Silurian period in another model. Climate change "natzis" are likely just another wing of people who don't know what they are talking about.

Factual and well researched objective reports are what I'd say are common place. You are absolutely correct that every so often, studies are bought off or commercial interests are put ahead of safety. The reason why its such a big deal when it does occur is because its not usual. There are millions of studies going on every day over whether berries will make you immortal or you can knock over goats with your mind. They'll yield some sort of result if the procedures are done and reported properly. Then they get peer reviewed and torn apart.

Become an authority in your own field and believe yourself.

Fantastic, I'm the leader of No Nukes for Toddlers, a program to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of people that are physically or mentally toddlers. I'm a real charity in the Swiss Confederation and I have no obligation to register in this country as I'm not making a profit or conducting commercial business. Come spend a week of your time and thousands of dollars on plane tickets to check my bluff and you can have a meeting with me and my ten partners.

Please send money here: 17RTTUAiiPqUTKtEggJPec8RxLMi2n9EZ9

Do not question me because you'll be stifling my free speech and also you guys are assholes who make money here. The forum has more money and therefore my organization is entitled to it. Any attempt at verifying any of the information provided means you are bullying me and I will threaten to hax this Bitcoin forum.

Just a reminder, I will FLY OF THE HANDLE at anyone who raises the slightest suspicion. I will make a bunch of drama out of 1/100th the trouble that a Walmart cashier has to deal with on a daily basis but LET IT BE KNOWN I am the professional head of an organization that wants to better the world. My cause is SOOO important to me that I'll act like a five year old at the expense of possible funding for this cause I care so much about.

It looks to me like you were posting in a self moderated thread. A forum moderator would have banned you after that many deleted posts, unless it was for something minor like not deleting your old bumps or something, and in that case I doubt you would care. Make an unmoderated thread if you want to address what you believe to be unfair without having your or other people's posts deleted.

Take a step back from being pissed off and deal with people rationally like a real charity owner would. Do you know how many times per day real charities are asked questions about what donator money goes to, what %, what their charity ID numbers are, their track records, what their plans are going forward, etc? Lets pretend you are a legit charity and some random guy here created an account to pretend to be you and started collecting money for your charity that they kept for themselves. Would you be upset? Would you be upset that members here are asking questions to verify the charity's identity in that case? Stop fighting and calmly convince people that you are a real charity and dispute them with conversation rather than going off the deep end and making threats, it only hurts your credibility.

Yes, it has been for I don't know... 10ish years now? You can check Meta, funny enough all of Bitcointalk's holdings and expenditures are public if you care to look rather than just try to deflect.

If you want to stress test the forum you might want to check this out first, you can be paid to do it. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=309785.0

Sounds like common sense to me. It doesn't look like anyone bullied you, it looks like they asked reasonable questions and you acted in a manner that made people lose confidence in you. Your sense of self entitlement is astonishing. Giving you the benefit of the doubt and your actions were unintentional, you followed every single pattern of a scammer to a T. Even if you aren't, why would you expect users to see your behavior as anything other than suspicious when we see 500 people follow the same pattern daily only to end up being scammers.

Try telling people to have faith when a nigerian prince comes by because its impossible for every single one to be a scammer just because some are right? As a side note, again assuming your charity is legit, you do know that denial of service attacks are illegal right? After four years you should come to expect nothing else.

Kind of deceptive title, I think you'd be sentenced to 12 years in prison if you paid $12k worth of colorful aquarium gravel to someone in exchange for having them kill your former lover's wife.

Moderators can tell. It becomes second nature after a while. 99.9% of posts have very transparent intentions. The ones that are questionable are very rare, and in those cases moderators will either ask for other opinions, or err on the side of caution and not delete the post.

If you are talented enough to disguise your spam to the point where a group of people used to seeing thousands of reports per day have to carefully consider it, then its not spam.

There are exceptions to posts containing referral links being allowed. You are not allowed to create a thread for the purpose of posting your referral link. You may be given some leniency if your post contains a (non hidden) referral link but its just a minor part of the post. A kind of parallel example being Youtube home project videos where someone uses a product in their video and provides links to where someone can buy them.

Its safer to say that referral links are banned because more often than not people misuse them and spam. If you use a bit of care you can get away with using them.

I'm not super familiar with the gambling section's rules, but a lot of things seem to be given a bit of leeway. The thread that you linked could also be considered bump spam, but there may be a reason its acceptable.

More than a handful of countries have levied retaliatory tariffs against US goods. I ship a handful of $20-40 trinkets worldwide on a daily basis. In ~2017 most countries only charged import taxes on goods valued at over $300 ($100 in a few cases) or if they were of a certain type, precious metals for example. Now, when I ship a $30 bag to Europe, it gets hit by 15-18 euro customs fees. A fair number of my customers get tax bills higher than they expect and then decide to claim that they didn't order it to avoid the tax. Then I get the bag back a few weeks later. I've noticed its Europe, Australia, and parts of South America that are blocking out US goods, funny enough I've had no problems with trade in Asia. Its been devastating to small US businesses that operate on Etsy or Ebay, as we've lost most foreign business.

We can't compete with cheap foreign labor regardless of tariffs, and its not really that big of an issue. The amount of value added to a blob of plastic by turning it into a plastic fork is significantly less than the service based industries we've supported. Its cheaper and more efficient to import stuff from China because they have major geographical and workforce advantage. Competing to see who can make the cheaper plastic forks is just going to make plastic forks more expensive.

I worked on graphene capacitors, and one of the biggest problems was supply. China is the only country at the moment with the capability of making graphene wafers in a specific manner, because the facility setup required billions of dollars. Acquiring the capital investment, land, permits, and workforce to operate a facility that needs 55,000 workers per shift just isn't feasible anywhere in the US.

Its not a big deal, we just need to focus on what we do best and sell that to countries that do something else. Be mindful of strategic resources and manufacturing, but we don't need to worry about a shortage of plastic forks if relations sour.

Assuming the OP's point is about IP rights of tech firms and stuff, thats kind of a separate issue than what I've talked about to this point. Each person has their own opinion on that, and I can respect that.

American manufacturing like it was in the 1950s into its decline in the 1970s is something that'll likely never happen again. It was the biggest boom in manufacturing in the history of the world. It could only occur because all other country's manufacturing capabilities were crippled by bombed factories, and the US had a monopoly on the manufacturing industry, it had very little to do with economic policy. If we want to return to that, we'll need WW3 to take out all of Europe and Asia's factories again. We'll also need to triple the population, and population density, as our supply chain isn't nearly as compact as China's.

We had the same slave labor as China not too long ago. Bringing that back would also be a good step towards returning to US manufacturing's golden era.

I agree with you as well OG, however I don't think a bar refusing to serve someone the drink is denying them the right to put something in their body. If someone wants to drink gasoline, I don't especially care, however I'm not going to be the one to put it in a glass and hand it to them. I think the best option would be for everyone to get some sense and stop being so prone to becoming outraged over stupid stuff. If a bar refuses to serve you alcohol because you are pregnant, rather than making a big deal about it, you go to another bar or a liquor store or whatever, you haven't been banned from making what most will agree is a bad choice. You absolutely have the freedom to make whatever choices you want, but you can't compel people to be a part of them.

I wonder how long it'll take before the issue is patched up? I'd imagine a law will be passed to protect bars from cases like this at some point.

For some reason I had never thought about this before. There are an awful lot of conflicting laws going on. The major one that keeps the topic afloat is that businesses cannot deny a person of a protected class service, with both gender and pregnancy status being protected classes. That said, bars traditionally have a lot of control over who they can or cannot serve alcohol to. They can cut people off at their discretion, and giving someone who is very intoxicated a virgin drink when they order alcohol isn't uncommon, to prevent confrontation with someone who could become belligerent. There are a number of states (since the video refers to the US) where women drinking while pregnant is considered child abuse, and obviously that could extend to a bar that is serving a pregnant woman alcohol knowingly. At the most base level, I'd say that it could really hurt a bar's reputation if your other customers watched you give alcohol to a pregnant woman.

As far as my opinion goes, I'd say that a bar shouldn't be forced to give a pregnant woman alcohol. The only argument is that as a protected class you cant be denied service, but broadly speaking, you also can't refuse service to someone based on age by that same logic. I would say that the legal warnings on alcohol bottles not to be consumed by pregnant women should be valid enough to protect a bar in that case.

"Thou shall not steal" dates back a few thousand years before any biblical reference. I'm sure I'm not pointing anything new out to anyone, but nearly all religious laws established were common sense rules for allowing civilizations to occur. You can't live harmoniously in a town if a neighbor is stealing your stuff, trying to kill you, or tool your wife. Kosher eating helped avoid unsanitary food conditions, telling people not to be gay helped to keep the population from declining amidst wars and a 30 year life expectancy etc etc.

I don't think telling people that stealing is a sin was perpetrated by rich or poor people. It just established moral threat of law in a time where there wasn't a whole lot of law enforcement capability.

It doesn't prevent scammers, it prevents spammers. Registering 100 accounts and sneaking 10 past the moderators with low quality posts may be profitable enough for them to continue doing it. If you have to pay some BTC for each attempt, those 90 fails dissuade spammers from even trying. Its not an absolutely effective plan, but it does help.

Keep in mind that real members who are interested in joining have more motivation to see what the units of evil thing is rather than instantly forsaking the community forever because of something they don't understand. They'll probably search what units of evil are and find a handful of threads in meta that'll tell them what they need to do to avoid them.

I know that people can really well explain traditional financial cycles, and while I may be oversimplifying and leaving out information that makes the statement incorrect as a whole, I'd claim that cycles happen because everything is reactionary. As much as we'd love to have financial policy that'll just always work for all times, in reality, you don't find out something is broken until it breaks, and things don't break until they are strained. Of course influence from public authorities can affect whether necessary changes are made in a timely manner if at all, but I'd argue that no matter who is in charge of currency, we will continue to have problems.

I do believe that Bitcoin solves a few problems that fiat systems introduce and brings up some of its own. Whether we use fiat, bitcoin, or shells, I don't believe that healthy currency can exist. Its just a medium of exchange that people agree to recognize as having value. Currency is just like technology, and humans have proven over thousands of years that there will always be someone to ruin a good thing at the expense of others.

TLDR: I don't think the fiat system is evil, just flawed in some places. Some of those flaws are necessary, some not. Bitcoin shares a similar sentiment with me. Its great that its an alternative option, but people should be careful lauding it as a surefire fix.